Some say that if anyone would be given a choice between ‘not working’ and ‘working most of the time’, they would choose not to work. Do you agree or disagree?

 Some say that if anyone would be given a choice between ‘not working’ and ‘working most of the time’, they would choose not to work. Do you agree or disagree?

Some sections are of the view that young individuals must work towards their goals and also step out of their comfort zone to achieve them, while others are averse to this as this entails enduring hardships, and thus dissent with this notion. This matter needs to be critically analyzed.

To begin with, a lobby propounds that having inclination towards some ambition can help create awareness about the new developments in the surroundings as well as one can gain knowledge about their domain. To exemplify this, many topnotch scientists agree that while working hard in their field, they encompassed new technologies which helped them to incorporate them to make several novel inventions, especially artificial intelligence, and fetch them popularity.

Moreover, to realize aims, one is persuaded to think out of the box and involve themselves to be more creative,  setting them apart from others, and hence, making them experience the exploits of their hard work not only in financial but also in professional terms. For instance, M.S Hussain, a renowned artist, admits that those like him who have experimented with their own work, with a desire to usher radical changes, bring updated versions of their masterpiece, making them more  innovative, and churn out exquisite artwork.

However, some fear that following this strategy, and dread defining aims; this would afford depression and demotivation, and thus, expose  them to physical and mental afflictions. Furthermore, by virtue of not being triumphant, they will have to detach themselves from their social circles and resign into oblivion, condemning themselves to isolated dungeons of misery.

In hindsight, disputes aside, I vehemently opine that one has to seriously get familiar with the practice of settling for certain ambitions to help them realize their true potential and learn to surmount challenges.  

Nowadays, international tourism is the biggest industry in the world. Unfortunately, international tourism creates tension rather than understanding between people from different cultures. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 Nowadays, international tourism is the biggest industry in the world. Unfortunately, international tourism creates tension rather than understanding between people from different cultures. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

DISAGREE 

• Rendering a window to the people - both hosts and guests - to appreciate diversity and interact with each other in a cordial and conducive environment: helps remove misplaced notions about disparate ethnicities by providing an opportunity for an open interaction. This is a two way communication, both appreciate the differences, building bridges and fuelling a feeling of brotherhood.  

• A strange but pleasant  bonhomie develops between both the sides, the visitors and the visited, when former come and appreciate and shower praises for the hospitality. 

• Advent of alien travellers opens up venues of employment and business for the locals, both directly and indirectly. This makes  the natives proud of their society and persuades them to adopt a friendly attitude towards the aliens, which is reciprocated in similar manner   

AGREE 

Tourism is hampering relations rather than building bonds 

1. Contra view is held by conservatives and purists: it is their fear that aliens bring along their mannerisms - which may be incompatible with the local aspirations and customs -  and influence locals, especially youngsters, in undesirable ways. This can cause distortions in local ways of life. 

2. Some tourists, although rarely,behave erratic and which can offend locals

3. The litter and pollution that results due to foreign tourists, is cleaned by levying taxes on the local inhabitants. 

Although tourism has become a prolific sector that is generating humongous economic opportunities, it is often criticized for engendering discord among people hailing from disparate cultural backgrounds. However, this perception is misplaced and can be challenged on several grounds.

The  resurgence nomadic culture of bagpackers has led to opening doors for a conducive dialogue between peoples belonging to diverse region of the globe; those travelling to experience the diversity of traditions and ways of life, tend to interact with hosts with liberal and empathetic mindset, and are reciprocated with warm and friendly  treatment, helping generate harmony among both the parties. To corroborate, a long term study by the World Travel and  Tour Organization, spanning over 20 years, has found that an overwhelming number of tourists admitted returning home with enriching experiences about different ways of life. Similarly, the destination societies also expressed satisfaction about receiving visitors from other parts of the world, serving them, and getting to know about the customs and beliefs of the guests. 

