Some people say that no one should work after the age of 65, others say that anyone should be able to continue working as long as they wish. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some people say that no one should work after the age of 65, others say that anyone should be able to continue working as long as they wish. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Undeniably, there is a fierce debate among varied sections that one should not be allowed after attaining the age of 65, while others dissent with the notion and support the freedom of work in any age. I shall critically analyze this matter, and elucidate my views in the following paragraphs.

To begin with, a school of thought professes that engaging professionally beyond 65 should not be allowed. After working for almost 30 years people need rest, for they have compromised their invaluable moments for their children, earning bread and butter, and have been busy in establishing the future of their wards and their careers. Therefore, there must be some law, allowing them to take rest from their duties. After all, they need to spend some quality time with their family and friends, and also focus on their own hobbies, which they never got a chance to engage with.

Nevertheless, the other lobby disregards the former views and asserts that there must be a freedom to work, irrespective of any age. In the globalization era, everyone should be free to make their own decisions to attain their wishes. Similarly,  maintaining the standard of living makes it  mandatory to work to sustain their families. Moreover, businesses and industries need experienced individuals  to guide their organizations to prosperity. Thus, if seasoned employees excel in a particular domain, they can prove to be big assets as they can share their learnings with the team. 

To recapitulate, I vehemently agree with the latter view that the government should not restrict the age limit to work, it must be the individual prerogative instead: if someone is capable of weathering stress, they should be allowed to continue with employment. 

 

Today, TV channels broadcast more men's sports shows than women’s sport shows. Why is this the case? Should TV channels give equal showtime for each?

Today, TV channels broadcast more men's sports shows than women’s sport shows. Why is this the case? Should TV channels give equal showtime for each?

Undeniably, there has always been a fierce debate that sports shows of men have always been given priority over that of women. There are several reasons driving this imbalance. I shall critically analyze this matter and elucidate my views regarding equality being allocated to both the genders in the following paragraphs.

To begin with, some profess that since early times the population of men have always been prioritized in all sectors despite the fact that women have excelled in all domains. Therefore, not only family members discriminate against gender but also there are other influencing factors influenced: media, schools and governments, to name a few, paying attention to all domains of males, and giving importance to their performances, skill sets, and efforts. Moreover, females have always been put at second choice positions, and thus, media also gives precedence(preference) sports such as cricket, basketball, and so on, performed by men.  

Nevertheless, a school of thought asserts that women have been performing efficiently in all realms, they have been seen working at the highest level of the position in all sectors:  sports, corporate, politics, and fashion industry, among others, at global level, and  hence, deserve the same respect as men do. Affording them similar  air time would promote this branch of sports, and create employment among females, in the form of players, coaches, sports consultants, and so on, not only creating new job venues for this sex but also multiplying economic activity, resulting out of serving the growing requirements of women sports practitioners and their teams.  

To hindsight, I vehemently believe that in the contemporary era, equality must be extended to both the genders, in terms of allowing similar times to sporting events to the female branch also: it will help yield rich returns.   

Popular Hobbies and interests change over time and are more a reflection of trends and fashion than an indication of what individuals really want to do in their spare time. To what extent do you agree with this statement? Give reasons for your answer.

Popular Hobbies and interests change over time and are more a reflection of trends and fashion than an indication of what individuals really want to do in their spare time.
To what extent do you agree with this statement? Give reasons for your answer.

Contemporary times have been witnessing significant changes in favorite pastimes that rather indicate influences such as current vogue, wherein one follows celebrities  and emulates them. I disagree with the statement, and feel that most engage in freetime activities they like the most.

Those believing that leisure time undertakings are impacted by concurrent forces, profess that some, especially youngsters, are propelled by the innate human  propensity to emulate popular public figures. They browse social media applications and observe celebrities endorsing certain undertakings, promoted as pastime, luring their audience to jump into the bandwagon. For instance, most of the adventure sports such as white water rafting, scuba diving, and so on, as elite free time haunts, and the fashionable youngsters tend to toe the line, and embrace these as their engagements. The growing number of  participants in dangerous sports in various corners of the globe clearly highlight this.  

