Some people think it is better for children to grow up in the city, while others think that life in the countryside is more suitable. Discuss.
There is a prevalent belief that the ideal environment for rearing children is the urban surroundings, while several others have the perception that villages may prove to be beneficial. This notion evokes mixed responses and needs to be critically analyzed before arriving at a plausible conclusion.
A significant faction believes that urban locales help broaden the horizons of young individuals while they are growing up as they afford access to quality education: good schools, libraries, universities and other resources. Furthermore, as they grow up, they receive surfeit opportunities for employment - these locations are abounding with myriads of industries and happen to be the economic powerhouse - fetching enhanced quality of life. Moreover, urban areas have people from diverse cultural backgrounds that aids in fostering experiences of several individuals leading to broader perspectives and a better worldview. Also, young urbanites enjoy the advantage of exploring a wide array of leisure activities such as sports complexes, music academies and so on, assisting them in cultivating hobbies and discovering their creative persona.
However, as per the other school of thought when youngsters spend their childhood in a rural environment, they learn to embrace nature and its bounties. This can prove to render health benefits and instill a sense of tranquility in them. Besides this, young ruralites residing have a strong sense of community hardwired into them owing to lack of population and a close and regular contact between the neighbours and other inhabitants, teaching them about helping each other and cohabiting harmoniously.
Therefore, both the opinions hinge on plausible justifications, and I believe that both the environments have distinct pros to offer. Thus, it is the individual prerogative where one wants to bring their progeny up.