Nonetheless, those critical of this activity  quote quite infrequent incidents to  malign the image of this industry. They say that alien visitors bring along their mannerism, disregard local aspirations, expectations and ways of life making hosts feel (very cautious) wary of foreigners entering into their country. Nevertheless, these allegations have little substance, especially in the modern times that are dominated by information revolution, and those travelling for leisure and enjoyment have developed the propensity to not only inform/ enlighten themselves about the food, language, and clothing, but also about the native etiquettes overruling any chance of conflicts. 

In hindsight, disputes aside, this notion cannot be deemed acceptable at all, for this sector is bridging gaps between heterogeneous societies, and helping forge a congenial global environment that sans bitterness. 

Long distance flight consumes the amount of fuel that a car uses for many years and pollutes the air. Some people think that we should discourage non-essential flights, such as tourists travel, rather than limit the use of cars. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 Long distance flight consumes the amount of fuel that a car uses for many years and pollutes the air. Some people think that we should discourage non-essential flights, such as tourists travel, rather than limit the use of cars. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The ubiquity of air travel, especially one covering vast distances, has found itself in the eye of storm, and allegedly cog in the wheel of the environment imbroglio, besides causing wastage of fuel, thereby persuading  environmentalists to curb unnecessary use of this facility, instead of proscribing cars. However, this suggestion lacks foresight, and cannot be considered plausible. 

Advocates of such policy assume that an airborne aircraft tends to burn surfeit propellant, and releases emissions profusely, causing deterioration in the quality of air, so curtailing use of this medium of travelling to distance locales would mitigate pollution by alleviating discharge of effluents and greenhouse gases,  easing the situation greatly. 

Nevertheless, this postulation sounds preposterous; it  lacks  any concrete evidence to substantiate the fears about aircraft operating between distant locations being the primary culprit for the deterioration in the quality of air squandering of invaluable non-renewable resource since most of these jets fly at extremely high altitudes, between 28,000 and 40,000 feet, where they use the propellent frugally, something comparable to a personal four wheeler, so the tall claims and accusations about environmental decay being caused by these  flying machines fall flat. 

Similarly, when it comes to comparing the capacity used by both, while cars can only carry about eight people per trip, modern airliners, like Boeing 777, carry over three hundred passengers, and  that over extremely vast distances, a feat beyond the former. Additionally, none travels unnecessarily, and  tourist activity is a critical economic activity: a behemoth industry generating employment for millions and business  worth billions.       

Therefore, any suggestions made about halting dispensable flying for the good of the planet  should be completely overlooked, and long flight  should continue. The  panacea lies in discovering better and  greener technologies and  not impeding economic activities.    

Many parents (mostly women) decide to stay home and take care of the family members instead of going out for work. Some people suggest that they should be paid by the government for doing that. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include examples from your own experience.

Many parents (mostly women) decide to stay home and take care of the family members instead of going out for work. Some people suggest that they should be paid by the government for doing that. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include examples from your own experience.

Yes? Why not what 

• By one of the members leaving their jobs families become vulnerable to financial crisis - by virtue of nuclear families today, there are only two earning hands. Adopting this policy will help families make their ends meet 

• Individuals abandoning their professional dreams for the family should be acknowledged for their sacrifice 

• In a way, they are doing service to society by affording quality upbringing to their wards and taking care of the elderly 

NO? Why not  

• This would turn family relations sour and make them commercial 

• This might provoke those volunteering to ask for similar benefits 

• This is personal prerogative and why should the state be punished for this. 

• This kind of arrangement is likely to send an unwarranted signal to others who might emulate these steps and leave their jobs, posing a burden on the public exchequer 

Extending state grants to those relinquishing their professional ambitions for the sake of affording care to their families, is a suggestion evokes mixed responses, making it imperative to assess both the sides of the coin before delivering a plausible verdict.

The support for this proposal stems from the belief that forgoing the dreams of gaining prominence in occupational domain, and dedicating oneself to serving the family is worthy of being acknowledged; there is hardly anyone prepared to put their desire on the backseat just to rear their children, tend to the elderly, and surrender their financial freedom. Therefore, providing them some financial support would not only act as a consolation but also sustain their expenses.