However, it would be inaccurate to claim that freetime undertakings are underpinned by concurrent forces: barring a few fashionable and wealthy, most are driven by their long-standing interests, personal talents, or intense motivations. Notably, a majority are passionate about painting, playing musical instruments, or hiking, prefer to continue with these endeavors to draw a sense of satisfaction, and break the mundane. Moreover, those using modern means to practice their favorite recreational undertakings do it since they can use these to fulfill their desire without compromising their essential duties. To corroborate, many play games on playstations today instead of traditional boards since they lack time to devote to such tasks, and meet others, due to their hectic schedules.  

To conclude, I believe that except a few, most are inclined to engage in hobbies that complement their desires, and are not swayed by external influences to alter their area of interest. 

Some countries produce their own films, while others do not. What are the reasons for this? Is it a positive or a negative development?

Some countries produce their own films, while others do not. What are the reasons for this? Is it a positive or a negative development?

Reasons for some countries not producing their own movies 

• Some societies lack resources: expertise, modern technology and money 

• Some face impediments in terms of having limited audience 

• Some cultures do not allow such entertainment 

• Chaotic social environment 

Benefits 

• Global perspectives enrich local psyche 

• Lead to cultural reinvention 

Drawbacks 

• Can hamper cultural perpetuation and result in cultural invasion instead 

• Impedes local creativity 

• Loss of economic opportunities 

• Impact tourism negatively 

It is quite intriguing that despite movies becoming a ubiquitous form of entertainment, some parts of the world have chosen to abstain from producing local content. This lack of inclination may be fueled by economic or social factors, but this makes society vulnerable to cultural invasion.

At the outset, the most prominent underlying aspect underpinning reluctance to bolster home-grown production of motion pictures is the orthodox social environment that forbids the local populace from engaging in creation of any such material; it is believed any involvement with this modern medium might fetch them the wrath of their ancestors and bring them bad omen. To exemplify, numerous countries in the Middle- east and North-Africa have enacted laws to circumscribe/ban such activities. 

Similarly, even some liberal regions are unable to produce their own cinema owing to paucity of resources and financial feasibility. Admittedly, they face an acute shortage of modern equipment, expertise, and sufficient audience to receive and view local creations, making it onerous to justify the colossal investments in relation to the anticipated returns, thereby discouraging such endeavors. 

However, although some might uphold this unwillingness as praiseworthy, depriving the local populace of films made within the country means opening doors to forays by cultural aspirations brought in by foreign pictures which could result in dilution of native ways of life and beliefs. Moreover, this attitude is likely to rob citizens of opportunities of gaining employment and business created by the film production sector based within the country.  

To conclude, this propensity of not having home-based movie productions is supported by absence  of an appropriate environment; having said that, it is laden with a plethora of complications that could lead to disappearance of local customs and beliefs, and thus, I consider it to be detrimental.     

Some people believe that success in life comes from taking risks or chances. Others believe that success results from careful planning. In your opinion, where does success come from?

Some people believe that success in life comes from taking risks or chances. Others believe that success results from careful planning. In your opinion, where does success come from?

The great public discourse of contemporary times is aligned with a dilemma whether triumph hinges on meticulously strategizing or adventurous endeavors. The opinions are quite ambivalent on this issue,  making it imperative to critically analyze this matter, before delivering a plausible verdict.  

A lobby strongly asserts that stepping out of the comfort zone and facing uncertainties can fetch remarkable innovation, something impossible when one sticks to devising prudent schemes to engage in endeavors. For example, in Japan, umpteen startups have quickly attained pinnacle since they relied on exposing themselves to the possibility of failures while launching their products, and used innovative strategies to circumvent jeopardies. Moreover, history has been a witness to progress and discoveries, such as advanced vaccines to a plethora of life threatening ailments, would not have been possible without inventors and  innovators making themselves vulnerable to perilous circumstances: many blew themselves to pieces and some locked themselves up. 

Having said that, a group of psychologists  propound that goals become achievable when there is a structured procedure to be followed. This eliminates chances of error; consequently, saving time, money and resources. To corroborate, students planning their studies before the exams tend to score better than their counterparts, avoiding planning and just responding to the situation. A recent survey by social behaviorists revealed that pupils systematically organizing their study schedules  turned out to be more competitive, and successfully enrolled for the top-of-the-line varsities and colleges. Furthermore, professionals, like doctors and engineers rely heavily on accurate planning, since spontaneity can cause disasters.

To conclude, considering the aforementioned views, I believe both perspectives hold substance as one must plan well to alleviate mistakes, but be prepared to face risky situations  in order to grow. It is the blend of both that lead the way to accomplishments. 

