Nowadays, more people move away from their friends and families for work. Does this development have more advantages or disadvantages?

Nowadays, more people move away from their friends and families for work. Does this development have more advantages or disadvantages?

An increasing number of individuals relocate away from their families and social circles in pursuit of employment opportunities. While some believe this is a positive trend, others are certain that it is marred by several challenges. This essay shall delve deeper into this issue and draw a plausible conclusion.

Undeniably, being physically distant from loved ones can result in feelings of isolation and loneliness, it deprives one of the critical emotional support, especially needed during difficult times as adapting to a new environment without a familiar support system can be mentally draining. In addition, they may miss opportunities to be with their loved ones during important family events and milestones, which can weaken personal relationships over time.

Having said that, work-related relocation offers substantial professional and personal upsides: it allows one to access better career opportunities, better compensation, and exposure to more competitive environments, for such locations offer broader openings that can enhance skills, widening perspectives, and accelerating career progression; and working in a new city, or country, often helps individuals develop independence, resilience, and adaptability.

Furthermore, this mobility can lead to long-term financial and lifestyle improvements, and for many shifting for work can eventually offer improved living standards for their loved ones back home, even if they are geographically distant. A survey by the Sun, when families chose career-led movements, they witnessed overall increased well-being and happiness, owing to enhancements in their disposable incomes, which allowed them to afford better services and goods.

In hindsight, although moving away from friends and family creates emotional difficulties, the rewards clearly eclipse the pitfalls as the opportunities for career growth, personal development, and financial advancement make this a beneficial development overall.

The world should have only one government rather than a national government for each country. Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?

The world should have only one government rather than a national government for each country. Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?

Some  propose a unified global government instead of each nation having one of its own. This essay shall delve deeper to determine the pros and cons into this matter, and evaluate whether the notion of merits of such world order surpass its demerits. 

Undeniably, a single world-government could promote global cooperation and nearly eliminate conflicts between nations as having one central authority, issues like climate change, global health crisis, cross-border terrorism, and border disputes could be effectively addressed by discovering remedies sans impediments. Also, this arrangement can engender a conducive environment for travel and communication across borders, by affording uniform laws and policies, which would simplify trade and unify commerce across stratas of society.

However, the idea of one worldwide authority undermines cultural diversity and representation of people hailing from diverse backgrounds and regions with unique traditions, values, and political systems dating way before the conceptualisation of governments;  hence, it would be extremely difficult for universal governance to fairly address distinct local issues. Such centralisation would lead to loss of local autonomy, and could result in unequal and inefficient distribution of resources as managing the needs of a global population is highly complex.

Furthermore, vesting power in a global governing body poses the risk of misuse of authority: without sufficient checks and balances, such representation might become too powerful, potentially leading to authoritarian control, and eventually a collapse in the not too distant future. To corroborate this, the fall of the Soviet Union was largely credited to rampant corruption and neglect of accountability with blatant exploitation of the people and resources of Baltic nations.

Overall, although a universal regime might offer benefits such as improved coordination and reduced conflicts, those rejecting this stress on the pitfalls - particularly the risks to cultural diversity, representation, and political freedom - and state that these are far more significant than any rewards this proposed world order might afford.

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? 

In this fast-paced world, some think that protecting our surroundings is crucial for the next generation but others contradict this notion. I will be sharing my perspective in the following paragraphs. 

Firstly, it is our habitant and if we are not going to protect it then it might not be suitable enough for our future generation to live in the same environment because of rising of harmful chemicals and toxins used in today’s world for their own needs. For example, Heavy duty transportation leads to burn more fuel extracted from the core of the earth that creates ample amount of carbon dioxide that can cause breathing problems such as asthma, branded clothing causing harm by excessive cotton plantation that creates a deficiency in natural resources and nutrients from the soil which will leads to use of artificial fertilizers in the upcoming time and luxury furniture leading towards cutting down some extinctive wood just for the royal texture and sometimes killing such kind of animals for their fur that are on the verge of extinction. 

