Many nations like to host international sporting events, but people are against it. Describe both views and give your own opinion.

 Many nations like to host international sporting events, but people are against it. Describe both views and give your own opinion.

Why do nations want to host international sporting carnivals? 

1.  To arouse enthusiasm for sports among the local populace: promoting healthy lifestyles, and also highlighting sports as a huge occupational choice  

2. Create a huge industry with a potential for employment and business

3.  Putting the country on the world map prominently. *

a.  Increase in tourism 

b.  Allowing the world to appreciate  the native point of view 

c.   Attracting foreign companies

4.   Flaunting prosperity and  development. 

What are the failings of this practice, or rather why are many cynical of this?

1.  Colossal investments go into an event that will just last for a few days, and once the fervor has died down, the locals will be left to pay back the  debt. 

2.  Facilities developed do not only lie unused after the events are over, they also waste a lot of invaluable land resources  require a mammoth investment for maintenance

3.  The residents of the host cities must bear the pain for at least a decade preceding the event due to large scale construction and restructuring.  

4.  At the time of events also host city dwellers have a hard time due to restrictions. 

5.  Pollution levels rise tremendously. 

Nowadays, organizing international sports events has become a priority for many nations, but many consider such hosting as unnecessary and a waste of time. I will analyze both the views and share my plausible opinion. 

To begin with, hosting international sports events promise bringing in several social benefits. Preparing for such events often improves not only the relations with other nations but also brings people of the nation together. These events promote cultural exchange, when visitors and participants from other countries visit, they interact with the locals creating friendlier relationships. For instance, in 2000 during the Afro-Asian  games  Nigeria gained global  acclaim for its culture and its beautiful countryside. As a result, tourism increased in its country by manifolds over the next few years. 

Similarly, these events help promote sporting culture in the country. Youth are generally attracted by observing foreign and their local players compete, which encourages them to embrace their favorite sports as a profession, or at least integrate  daily exercise in their daily lifestyle. For instance, in 1982 commonwealth games were held in Asia where many Indians came out to be participants and this has made it widespread all over the country, which has made people follow a healthy lifestyle.

On the other hand, one of the major concerns is the high cost involved in preparing for these several events. Governments spend a lot of money on constructing venues and upgrading facilities, which may impact the budget and cut essential services like healthcare and education. 

In hindsight, while international sports can offer a social awareness but they also carry financial risk.the decision should be made after looking at the both long term and short term basis. 

The astronomical sales being achieved by the consumer companies depicts the power of advertisement, rather than the need of the society where they are sold. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Write at least 250 words

The astronomical sales being achieved by the consumer companies depicts the power of advertisement, rather than the need of the society where they are sold. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Write at least 250 words

Nowadays, many people believe that most of the sales are driven by ads, whereas  some disagree. The following paragraphs shall assess this matter critically, before arriving at a justified conclusion.   

Sales are often assumed to be driven by advertisements since these play a powerful role in shaping consumer behaviour. They are manipulative and influence people by creating a desire by presenting products in an appealing manner. Moreover, advertising is carefully planned according to specific market segments to create a niche for products. For instance, many juveniles get attracted by promotional videos not because of the quality of products, but because of the colour blend,  animations and famous characters, such as Ironman, used for promotion. 

Moreover, celebrity pull cannot be ignored. They use popular faces: stars, players, and actors, to attract their followers with a motive to persuade devoted fans to emulate their idols and make purchases. For instance, famous sports personality Sachin Tendulkar endorsed energy drink brand Boost, which resulted in millions buying this product. 

However, it is completely wrong to mention that total sales are driven by adverts. The  major factor behind the sale is the rapid increment of population which has automatically resulted in high demand for goods and services. In addition, modern society has adopted the use and throw culture: they use something and discard it and go in for the new purchase. For instance, as per a study carried out by the Spiegel, in 2024, clothing and electronic devices are used only for two years and discarded by a majority, and people procure fresh goods. 

In hindsight, disputes aside, I partially concur with the argument that sales depend on the adverts only since there are other factors such as rising population and consumerism in the play, which define consumer attitudes.  

Some argue that patriotism is the primary cause of wars globally. Others feel that it serves to prevent less ethical politicians from running a country and starting wars. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some argue that patriotism is the primary cause of wars globally. Others feel that it serves to prevent less ethical politicians from running a country and starting wars. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some believe that showing love towards a country leads to wars, whereas others strongly feel the act of patriotism shows the ethics and love for a country, and makes its progress possible. I will analyze both the views and share my plausible opinion.  

Many allege that national affiliation is the primary cause of aggressive behaviour, which creates differences between people of different nations, leading to disputes, and eventually, violent altercations. To exemplify, throughout history wars have taken place because of this, especially world war one and world war two which caused loss of millions of human life, simply because people of every nation or kingdom caught that their race or superior to others.  