In some countries children are often told that they can achieve anything if they try hard enough. What are the advantages and disadvantages of giving children this message?

In some countries children are often told that they can achieve anything if they try hard enough. What are the advantages and disadvantages of giving children this message?

It is commonly observed that juveniles are hard-wired with the perception that investing efforts can help attain any objective. Although this can be rewarding, there are some issues that should be taken into account.

Fostering the  trait of perseverance among youngsters offers one major benefit: they are inspired to strive for their goals enthusiastically when taught that this virtue equals success. This  can specifically assist students in cultivating a growth mentality, problem-solving abilities, and the capacity to bounce back from setbacks. For example, if a child feels that this leads to success, they will put in more effort to do better at a subject. Such training also encourages optimism towards ambitions. Those absorbing  this idea are more likely to have lofty goals for themselves, and also a prosperity to devise and discover strategies to attain objectives, helping them develop into independent, self-assured people who can face obstacles head-on.

However, this arrangement does have some significant detriments: young minds might become so engrossed in their strivings that they might not be able to strike a balance between hard work and realistic goal-setting, and may develop unrealistic expectations. Since skills, opportunities, and external factors also all play a part, not all goals can be accomplished with just hard work, precipitating frustration and lack of direction. Furthermore, this could also engender unwarranted pressure and a fear of failing, resulting  from this belief, pushing one to internalize failure as a personal weakness rather than the outcome of forces outside control, predisposing them to stress and low self-esteem.

In hindsight, while promoting hard effort can foster ambition and resilience, it is crucial to infuse this characteristic with an awareness of practical constraints. Giving juveniles perspective, and encouragement, helps them grow up with a more positive attitude toward achievements and disappointments.

Cycling has many benefits, yet in some countries there is a decrease in the number of people using bicycles as their main form of transportation. Why is it happening? Give suggestions on how to encourage people to use bicycles again.

Cycling has many benefits, yet in some countries there is a decrease in the number of people using bicycles as their main form of transportation. Why is it happening? Give suggestions on how to encourage people to use bicycles again.

Pedaling is losing its charm worldwide, despite it being a rewarding endeavor, including better health and a diminutive environmental effect. Numerous causes contribute to this trend, and there are several strategies to alleviate it.

The absence of appropriate infrastructure for bikers is propelling the decline. Riding this humble mode is deemed dangerous and inconvenient in metropolitan locations because roadways are built primarily for automobiles, forcing bicyclists to frequently share roads with fast moving traffic owing to the absence of designated bike lanes, raising the possibility of accidents. Furthermore, the popularity of private vehicles and reasonably priced public transportation has diminished the appeal of cycling because these mediums of commuting provide unprecedented comfort and speed. To exacerbate the situation, weather conditions, long commuting distances, and lack of secure parking facilities further contribute to making this 19th century unpopular. Cultural perceptions also play a role. In some countries, riding this two-wheeler is associated with lower socioeconomic status, discouraging people from using IT. 

To make this method of traversing a common sight again,  governments and local authorities should invest in cycling-friendly infrastructure. Dedicated bike lanes, secure parking areas, and bike-sharing schemes can make cycling safer and more convenient:  cities like Amsterdam and Copenhagen have successfully implemented such measures, encouraging more and more to pedal regularly.

Similarly, engendering public awareness by promoting benefits of cycling: reduced traffic congestion, cost savings, and improved health, can help convince many. Additionally, subsidies or incentives:  tax benefits for purchasing bicycles or discounts for bike-sharing services, could further promote the use of cycles.

In conclusion, cycling losing favors from users can be addressed by augmenting infrastructure, changing perceptions, and offering incentives. By  taking these steps, countries can promote this way of commuting as a viable and attractive means of transportation. 

Cycling is becoming less popular as a primary form of transportation in many nations, despite the fact that it has several advantages, including better health and a smaller environmental effect. Numerous causes contribute to this trend, and there are several strategies to buck it.

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.

It is commonly proposed that juveniles should be tutored about the significance of monetary resources. There are several reasons bolstering this suggestion, and there are plausible methods to see this task through successfully. 