Having said that, despite this idea looking fascinating to some, implementing it is bound to have severe/extreme ramifications for families, as well as society. Where on one hand, this could undermine the emotional bonding between the family members, which is more influenced by love, and affection, rather than being driven by monetary considerations. One chooses to renounce their progressive careers, for they are deeply concerned about the wellbeing of their little ones, and elderly family members, and adding this materialistic dimension would be an insult to devotion toward the family.

On the other hand, this policy is likely to set wrong precedents for others as they will also become inclined to emulate, and leave their jobs, reducing the numbers contributing to economic productivity, incrementing the burden on tax-payers by virtue of consuming public resources, hampering the prospect for the future development of society.

In hindsight, disputes aside, this kind of a scheme cannot be deemed acceptable owing to the challenges it is likely to pose for the community, and the individuals concerned. Therefore, I fail to concur  with this.

Introduction 1

In times when everyone is engrossed in chasing their career goals, some going against this trend, and relinquishing their professional ambitions for the sake of affording care to their families, but should they be extended state grants, is a million dollar question.

Introduction 2

As per a school of thought those relinquishing their professional ambitions for the sake of affording care to their families, should be extended state grants. Even though this suggestion seems plausible to some, it is bound to create more complications than rendering solutions.

Introduction 3

Some people believe that it is better for company decisions to be made only by managers, while others think that it is beneficial to involve employees in the decision-making process. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

 Some people believe that it is better for company decisions to be made only by managers, while others think that it is beneficial to involve employees in the decision-making process. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Only Managers should take decisions 

• They will make decisions from a broader perspective: departmental or even at an organizational level 

• Those at management levels carry rich exposure  and also the qualifications that afford them the ability to gain a deeper insight into various aspects of a matter 

Employees should be engaged also 

• They are better apprised about the ground reality of the working conditions and also impediments facing them in smooth operations 

• This will make workers feel acknowledged and more attached to the organization, inspiring them to devote themselves more profoundly 

As per a common perception, the task of devising plans, and future course of actions should be confined to those working on managerial positions, whereas some commentators suggest that personnel should also be a part of this exercise.

Undeniably,  those responsible for managing sections, departments, or even the whole establishments, should be vested with this task, the policies defined by them are based (founded) on a much broader perspective than ones employed at the middle, or lower rung(level), of the organizational hierarchy; they have access to information on requirements of disparate factors: human resources; financial and operational constraints, and strengths; and timelines, to name a few, making them more capable of resolving the issues, or embracing adequate strategies for seamless operations. This also helps circumvent confusion, and chaos, resulting from involving multiple layers of an entity. To corroborate, most of the large organizations such as, Delta Airlines, and so forth, with branches spread world over deploy this method  to allow faster planning, and implementation, thereby deriving efficient operational outcomes.

Nevertheless, using the intellect, opinions, and suggestions of workers engaged at operational levels, or in blue collar occupations, can help surmount challenges posed by the real issues facing them, and inform decision-makers about the ground realities of the actual functional aspects. This can facilitate a detailed insight of how resources are used in each department, inefficiencies, and hurdles impeding smooth work. Companies like Google, and various renowned hotel chains, encourage interaction with all the staff, aiding them in discovering comprehensive remedies, and defining goal-specific plans. 

In hindsight, both the arrangements have distinct rewards to offers, where the former can ensure a flawless overall functioning of the business, the latter can assist in removing bottle-necks, and finding quick solutions targeting specific operations.

Introduction 1 

Organizations run efficiently on effective decision-making, but should this process be the domain of higher management only,or should personnel be also made a part of this, is a matter that evokes mixed responses.

Introduction 2

Individual greed and selfishness have been the basis of modern society. Some people think that we must return to older, more traditional values such as respect for the elders and the local community in order to create a better world to live in. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

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

Professional or personal and  public conduct of outstanding players should be ignored 

Agree? Why do we agree with this  Why should their attitude should not be monitored 

1. They are also humans, and when they face so much stress to sustain their form , they are expected to lose their cool 

2. **They, with their sterling performances, bring name and fame for the country, and also present the society as being youthful and caring for its people. 