However, the true concept of patriotism  always benefits the country in several ways. The citizens of the country ensure better working, act ethically, and dedicate their time, energy and other resources for helping develop their society. For instance, countries like Japan,Russia and Germany, were able to develop themselves rapidly even after suffering enormous damage to cities and industries because their populations were highly devoted to the national cause, and today, they are among the richest nations.

Similarly, patriotic citizens always ensure that policy makers provide transparent governance, that is why they always participate in every governmental exercise: elections, policy making and implementation. They always ensure only honest people enter the parliament and render selfless services. For example, people in Denmark forced their regime to include referendums in their constitution and use this privilege to exhibit their acceptance or rejections of policies.

In hindsight, even though they have been worse because of patriotic fervor in the past, the feeling of nationalism has always acted as a medium that brings dedication and love for the country and ensures team governance.  

In many parts of the world, the proportion of older people is increasing. Do the advantages of this trend outweigh the disadvantages for society?Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

In many parts of the world, the proportion of older people is increasing. Do the advantages of this trend outweigh the disadvantages for society?Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Nowadays, elderly people are surviving more because of better healthcare facilities, which has raised their ratio in the population. While some argue that this has certain benefits, others feel that this  poses a challenge. I completely disagree that the advantages of the aging population have outstrap the disadvantages. 

Elderly people are also providing various advantages. One of the most important factors is getting knowledge about the earliest times, knowing about the past experiences of our elders. Observing a familiar touch and understanding the cultural ethics and traditional values from older people. They can take the role of affording mentorship to the future generation. 

However, one of the significant disadvantages of the aging problem is the burden on the government of improving medical and healthcare facilities. As aged people require more medical attention and support service, as their aging factor tends to reflect the requirement of assistance. This mandates an increment in public spendings which directly impacts the government, facing higher expenditure providing healthcare facilities and extra allowance to elderly people which directly impacts the income of common people as it leads to higher taxes. 

Moreover, this composition is impacting economic growth  because the shrinking young population is a major challenge when it comes to availability of able-bodied skilled workers who can contribute to strategic sectors and industries, impacting economic productivity. To exemplify, countries like the UK, Canada and USA are facing scarcity of skilled workers due to the absence of young people.  Consequently they are forced to import skills from other parts of the world through skilled migration programmes.  

In hindsight, aging populations have become a challenge, owing to rising costs of healthcare and support, and absence of necessary skills to contribute to economic progress,and thus the resulting drawbacks clearly exceed benefits.  

Some people believe watching films is a waste of time. Do you agree or disagree?

Some people believe watching films is a waste of time. Do you agree or disagree?

In the contemporary era, people believe that watching films is a waste of time while others disagree with this notion. I will analyze both the views and share my plausible opinion. 

Nowadays, some people believe that investing time on watching movies is useless as it makes people experience addiction, pushing people to binge watching and overlook other essential tasks. Likewise, content made for adults may be accessed by juveniles, making them fall for the wrong habits and adopt unfair practices such as, consuming drugs and alcohol. To exemplify, research was carried out in Norway and observed that people are facing more crimes occurring by juveniles  which is reflecting the ways mostly opt in movies and documentaries. It especially hampers the productivity of the personnel and tends to attract audiences by making them engage in watching movies made for entertainment purposes. 

However, movies are a great medium that brings families together. People are extremely busy with their chaotic schedules as they hardly get time to mundane from their hectic lives for their loved ones. This endeavor acts as a healthy distraction, allowing people to unwind from their hectic schedules: professionals take some time out of their work, while pupils out of their studies to watch films and relax, rejuvenating their minds. Moreover, this also helps bring families together, enhancing the charm of weekends and occasions, especially juveniles get time to spend time with their siblings and families.  Additionally, motion pictures create awareness about the different traditions, culture, diverse music and language exposure. 

In hindsight, disputes aside, accessing movies renders a great experience, makes people explore different aspects of society, besides giving them a chance to relax and also spend some time with their families. 

Some people say industrial growth is necessary to solve poverty, while some believe it should be stopped due to the environmental problem it creates. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some people say industrial growth is necessary to solve poverty, while some believe it should be stopped due to the environmental problem it creates. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

A general perception is emerging among the environmentally conscious that further progress  should be halted, while others believe that advancement is critical to alleviate impoverishment. This essay will discuss both sides and share a plausible opinion. 

An army of people propounds that the planet is facing a serious threat from every industrial activity. This is to say, fumes from every commercial endeavor are polluting the air by releasing a colossal amount of carbon dioxide, precipitating detrimental health concerns: asthma, lung infection, and many more. Additionally, the waste from manufacturing is being dumped into the water bodies, jeopardizing marine life by contaminating the water. For example, in Australia, the Great Barrier Reef and its underwater animals are on the verge of extinction since it has become a dumping ground for industrial waste. 