 It  has been observed by many that young individuals, nowadays, are becoming extravagant/spendthrift; they are influenced by their elite peers and try to complement those standards, irrespective of their economic status, resulting in mindless spending. Likewise,  the cost of living is spiraling, and tender minds play a major role when it comes to shopping for groceries or other things, and they are profoundly attracted by advertisements, packaging , and so on. Hence, to inculcate prudent spending habits, it is essential to teach them the role of every single penny.

Some judicious steps can let young minds grasp the knowledge about the relevance of financial resources. They should be involved in the budgeting exercise, and asked for their opinion: this will enlighten them about monthly expenses.  Apart from that, they can be asked to help with household chores, and render community services, and then rewarded financially for that. By doing this, they will get to know the worth of each penny they spend. This practice will make them more prudent when it comes to spending money. To corroborate, an interview conducted with residents of Guelph revealed that 60% of non-essential expenses of the little members of families dropped when these strategies were applied since they realised the pain of earning money when they helped the elderly in jobs like in snow shovelling, cleaning front and backyards. 

To conclude, one should not forgo any opportunity to make their wards learn about how to spend and save as these small steps lay the foundation of an independent, well-informed and secure adulthood, and discourage extravagance.

Nowadays the most important task is the environmental protection of our planet for future generations. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Nowadays the most important task is the environmental protection of our planet for future generations. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Yes. why? 

• The way planet is being stripped of its resources, it seems that upcoming generations will not have anything to use and survive 

• The pollution is rising dramatically and the surroundings are becoming toxic; if steps are not taken now, the next generation will be predisposed to a hostile environment 

• The planet does not belong to the current occupants: it is the legacy of ancestors and the real owners are the future inhabitants is a habitable condition 

No. why?  

• Every generation has its own set of challenges and derives solutions according to the prevalent conditions, that’s why 

• It is important to address the contemporary issues such as poverty, making facilities available to all, so that a secure future can be ensured 

In the modern world, some perceieve preserving the valuable resources for the succeeding generation, is a top most priority. I would critically analyze this notion, and share a plausible conclusion.

This  opinion is founded firmly on the belief that the way the pollution is rising dramatically,  and will affect the environment adversely if allowed to continue at the same speed, making it inhospitable for those populating this planet in some years from now. Thus,  not embracing steps for overcoming this menace will predispose descendants to harmful gasses: carbon dioxide, methane, and many more, and eventualy, life-threatening ailments. Moving further, overwhelming consumption of resources will leave nothing for tomorrow, and those living in those times will have to struggle to find material to survive.  Moreover,  it is essential to safeguard the resources as the planet does not belong to those living in the current, but it is the legacy of the ancestors, and the rightful owners are the children, and hence, it is obligatory to pass a liveable environment to them as it is.

However,  the skeptics dissent with the view that there are several critical issues such as poverty, unemployment, among others, that are forcing the concurrent populace to suffer,  which can be ignored for the sake of future. Moreover, resolving current issues  will only guarantee sustenance of the hospitable environment.  Therefore, focussing on impediments currently facing society is essential, so that progress can be made in various areas to allow discovery of better survival mechanisms for tomorrow.   

In hindsight, even though the concern is important for the future, the struggles of current occupants cannot be neglected. Therefore, the resources should be used according to the need without wasting. I feel that protecting the earth for tomorrow is important, but not at the cost of today 

Some people believe that bicycles are the good mode of transport while others says it has so many disadvantages . Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some people believe that bicycles are the good mode of transport while others says it has so many disadvantages. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Pedaling has been gaining popularity of late as some harbor a belief this is the good mode of commuting, while others differ and list out the detriments of this medium. The following paragraphs shall delve into the matter deeply. 

Due to global warming, many are opting for cycling to fulfill their traveling needs, by virtue of this means being cost-effective, for they do not have to pay out of their nose for the ever becoming costlier fuel, and regular maintenance, unlike when they use automobiles such as cars, scooters, and motorcycles.  Moreover, the medium offers great respite from the inconvenience of meandering/ maneuvering through dense traffic on congested roads as cycles do not require much space to drive.  

Similarly, in the era when environment consciousness has become a growing fad among the populace, many are keen to contribute to this noble endeavor and ride their cycles since these do not emit any harmful chemicals and fumes, helping mitigate air pollution and improve the quality of air. For instance, a study conducted by University of Michigan, found that pedaling aids in alleviating emissions by nearly eighty percent, whereas other modes of transportation spew toxic fumes causing deterioration of the quality of the air. 