On the other hand, every generation has their own situations to deal with for example back in the early 90s where are parents did not have any means of faster transportation, they choose to use animals like horse, bulls and wooden carts to travel around the city and to get effective use of time gas powered cars were invented from which we came to understanding that such kinds of circumstances bring out some innovative ideas. 

In conclusion, nature is our home passed to us by our ancestors to live a healthy life but that does not mean to utilize all the available resources and abandonee the needs of the upcoming life. 

In many countries schools have severe problems with student behavior. What do you think are the causes of this? What solutions can you suggest?

In many countries schools have severe problems with student behavior. What do you think are the causes of this? What solutions can you suggest?

In recent times, it has been witnessed that pupils behave inappropriately at schools. Many have raised the concern on this notion. This essay shall examine reasons behind this phenomenon and suggest plausible remedies. 

Unruly conduct of students emerges due to negligence and lack of parental supervision: as parents are too busy with work, leading to less attention and to monitor or guide their progeny, in which the focus of young individuals eventually shifting to advancement of modern technology, such as mobile devices, and computers, to name a few, where they are exposed to violent, or inappropriate content,  which ultimately affects their mindset. 

Furthermore, many individuals stating tutors are also equally responsible for this trend since learners spend most of their day in schools - meaning it is the duty of the educators to enlighten them about righteous behavior, but by virtue of limited rights to punish, or embrace strict measures they are unable to do so. Moreover, the educational institutes are designed in a manner to focus on academic endeavors, educating about neglecting values and ethics.  

To surmount these challenges, experts profess that counseling and mentorship programs would be quite productive in quelling disorderly attitudes of school goers: the faculty and parents should persuade youngsters to participate in psychological assessment, and track down their behavior and render guidance accordingly. Additionally, schools should implement strict policies: clear rules, rewards for good behavior, and disciplinary action against for not abiding rules. Additionally,  regulating online activity, considering the fact that it is inevitable in the modern era, but through regular monitoring, they can minimize the impact. 

In hindsight, behavioral problems arise mainly from poor parental guidance, social influence, and weak discipline systems. Combined efforts from both fathers and mothers, and tutors can help overcome this complication. 

In many parts of the world, the proportion of older people is increasing. Do the advantages of this trend outweigh the disadvantages for society?

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.

Elderly population is increasing 

Advantages 

• Industrial expertise ( Older individual )  at the verge to help young minds who are growing in their career.

Disadvantages 

• Though, it would have caused great depression in the nation, meaning elderly populace could contribute to society on a physical level. 
• As individuals tend to get older, the factory comes along with medical attention. If spending was in the medical sector instead of overall development of a nation it may slow down the growth of a country. 

There has been a profound debate about the dominance of the elderly in the demographic composition. A lobby is quite enthusiastic about the pros this pattern can bring, while some feel the opposite. This essay shall examine both points and render a plausible conclusion.  

An army of individuals states an aging population contributes to a more stable and crime free society since they are less likely to engage in antisocial endeavors, leading to a noticeable decline in crime rates. Furthermore, these individuals tend to lead simpler, and frugal lifestyles, which eventually results in reduced levels of consumption, and consequently, less social and material wastage. For corroborate, a study conducted by University of Harvard stating countries such as Germany and Italy, have shown that older age groups spend significantly less on fashion, electronics, and disposable goods compared to their younger counterparts, precipitating lower social wastage, and exploitation of resources.

Nevertheless, some had a different opinion on this phenomena, stating as people age, they typically require more medical attention; consequently, exerting pressure on national healthcare budgets, forcing policy makers to divert funds from other essential sectors such as infrastructure, education, or technology. For example, countries with rapidly ageing populations like Japan are already facing budgetary challenges due to increasing healthcare and pension costs. 

Moreover, although, undeniably, aging individuals contribute intellectually, it comes with consequence, their ability to participate in physically demanding jobs tends to decline, by virtue of dearth of able-bodied skilled labour in key industries such as agriculture, construction, or manufacturing, ultimately impacting economic productivity.