3. They encourage and inspire others, especially the youth to take up sports as a career or a way to stay healthy 

4. They are a pivotal factor of a  burgeoning industry that is generating direct and indirect employment and business for millions, besides the revenue for governments 

Disagree? Why do we disagree? 

1. These people, by virtue of being public idols have a profound influence on the attitudes of their fan following which can have a negative impact on those who follow the precedents of such celebrated people

2. Their behavior can affect the overall discipline of team which can hamper performance of others, as well as of team

3. **National image is affected adversely

Playing sports is a daunting endeavor that demands physical and mental workout that sometimes brings out extreme behaviour in the professional, social  and personal realms, and some believe that it should be overlooked if players concerned are excelling.I fail to accede to this suggestion completely, and will share plausible views in the further paragraph.

At the outset, those advocating such liberal approach propose that sports practitioners are also humans with feelings, and sometimes during the game, emotions overwhelm them due to immense pressure to perform and sustain their rhythm despite facing obstacles, which can lead to losing cool. Moreover, they encourage and inspire the youth to take sports as a career, or way to stay healthy, thereby promoting sporting culture in the nation.For example, Brazil owes its popularity of football culture to its star players, and thus affords them umpteen privleges.

  
Having said that, the view of apologists cannot be upheld since these people are public idol, and represent millions of faces in the game, and also influence the aspirations of their countrymen, and thus, unacceptable attitude - whether  practiced while playing, or in social or personal domains - would  create an unprecedented environment, and deliver a negative impact on their followers, especially youngsters, persuading them to emulate unrestricted and unwarranted conduct. Moreover, such behavior could impact the team discipline by bringing negativity that could cost them the whole game: other players would not be able to focus on the winning, bringing bad name to the sports itself. 

To conclude, even if one is excelling in their sporting discipline, their erratic behaviour should not be condoned, by virtue of them being a prominent face in sports that stimulates others to, therefore their inappropriate way of behaving cannot be tolerated.   

It is often said that people's lives are defined by the place where they grew up. Choose a successful person and discuss how that person's accomplishments were or were not influenced by the place where they lived when they were young.

 It is often said that people's lives are defined by the place where they grew up. Choose a successful person and discuss how that person's accomplishments were or were not influenced by the place where they lived when they were young.

It is commonly believed that the lifestyles and conduct are primarily dependent on the surroundings in which one is reared. Even though this perception holds some substance, it is not completely relevant, especially in the concurrent highly globalized world.

Undeniably, the  fundamental traits such as personal and attiring habits; social, familial interaction and beliefs, among others are underpinned by the upbringing one receives while growing up. For  instance, ones  born in Asia, are likely to continue conducting themselves, and closely follow stereotypes they have grown up with, in terms of handling personal, familial and social issues based on their native beliefs and sustain social cohesiveness, wherever they go.  

Moreover, their professional acumen also greatly hinges on the education they receive in their home country. For instance, availability of educational resources and expertise helps carve out their occupational dexterity, and  inclines them to specific occupations. For instance, some ethnicities are artistic, while some are more business-oriented, and still some are scientific   

However, some are vested with exceptional qualities,and demonstrate adaptiveness, and tend to integrate new learning into their persona, regardless of their socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds, especially when it comes to engaging in professional and sometimes social realms, while maintaining their distinct identity. Mr. Amritpal Singh, owner of a burgeoning hotel chain in the USA, was an aeronautics engineer in India, but after migrating to the USA, he successfully comprehended the new surroundings, and ways of life, and established his venture that served American natives in the way endemic to that region, helping him fetch rich yields, but he still follows his his Indian  ways of life at personal level.  

In hindsight, success majorly hinges on internal and external experiences and seasoning, and those who can adapt to the prevalent circumstances can triumph, regardless of their upbringing and reach the pinnacle. 

News editors decide what to broadcast on television and what to print in newspapers. What factors do you think influence these decisions? Do we become used to bad news? Would it be better if more good news was reported? Discuss.

News editors decide what to broadcast on television and what to print in newspapers. What factors do you think influence these decisions? Do we become used to bad news? Would it be better if more good news was reported? Discuss.  