However, businesses: fishing, mining, transportation and so on, are the largest supporters of employment.  They provide jobs to thousands, especially to the younger generation; consequently, augmenting the employment index and eradicating poverty. Moreover, such growth strengthens economies, enabling regimes to invest in public services: healthcare, and education; consequently, improving the overall standard of living. 

Additionally, the key to resolving ecological imbroglio lies in accelerating development and not impeding it: the furtherance is bolstering research and exploration of the innovative technologies and methods that hold great promises for mitigating environment complications such as greener fuels, eco-friendly agricultural practices like vertical farming, and introduction of vertical city concepts that support rewilding. These will not only protect the planet but also afford economic opportunities.   

To conclude, although the concerns expressed by the environment lobby are valid, it is hard to walk forward looking backward. The panacea for the resolution of menace facing the earth does not lie in curtailing progress but in rendering it impetus. 

Some people prefer to spend their lives doing the same things and avoiding change. Others, however, think that change is always a good thing. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Some people prefer to spend their lives doing the same things and avoiding change. Others, however, think that change is always a good thing. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Many believe in leading a stable life and are reluctant to incorporate any alterations in their routines, whereas an army of people thinks that change is necessary. Both these perspectives need a deeper analysis. 

A school of thought believes that change is extremely essential for continuous progress. It means grasping the right opportunities to upgrade oneself. For instance, In a recent survey conducted by  The ITC Employee Welfare group 85% of the employees believe that it is necessary to upgrade their skills and knowledge in order to lead a better quality of life. In a similar manner,  a majority of businesses keep implementing different strategies and techniques for raising their clientele base and revenues. Therefore,  in order to achieve success and progress, one needs to innovate their way of working. 

However, there is another section that is quite conservative in its approach and is averse to the very hint of modifying their methods and lifestyles: they are comfortable in leading the same routine and are accustomed to it, for they fear that they might have to invest extensive efforts or start afresh, and also become vulnerable to failures. In a recent survey conducted by The Times of India, mainly those nearing retirement  were reluctant to transform their ways of negotiating their work as they felt it might hamper their last years of service record. Similarly, the aged are not open to adapting to the changed paradigm since they are comfortable with their old ways as they find it hard to learn and cope with modern techniques.

 Overall, both sides cite plausible reasons to support their views, but even so I strongly believe that change is inevitable and is necessary. It is the dynamism of change that has made the world a better place to live. 

Some countries have implemented a new work schedule with a four-day work week and three-day weekends. What are the advantages and disadvantages of adopting a shorter work week?

Some countries have implemented a new work schedule with a four-day work week and three-day weekends. What are the advantages and disadvantages of adopting a shorter work week?

A new trend is surfacing: nations have applied an unprecedented working routine, where employees have to work for shorter durations during weekdays and weekends. This essay will discuss the merits and demerits for working for fewer days.

To start with, a lobby propounds that such arrangements make workers feel relaxed as they are not over-burdened with work, hence, making them more productive and efficient. Moreover, less travelling aiding the environment is another benefit of this practice. This is to say, one travelling to work tends to use fossil fuel-driven vehicles, which release colossal amounts of carbon dioxide into the air, and hence, augmenting air pollution. However, with this the impact on the environment will be mitigated when commuting to the workplace for a limited number of days.

Having said that, this phenomenon is also laden with cons too. A shorter working week means limited salaries. In other words, wherever regimes permit hourly wages, personnel get paid by days, and imposing a cap on the working schedules will precipitate a dearth of money. This will incapacitate many to fulfill their basic needs: food, clothing, and shelter. As a result, pushing many to look for a second job to manage their expenses. For example, in Japan, this policy is facing a public backlash since many are forced to find supplementary jobs in order to meet their expenses as the first job has a 3 days a week working routine, reducing their disposable incomes.

Nevertheless, there are many industries that rely on continuous service: healthcare, retail, and customer support, which may find it difficult to operate efficiently with fewer working days. This could lead to staff shortages, delays, reduced customer satisfaction, missed deadlines, and slower responses. To corroborate, a recent survey revealed that hospitals and emergency services must function around the clock, and deploying this arrangement could create serious staff shortages, or force longer shifts, and hence, this schedule might result in chaos for service-based and essential sectors.

In conclusion, the benefits are increased productivity and reducing environmental pollution through less commuting, but this is likely to impact sectors relying heavily on continuous services, where reduced working days could lead to staff shortages and operational inefficiencies.

In many countries today, crime novels and TV crime dramas are becoming more and more popular. Why do you think these books and TV shows are popular? What is your opinion of crime fiction and TV crime dramas?