In hindsight, while the growing elderly population brings some benefits like reduction in crime and social wastage, these factors are likely to have serious ramifications, especially healthcare costs and reduced workforce participation can be significant, something that can hardly be disregarded.  

In some countries, more and more people are becoming interested in finding out about the history of the house or building they live in. What are the reasons for this? How can people research this?

In some countries, more and more people are becoming interested in finding out about the history of the house or building they live in. What are the reasons for this? How can people research this?

In current times, many are increasingly becoming eager to explore the background of the houses or buildings they are residing in. This curiosity is driven by a mixture of practical concerns, cultural interests, and even personal beliefs, and there are umpteen ways to derive information about this matter.

To begin with, one major reason is the intent to determine the age of the construction, which can help residents estimate future maintenance costs. For instance, an older property may demand frequent repairs, while a relatively new one may be easier to maintain. Another factor is superstition: certain individuals wish to learn whether previous occupants experienced misfortune, as this may influence their comfort in living there. Apart from this, many often take pride in learning that their house was once owned by a famous personality; it adds prestige to their residence. Furthermore, there are legal aspects, as researching the history ensures that no disputes are attached to the dwelling unit, helping safeguard  financial interests.

There are several effective ways to research such matters. The most straightforward approach is speaking directly to former owners or brokers, who usually have first-hand knowledge of the property. Additionally, interviewing neighbours and long-term residents of the area can provide valuable insights, including stories not found in official documents. On a more formal level, visiting the central registry of urban authorities can offer access to authentic records such as ownership documents, building permits, and legal clearances.

In conclusion, the motivation to uncover the past of a property stems out of intent to know about attributes such as possible maintenance and legal claims, and personal beliefs and pride, and by seeking insights from neighbours, former owners, and official records, one can gain a deeper understanding of their homes.

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

Today, TV channels broadcast men’s sports shows more than women’s sport shows.

Why is this the case?

Should TV channels give equal showtime for each?

Why women sports gets lesser time on television 

• There is commercial consideration: men sports has bigger fan following in comparison to women - viewership rating  men’s sports has wormen followers too, but women sports has mostly women followers only 
• More men are into sports than their women counterparts 
• There is huge money involved in men sports in comparison to women  and that is why television prefers men’s sports
• Conservative attitude of societies force television companies to avoid women sports 

Commercial compulsion should be given precedence 

• It may not be profitable 
• 
  

Women should also get more time 

• Women need all the encouragement to engage in this activity: 
• their upliftment 
• sports is emerging as a burgeoning industry that can render employment to millions 
• This will help societies abandon their orthodox attitudes 

While sporting events involving men can be frequently seen on television, those featuring women are a rare occurrence. This gender bias is primarily driven by commercial compulsions, but it is the need of the hour to halt this practice to enhance the status of women.

The most common pretext offered for this lopsided attitude is that sporting disciplines featuring males attract colossal investments that are needed to sustain such a money intensive domain and draw profits. It is argued that sports have been traditionally considered the realm of men, and thus, might not stimulate similar interests from the audience, and businesses might circumvent infusing resources into such areas. 

However, media attention has always helped invigorate interest in every field, and the same rationale applies to sports: men or women. A majority of male sports like lawn tennis and basketball, evolve and attain prominence. Similarly,  female sections of these sports also developed widespread popularity: they were given equal time in the USA and Europe, allowing events, like Wimbledon championships, featuring women to gain more sponsorships than only male events. Thus, exercising fairness will aid in empowering females, laying open a new employment venue at their disposal.

Additionally, abandoning this discriminatory attitude will enable breaking the stereotype, and induce aspiring young girls to exhibit their sporting skills and physical prowess. This will, consequently, put them at par with men, and force communities to abandon social taboos. To corroborate, telecasting women wrestling matches on Indian television motivated more and more parents to engage their daughters in this sport, and shun orthodox beliefs. 