The eminence of news editors has risen dramatically, so much so that the inclusion and exclusion of news from the various mediums of reporting depends on their discretion. This propensity is impacting the audience in multiple ways, mostly in undesirable ways. Nevertheless, reporting more good news is unlikely to help turn the situation around. 

Rising commercial pressures has deviated media houses from their true objective of bringing honest reports to the masses, and are competing to expand their clout among masses. Thus, they have resorted to presenting sensationalised news to raise viewership and readership, so that they get more and more followers. This kind of reporting has gradually helped develop an appetite among people for fateful news: they open the newspapers and switch on the television sets to know about only unpleasant happenings. 

This has prompted many to propose incorporating more reports that represent pleasant happenings and events. It will go a long way, as per them, to lift the dipping public moods and their spirits. Most have become hopeless about the conditions prevalent in the society, and this is all due to irresponsible conduct of those heading newspapers and television channels, but positive reporting will gradually change the things. 

Nonetheless, many are skeptical about the former suggestion, and they feel such moves may prove to be futile and instead predispose people to hazards and unwarranted situations. Prioritizing printing and  telecasting cheerful events or occurrences may make many oblivious to the lurking dangers around them, making them vulnerable to perils which could also prove to be life threatening. 

Overall, the founding principle of any news reporting agency is to act honestly and impartially, and not surrender to any temptation or coercion. They must bring news as it is and let the audience judge its nature. 

Work-life balance is more important than career advancement. Do you agree or disagree?

 Work-life balance is more important than career advancement. Do you agree or disagree? 

There is a general perception that striking a harmony  between professional and personal life should enjoy higher precedence than registering an ascent at work, and I concur with this notion, and shall bolster my views in the following paragraphs. 

It is imperative to sustain an  equilibrium between jobs and personal realms; one slogs hard professionally to earn first the necessities  and then  comforts, and if after investing all the efforts, they fail enjoy the exploits of incessant efforts, and remain tied to the work cubicle in the name of receiving bigger pay-checks and promotions, everything will be in vain, turning their life mundane and  impacting their physical and mental well being besides productivity. This aspect has been duly acknowledged by several nations in the western hemisphere, and  have resorted to shorter working weeks, with office hours cumulatively being limited to forty hours, allowing citizens  to use their spare time to engage with their favorite leisure endeavors: sports, outings, art, and so on, inspiring them to stay healthy, and also work with greater  focus.   

At the same time, this priority can help prevent marital discord, a common feature in families, wherein exhausted employed spouses are rarely able to devote time to their loved ones, precipitating alienation, and eventually, divorce. However, ever since individuals started  realizing this, and have started drawing a line between their professional, and personal and familial domains, the number of cohabiting couples in countries like the UK, the USA, and France, among others, has surged, raising the happiness index in these societies. 

In hindsight, laying emphasis on sustaining parity between jobs and personal life is crucial, for it can make a difference between a satisfying and chaotic life, allowing one to enjoy the best of both worlds: work and family. 

Successful sports professionals can earn a great deal more money than people in other important professions. Some people think this is fully justified while others think it is unfair. Discuss both these views and give your opinion.

 Successful sports professionals can earn a great deal more money than people in other important professions. Some people think this is fully justified while others think it is unfair. Discuss both these views and give your opinion.

Discuss both these views and give your opinion.

Some people think this is fully justified while others think it is unfair.

Are outstanding players justified in their multitude of earnings? 

Yes? Why 

• They forgo their comfort and make sacrifices for sustaining their forms 

• They are a part of the volatile profession: going out of form and an injury can end their careers abruptly 

• Their careers span over a decade and a half - after which they must switch their professions 

• They raise the stakes of the nation on the global level with their sterling performances, and improve opinion about society, it being caring for its people.   

• They motivate millions to take up healthy regimes and some to take up sports as careers

• They are a critical component of an industry that is generating employment for millions and business worth billions; and governments also gross revenues through taxes imposed on resulting activities.  