In many countries today, crime novels and TV crime dramas are becoming more and more popular. Why do you think these books and TV shows are popular? What is your opinion of crime fiction and TV crime dramas?

Fiction and TV dramas of crime genre have witnessed a surge in popularity, largely due to their suspenseful storytelling and insight into human psychology. This yearning stems from numerous causes, but it offers a chance to escape and explore thrilling mysteries, and understanding complex, often flawed characters.

Crime  fiction draws people in with its suspenseful storylines and complex plots. Readers and viewers enjoy piecing together clues alongside the characters, which engages them actively in the narrative. For example, in shows like Sherlock or books by Agatha Christie, the thrill of solving puzzles keeps audiences on the edge, providing a mental challenge that is both engaging and satisfying. Additionally, these stories often delve into the psychology of both criminals and investigators, offering a unique look into human behavior. The fascination with grounds persuading unlawful acts,  and how adventurous unraveling  of mysteries adds intrigue, appealing to those craving for  psychological complexity.

These  often reflect social issues and moral dilemmas, making them relevant and thought-provoking. Umpteen crime series, like Mindhunter, examine real-life issues such as corruption, justice, and ethical decisions, giving audiences insights into societal problems while entertaining them without experiencing these in their real life. Also, this often resonates with audiences because it highlights the darker side of human nature, while also emphasizing justice and moral clarity, disseminating essential lessons about righteous ways, and also gaining mentally engaging with a crime scene without actually partaking in such endeavors, satisfying animal instincts harmlessly.  

To conclude, crime fiction and dramas offer both entertainment and intellectual stimulation, making them a valuable genre. They keep audiences engaged with complex storylines and appeal to the  curiosity about human behavior, offering a chance to engage as a victim, a lawbreaker and a detective without being one, and absorbing essential learning. 

Many people think that every individual is responsible for their own healthy lifestyle, others believe that governments should take care of it. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

 Many people think that every individual is responsible for their own healthy lifestyle, others believe that governments should take care of it. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Why individuals. Justify the stand  

• It is individuals who are following unhealthy ways of life by embracing faulty food habits, sedentary lifestyles

• Even if the state tries to help, people may not follow unless they are convinced. One can take  a horse to the pond, but not force it to drink water

• They are the ones who are controlling their own life: some may even consider it as an encroachment of their rights. 

Government 

• Health is a state subject, if these people fall sick, the state will have to divert invaluable financial resources to rendering expensive health support. This will also exacerbate the situation, on one hand the sick will drain public money, on the other, they will remain away from work, affecting economic productivity. 

• People are parting with money while paying taxes, so they expect something in return. 

• In times when people are leading a stressful life and spending most of their time tied to their professional obligations, they have little time to focus on healthy practices and nutrition, a void which the government can easily fill.  

While a school of thought firmly believes that sustaining wellness should be an individual prerogative as it directly impacts them, whereas others profess that policymakers should take ownership in this case. I will delve into this matter profoundly even though I feel this should be a joint responsibility. 

An army of people proposes that traditionally, people have been accountable for their own well being as it has an instantaneous implication on their autonomous lifestyle since ailments and illnesses can hinder their activities such as walking, working, or engaging with the work actively; and also rob them of deserving moments of relaxation, even sleeping. Nearly sixty percent of Australians realize this fact and ensure maintaining a robust health at their own devices. Consequently, the health index of Australia ranks fairly high in comparison to several nations in the western hemisphere.

Additionally,  there is a general belief that it is possible to take a horse to the pond but one cannot force it to drink water. On a similar note, unless inhabitants are convinced about the necessity of staying healthy, no governmental interventions will be of any avail. Thus, one should be accountable for their well being. 

However, despite the former opinion holding substance, the role of regimes in this endeavor can hardly be overlooked. Concurrent times have seen health becoming a state subject by virtue of the wellness of citizens being connected with empowerment and productivity of the nation. A sick society will consume invaluable public resources instead of bolstering economic development; the money will have to be shifted to affording prohibitively expensive health infrastructure.    

Therefore, where private citizens can endeavor to embrace/follow healthy ways of life because of the personal benefits they derive, politicians can also contribute by sharing this onus to ensure collective progress.

Intro-1 

There is a fierce argument over the issue as to who should take the ownership of sustaining wellness. While some think that it should be an individual prerogative, others profess that policymakers should play a substantial role. I opine that this should be a joint responsibility.

Intro-2 

When it comes to sustaining wellness, a debate ensues since some profess that it should be an individual prerogative, while others profess that policy makers should take ownership in this endeavor. This essay shall analyze this matter profoundly and emanate its opinion in favor of both the parties taking joint responsibility.

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.