In contrast, bicycles tend to pose challenges for riders: they are prone to accidents. In most countries, there are no designated spaces for cyclists which forces them to commute with other vehicles and become vulnerable to mishaps.  For instance, in Europe, due to lack of separate bike lanes about thousands are injured daily. 

To conclude, even though cycling has both merits and demerits, and it is an individual prerogative to pedal, or not, I feel one should ride this nineteenth century innovation for short journeys to enjoy benefits.

Changing jobs and residences frequently is a very common scenario nowadays. Do you believe that this is good for one's future?”

Changing jobs and residences frequently is a very common scenario nowadays. Do you believe that this is good for one's future?” 

A new trend has mushroomed dramatically over the years among many, wherein a growing number can be seen switching employment and residences frequently. Some believe that this new found love for switching employment and accommodation, impacts the future both favorably and unfavorably. 

Hopping jobs allows fulfillment of desires of gaining increments in earnings, and help afford better lifestyles and also secure the future by making available extra monetary resources for investments into schemes that could ensure a comfortable life in their twilight years.  Similarly, this also helps attain knowledge of various fields of interest, along with upgrading skills to sustain in a dynamic and competitive environment but also move up in the organization hierarchy. 

Having said that, some are cynical to this notion. They believe that frequently shifting jobs and houses tends to divert focus from long term goals, forcing embracing only short term goals, which can prove to be disastrous in tough times. In addition, this can also cause instability, wherein one might find themselves losing sense of direction, due to not being able to adjust to the new environments, in terms of workplace and colleagues; and neighborhood and community, rapidly, causing mental distress and thus affecting their well being.  There may be clashes of values, opinions or thoughts in the workplace or in society which may lead them to face adverse consequences in terms of physical harm and mental harassment.

In hindsight, although this trend may help young professionals secure  a rapid, continuing it is likely to affect them adversely, in terms of obscuring their professional and personal objectives due to rapid changes. Thus, one must be extremely careful while following this propensity: it might cause unwarranted stress and precipitate a lack of sense of belongingness.   

Smoking not only harms the smoker, but also those who are nearby. Therefore, smoking should be banned in public places. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Smoking not only harms the smoker, but also those who are nearby. Therefore, smoking should be banned in public places.To what extent do you agree or disagree?

A  profound debate has ensued among various quarters regarding circumscribing smoking in public areas. The supporters of this proposal believe that it not only impacts the health of the smokers but also the people who are nearby.

Prohibiting smoking publicly is an imperative step that could go a long way. Several studies have revealed the rising incidence of respiratory disorders and terminal diseases, due to passive smoking,  among those who have never consumed tobacco in any form. This arrangement will render necessary safeguards to non-smokers, helping them evade inhaling hazardous compounds: carbon dioxide and monoxide,  released with every puff of tobacco. Likewise,  it would help those ailing from diseases like asthma as they  would not need to  take extra precautions: carrying inhalers or wearing masks as safeguards against unwanted inhaling of hazardous ingredients discharged into air by those smoking. 

On top of that, publicly smoking also can have a far reaching impact on young children, who being inquisitive get overwhelmed by observing others smoking. They are already under the influence of various advertisements that try to present cigarettes as a sign of a macho personality and a strong and rebellious attitude. 

Nonetheless, those cynical about this idea of forbidding smoking in the public domain, feel that the environment is already exposed to myriads of the fumes and gasses emanating from the vehicles and industries. Therefore, prohibiting smoking will be an injustice to the smokers as they might feel that they are being discriminated against.

In hindsight, I strongly concur with the proposal of outlawing smoking in communal domains; this seemingly harmless personal foible is jeopardizing the public health and childhood. All counterarguments rendered must be overlooked: health of the populace cannot be put at risk for the sake of a minority.   

Some people believe that children in the past had an easier life, while others think that life is easier for children today. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Some people believe that children in the past had an easier life, while others think that life is easier for children today. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Life was effortless in the past 

• Upbringing was simple without skyhigh expectations from parents 

• Priority was on quality rearing rather than attainments 

• Academic competition and aspirations were not uphill 

• Most lived in extended families and did not have to be worried about being cared for

• More opportunities for outdoor activities, sports, hobbies and lack of restrictions due to safe social environment 

• There was an environment sans pollution 

Life is easier now 

• Access to technology has allowed children to gather knowledge about any subject 

• More resources at disposal to enable one to explore their desired field of interest 

• More leisure activities available 

• Healthcare services are better which allow youngsters to circumvent health issues that were a challenge in the past 

• Greater awareness about children rights  

A rousing debate ensues when it comes to comparing childhood in the past and present. While some perceive that the former offered better lifestyles to juveniles owing to fewer expectations, others favor contemporary  times owing to technology-driven facilities the young generation can experience.   

