In some countries, people prefer to own a house for accommodation, while in other countries people prefer to rent it. Does owning a house have more advantages or disadvantages than renting a house?

In some countries, people prefer to own a house for accommodation, while in other countries people prefer to rent it. Does owning a house have more advantages or disadvantages than renting a house?

When it comes to discussing a dwelling unit there are diverse opinions as many prefer having their own instead of renting one. While this propensity affords numerous benefits, it also exposes one to a plethora of pitfalls.

One of the primary upsides of being a homeowner is the sense of stability and security this status provides; it offers a long-term investment opportunity, allowing individuals to build equity and accumulate wealth over time. Additionally, one can experience permanence and control over their living space, enabling them to customize and modify their property to suit their preferences. Furthermore, this often comes with potential financial benefits, such as tax deductions on mortgage interest payments and the possibility of appreciation in property value. For many, owning a house also symbolizes achievement and a sense of pride in possessing a dwelling unit. Moreover, this setup brings freedom of movement 

However, this arrangement and propensity also entails certain disadvantages: the upfront costs of purchasing a home, including down payments, closing costs, and ongoing maintenance expenses, can be substantial, and may cause financial crisis even if it is temporary in nature. Moreover, it bears the responsibility of property maintenance and repairs, which can implicate additional time, effort, and expenses.   

In conclusion, the decision to own or rent a house depends on various factors, including financial resources, lifestyle preferences, and long-term goals. While homeownership offers stability and financial benefits, renting provides flexibility and freedom from maintenance responsibilities. Ultimately, individuals must weigh the pros and cons of each option to determine which best aligns with their needs and circumstances.

“Prevention is better than cure”. Out of a country’s health budget, a large proportion should be diverted from treatment to spending on health education and preventative measures. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

 “Prevention is better than cure”. Out of a country’s health budget, a large proportion should be diverted from treatment to spending on health education and preventative measures. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Main question

•  To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

• Agree or disagree with what 

• Out of a country’s health budget, a large proportion should be diverted from treatment to spending on health education and preventative measures. 

• “Prevention - helping evade is better than cure - combative”.

Should governments spend a major part of the budget on measures that prevent disease or not is a debatable matter. While many vouch for this, others detest it.   

• Yes a major part should be spent on preventing disease, why ? Justify with reason explain why you agree with this 

• If  people were able to evade falling sick, this would save governments a lot of money otherwise spent on account of creating a huge health care infrastructure. 

• A good health index will also mean that citizens  will be able to contribute to the productivity of  the economy: a sick person does not only drain   public money but also remains away from work, and takes time recuperating

• No a major part should not be spent on preventing disease, why ? Justify with reason explain why you agree with this 

• In contemporary times, people are exposed to stressful life where they do not have time to take care of their health, it is causing a spike in lifestyle related disease. 

• Age related ailments cannot be avoided, they are going to catch up with the age. 

• Hereditary disease cannot bee avoided  

• Unannounced epidemics cannot be circumvented at any cost

Conventionally, it is said that preventing any health ailments is better than curing, making many believe that the policy makers must invest in educating the populace about ways to circumvent falling sick, whereas a school of thought dissents with this proposal.

Those  supporting this initiative think, if people were able to evade diseases it would save the government humongous monetary resources, otherwise spent on account of creating a huge health care infrastructure such as the state-of-the-art diagnostic systems, healthcare environment like hospitals, interventions like surgeries, and other treatments, and hiring and paying doctors and nurses. For example, investments in the combative framework take away the lion's share of the health budget of every country. 

Moreover,  citizens will be able to contribute to the productivity of the economy with a good health index; a sick person does not only drain the public budget, by subscribing to the state supported treatment and other facilities,  but also remains away from work and takes time recuperating, and not generating any economic activity.  

However,  those rebelling against this suggestion, fear that this might cause chaos as hereditary ailments cannot be avoided; many inherited illnesses: diabetes, thyroid and certain heart-diseases, can be delayed but not altogether avoided. Additionally, the contemporary generation is exposed to stressful lifestyles where they do not have time to take care of their health, precipitating a spike in lifestyle-related ailments like anxiety, depression and obesity, to name a few. These cannot be avoided despite embracing deterrents; thus,  mandating creation of a mechanism that can offer an effective cure.  

In hindsight, I feel it is better to allocate equal weightage to both the mechanisms: one that inhibits illnesses, and the other that provides remedies, ensuring that the health support system functions effectively.

Some think schools should reward students who have the best academic results, while others think it’s more important to reward students who achieve other types of success (such as sports, music, and good behaviour). Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

 Some think schools should reward students who have the best academic results, while others think it’s more important to reward students who achieve other types of success (such as sports, music, and good behaviour).
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Why academic 

• Acknowledging academic excellence is extrinsic(external)  driving force that stimulates learners to invest themselves profoundly into studies 

• Competitive environment is fostered among classmates, who abandon procrastination. 

• This will help learners harness and polish their scholastic abilities and become better prepared for higher courses in premium institutions  

Why other areas 

• Rewarding pupils for other areas creates chances for holistic development that guarantees fostering well-polished persona: civil behaviour, artistic and creative talent, athletic prowess, social behavior, etc.   

• This will help create parity among those excelling academically and those performing well in other areas, helping mitigate chances of creating wedges among school goers. 

• This could also help some discover their latent talent and  work on it to turn it into a profession    

Conventionally, academic excellence has been acknowledged with prizes by the formal tuition, but the modern school of thought proposes recognizing attainments in extracurricular activities. This essay intends to profoundly analyze this matter before sharing/ deriving a plausible conclusion. 

To embark upon the discussion, a plethora of individuals believe students with good grades must be appreciated; this can prove to be an extrinsic driving force, stimulating learners to invest themselves profoundly into studies. On top of that, a competitive environment is fostered among classmates, who abandon procrastination, stay  extremely motivated, and enjoy healthy competition. Moreover, this helps them harness and polish their scholastic abilities, and become better prepared for higher courses in premium institutions; such students tend to start preparing to enroll in institutions such as MIT, Harvard, and Oxford, to name a few. 

Nevertheless, the other school of thought feels it is equally, if not more crucial, to give prizes to those excelling in other areas. Rewarding pupils for extracurricular  endeavors creates chances for holistic development that guarantees cultivating well-polished persona: civil behaviour, artistic and creative talent, athletic prowess, social behaviour, and so on. Such individuals turn out to be highly confident, extroverts and out-going in nature when they grow up. Additionally, this aids in creating parity among those churning out brilliant academic outcomes,  and those exhibit distinctions in other realms, helping mitigate chances of creating wedges among school goers. Plus, this could also help some discover their latent talent and work on it to turn it into a profession later. 

To conclude, in my opinion, all the students, be it the ones performing well in studies, or in other domains like sports, music and behaviour, must be given a prize because this will help in creating an optimistic, composed and self- assertive generation.