• Consumer companies gross huge revenues: in tune of billions  by using their popularity, what is wrong in the earnings of these people  

No? Why

• Other occupations are more important and pivotal to society: teachers, researchers, soldiers, doctors-they also devote their dreams and life to the good of society, then why they should not be paid. 

 

The astronomical compensation of accomplished sports practitioners has been under critical scanner by virtue of many terming it as warranted, and others considering it as an injustice meted out to those in other occupations. 

There is strong support for the sky-high earnings of outstanding players; they are working in a volatile occupation where their place and performance depends on their form and fitness. To sustain this, they must relentlessly  subject themselves to physical and mental hardships, and during the course, they must also make sacrifices, in terms of their personal and social life and comforts. Similarly, they are also exposed to the risk of going out of form, or injuries, which can bring their careers to an abrupt halt, leaving them with little resources to earn their livelihood. Additionally, one can hardly ignore the fact that their shelf life spans over a decade and half, after which, they must switch professions, where a similar success is not guaranteed. Therefore, the notion behind their astronomical compensations being justified seems quite viable. 

Nonetheless, the other lobby is quite critical of such a gap: they feel that those employed in other occupations work equally hard and sometimes, even devote their life to the  cause of society; however, they never get their dues and some are found struggling to make their ends meet. For instance, doctors first commit umpteen years to gain qualification, and thereafter they use all their talent to save the lives of the ailing. Similarly, soldiers and law enforcement officers risk their lives for the sake of society, but rarely are acknowledged for their contribution. As per this lobby, this difference should be blurred.  

Overall, even though it is true that other people engaged in occupations other than sports should also get their due, the salaries of established sports professionals are quite appropriate, for they make an unprecedented contribution to society. 

Some believe that younger family members should be legally responsible for supporting older family members when they become physically, mentally and financially unable to look after themselves.

 Some believe that younger family members should be legally responsible for supporting older family members when they become physically, mentally and financially unable to look after themselves.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Yes

• Parents sacrificed most of their youth for the upbringing of their offspring and showered all their affection on their young ones, but some tend to ignore this fact and abandon their mothers and fathers in their twilight years, when they need it the most 

• The old people invested humongous amounts of savings on fulfilling the needs of their children and even used the money they could have saved for their autumn years; thus, to ensure that  youngsters do not leave them in misery and poverty, they making it a statutory requirement to look after the aging family members, so that sons and daughters do not leave their older 

• family members to fend for themselves ( to live on their own). 

No 

• Family relations are not dependent on legal norms, and installing such a provision will affect the relations - turning them into legal obligation rather than something that is forged with loved - and are bound to be misused

• Many families are not in a state to look after themselves due to their poor economic health: this could impose additional burden on them. 

• These old people paid taxes when they were young, so now when they are old government should be legally responsible for them and not family 

Of late, many have been proposing that those in their twilight years must be looked after by their wards, and this should be enforced as a statute. However, it is necessary to assess the relevance of this proposed arrangement. 

This recommendation finds its grounding in the fast transforming familial, social, and  personal aspirations, brought about by alterations in these structures, owing to which young individuals often walk away from their families, relinquishing their ethical and moral duties, and abandoning their helpless ,and hapless mothers, and fathers, to languish in misery, and poverty, when they are emotionally, physically, and mentally vulnerable. Such a move will force the self-centered young generation to fulfill their responsibility without questions. 

Similarly, when one sacrifices their prime youth, and desires to afford a quality upbringing to their progeny by going out of the way many times, it becomes a virtuous task for the latter to reciprocate for the love, and affection showered upon them, but a growing number are becoming apathetic towards this commitment, making it imperative to enlighten, and persuade them to answer their calls. To corroborate, several countries like India, China, New Zealand, and so forth have started installing such a framework to remind their young generation of the critical task they are neglecting

Nevertheless, there is some skepticism about this planned scheme: this might expose those hailing from poor financial backgrounds to further complications even though this view lacks substance when compared to self-restraint exercised by their elders.  Had the current generation remained attentive towards their obligations, such a law would not have been proposed 

Hence, disputes aside, any criticism leveled against this recommendation should be overlooked in the larger public interest, and to ensure that the aging population is not left to fend for themselves.