Matters were quite straightforward for youngsters in the past owing to lack of uphill expectations from families and society, and stepe competition from peers in academics and other realms, affording a relatively relaxed way of life. For instance, neither parents nor the community gauged them on their academic and extra-curricular attainments, and they did not have to consistently expose themselves to the daunting task of preparing for exams, competitions, and performances. 

Similarly, the friendlier communal environment, and availability of appropriate outdoor amenities, extended unparalleled freedom and opportunities to go outdoors and engage in sports, and other physical endeavors, with their friends and others. This enabled them to sustain their physical and mental wellbeing; and foster bonds with others, including individuals of their own age or older than them, forging strong social relationships without needing to attend special sessions or classes: a common feature of contemporary times.

However, for some, technology has turned life effortless for young individuals today, for they can access education as per their convenience, and choose the field where they would like to engage professionally; and also pursue pastimes as per their likes and dislikes, regardless of the socioeconomic backgrounds: these were considered a novelty available to only a few fortunate.

In hindsight, both perspectives hold great substance: where the bygone days offered simplicity, the other provides ease of life to the upcoming generation, through technological innovations, implying that perspectives transform with the passing epoch, with objective being rendering quality upbringing to young people.

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 raging whether dividends accrued by self-owned vehicles outshine the pitfalls of communal transit. This matter needs a deeper analysis and before arriving a plausible conclusion if this perception is true. 

Personal conveyance affords umpteen benefits: it offers convenience to the populace; one can travel anywhere at any time, they do not have to abide by any schedule, a common feature of mass transit. Similarly, they can start their journey right from the doorstep instead of going to a bus stand or train station. 

Also, this medium is accessible under any weather conditions: rain, snow, scorching heat of the sun, it provides unprecedented comfort. Moreover, they can travel freely without any stress as they and their luggage is secured and safe, and this aids them to complete their journey hassle-free, whereas such ease cannot be extended by the communal commutes, for one has to keep themselves updated about weather since bad weather can also lead to cancellation of services, and the security of baggage is many times a matter of concern.  

Nevertheless, despite having certain drawbacks, using mass transportation can be rewarding: it is a cheap mode and anyone can afford to travel by this means. Additionally, there is little hassle while traveling; one does not have to worry about parking, traffic jams and snarls. Further, it renders ample opportunities to socialize with new people, by exposing oneself to strangers. Above all, mass transit offers effective safeguard against the rampant deterioration of the planet as this method contributes towards alleviating the pollution and preventing deforestation. 

To conclude, undeniably, benefits yielded by shared transport effortlessly eclipse the disadvantages by being environmentally-friendly, and offering within budget and stress free travel. Thus, this notion is misplaced: I feel it is the other way round.  

Nowadays the most important task is the environmental protection of our planet for future generations. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Nowadays the most important task is the environmental protection of our planet for future generations. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?   

There has been an enigmatic change observed in environmental conditions over the past few decades, by virtue of modern facilities and interest towards recreational activities, the concurrent populace has stripped the natural resources and deteriorated the quality of surroundings, which will have adverse repercussions on the populating the planet tomorrow.  Thus, it is extremely critical to preserve the earth for tomorrow. 

To begin with, the planet is the ancestral legacy as they invested their money and time in creating a perfect living place for all, and hence, it is the responsibility of the present individuals to preserve the earth in its pristine form, and sustain their unwavering efforts to enable them to pass it on to the rightful owners: the inhabitants of tomorrow. Moreover, keeping the surroundings free from toxic substances and developing a sustainable livelihood for the newcomers can only be planned today; if this task is not executed right away, it may be too late for the next generation to survive. 

Similarly, health completely depends on the evolving environment, and the way things are deteriorating, one suspects whether those populating the planet some years from now, will be able to access clean air to inhale. For instance, the concentration of toxic gasses emanating from vehicle fumes, stubble burning, industrial emissions is making the current populace vulnerable to several severe ailments, and if nothing is done, the environment could become hostile, unable to support any life form.    

Besides this, human activities are the root causes of climatic shifts and due to that they are facing serious challenges for their survival. For example, one of its major effects is global warming which is precipitating unpredictable climatic shift that often precipitates sudden flooding and droughts, and its impact is being observed widely even today, and  if this continues unabated, the inhabitants of tomorrow will not be able to lead a smooth lifestyle and face challenges in every walk of life.   

In hindsight, protecting the environment in its natural form is the only way to safeguard the survival of future generations, and for that one must concentrate on the alternative practices for sustainable development, which will not only benefit the recent but also to the ones who will perpetuate this tradition.

Some people think the main purpose of school is to turn children into good citizens and workers, rather than to benefit them as individuals. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 

Some people think the main purpose of school is to turn children into good citizens and workers, rather than to benefit them as individuals.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

YES 

• Today, professional skills are extremely important for everyone without which one cannot successfully survive in society : society also requires their contribution to remain functional - thus schools must only fulfill this parameter 
• They could also take up the profession connected to that subject easily since they would not need a special occupational training 
• This will help employers since they will not need to spend humongous money on training recruits in various trades 
• Society could get required skills quickly. 
• Law abiding nationals are an important requirement, otherwise there will be anarchy in society  

NO 

• Formal education is meant to develop all-round personality of youngsters: creativity, in-depth thinking ability, and ability to look  forward in life: these traits can only be fostered in formative years. 

The purpose of schooling has long sparked a fierce debate with some asserting that educational institutes should primarily aim to turn youngsters into responsible citizens and productive workers, rather than focusing on their overall growth. I partially agree with this, and would like to elucidate my views with a plausible conclusion.

A core function of schooling is indeed to prepare young people for social roles. They should promote values like teamwork, respect, community involvements, which are fundamental for civic engagement. For instance, the formal curriculum should incorporate social topics and volunteer programs, allowing young learners to grasp knowledge about civic responsibilities and cultivating an understanding of how they can contribute to their communities. In this way, they will play a significant role in molding pupils into adults enlightened about their social obligations. 

Similarly, academic and technical skills can prepare them for future job readiness. Proficiency in subjects such as mathematics, science, and language arts, lays the foundation for a wide range of careers, ensuring that those studying possess the competencies needed to thrive at work force. These programs can allow students to develop trade competitiveness, and aim for trade-centric  learning in university courses, saving them time and money. 

On the other hand, reducing education solely to be a means of producing workers overlooks the importance of individual growth. These establishments provide an outlet where youngsters first explore their unique interests, talents and passions, discovering their personality and abilities that contribute  to self-expression and emotional intelligence, which are valuable in all walks of life.  

In conclusion, it is essential to train young minds to be proficient trade specialists and prudent inhabitants of a nation, nonetheless, nurturing individuality and resourcefulness is equally crucial. Thus, a balanced approach that values societal readiness and personal development is recommended.  

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.

 There is a paradigm shift while making investments, authorities prefer to spend money safeguarding fauna instead of fulfilling basic needs for human beings. This trend has several advantages and disadvantages associated with it and I will be discussing both in the following paragraphs.

 To start with, this shift in priorities is helping preserve delicate ecological balance, comprising various animals, and protecting the future of humans as a result. Undeniably, if this arrangement is disturbed, it will have a direct implication for society. For example, disappearance of honey bees is likely to result in the absence of the medium of pollinating fruit and vegetables, depriving mankind of food. Similarly, this is aiding in conservation of habitats of exotic fauna: the forests,  the premium climate regulators that help recycle the air, and also invite precipitation.  Moreover, forests are also considered a rich source of raw materials in terms of making medicines and performing scientific research, to name a few, and this emphasis is assisting humans in saving this invaluable resource.

However, there are humongous downsides of this approach as cited by skeptics: this might create hurdles in human development as diverting monetary resources from essential projects such as rendering fundamental amenities: food shelter and clothing;  and quality education, health care, and infrastructure, might exacerbate the problems facing marginalized communities. Many are struggling to access basic needs like clean water, food etc. and are surviving in the tents in all the weather conditions. Authorities are taking human beings lightly by depriving them of their basic needs.

 To sum up, I opine that safeguarding wildlife is important, but it should not come at the expense of putting people in danger. A balanced approach is necessary to protect the conservation and human needs.