To recap, the lopsided perspective harboured by mediahouses does not highlight the reality; their attention on any domain has made it commercially viable. Therefore, abandoning this prejudice will help female sport become popular and economically sustainable.

Nowadays young people prefer going to shopping centers rather than spending their time in organized activities such as sport or music. Do you think this is a positive or negative development?

Nowadays young people prefer going to shopping centers rather than spending their time in organized activities such as sport or music. Do you think this is a positive or negative development?

In contemporary times, young people often prefer visiting shopping centers instead of engaging in structured activities such as sports, or music. While some view this as a natural outcome of modernization, others believe it may have harmful consequences. I shall discuss both perspectives and give a plausible conclusion whether it is a positive or negative development.

On the effulgent side, shopping centers provide an attractive and convenient space for young individuals to socialize; these not only are hubs for purchasing goods but also places where friends can gather, dine, or enjoy recreational facilities such as cinemas and gaming zones, such experiences can reduce stress and foster social bonding, especially in times when youngsters are overwhelmingly surrounded by instructions in every walk of their life, even leisure, so small rendezvous with shopping renders  them some time for themselves, wherein they can enjoy and meet with their friends without the fear of retribution or  time constraints.   

On the  obsidian side, there are significant drawbacks in young people prioritizing malls over organized activities. Sports, for instance, encourage physical fitness, teamwork, and discipline, while music nurtures creativity and emotional expression. Choosing malls over these pursuits may lead to wasteful lifestyles, limiting opportunities for skill development, and long-term personal growth. Additionally, frequent shopping can promote materialism and impulsive spending, which may place a burden on personal finances, and shape unhealthy attitudes that glorify material wealth. In contrast, sports and arts can often provide future career pathways and lifelong benefits, which these youth forego knowingly.

At the end of discussion, while shopping centers may offer some degree of entertainment, relying on them excessively as a primary leisure activity is largely detrimental,  owing to it encouraging materialism, weakening physical and creative growth, and leading to financial strains.

Some people claim that not enough of the waste from homes is recycled. They say that the only way to increase recycling is for governments to make it a legal requirement. To what extent do you think laws are needed to make people recycle more of their waste?

Some people claim that not enough of the waste from homes is recycled. They say that the only way to increase recycling is for governments to make it a legal requirement. To what extent do you think laws are needed to make people recycle more of their waste?

In current times, there has been profound debate about turning recycling for households into a legal obligation to promote this ecofriendly endeavor,  while others reject this notion. I shall discuss both the points and deduce my stand. 

To embark upon the discussion, an army of people suggests that this policy will eventually minimize the environmental wastage: everyone will follow the legal statute without questions, persuading others in the process. For instance, back in the  1900s wearing helmets while commuting on motor-cycles was made mandatory - this step despite being resented at first,  ended up  engendering awareness among two-wheeler riders about safety. Similarly, this notion would bring the same. Apart from this, many believe that after a generation has passed, this exercise will become a social ritual just like the helmet law.

Nevertheless, another school of thought has a distinct perspective with the aforementioned thoughts, and they profess that such a move will be too harsh a step; recycling is a relatively new concept in its rudimentary stage. Most common people lack the knowledge and resources to perpetuate this exercise. Thus, this step will fail to churn out tangible outcomes unless the populace has been apprised with knowledge, resources and expertise to deal with this system. A similar law was introduced in the remote realm of Miami, the results contrasted significantly, as almost 80% of participants struggled to organize resources effectively and demonstrated limited competence, causing widespread resentment, thereby forcing local authorities to withdraw this statute,and switch to educating the public first.  

In conclusion, despite controversies and counter arguments, it is paradoxical to overlook the recycling law imposition. This undertaking should be institutionalized only after delivering fundamental knowhow and resources to the populace, so that they can effectively comply with requirements.  

Some say that modern technology is giving people more time, while others think it is making them busier. Discuss both views and give your opinion. Discuss

Some say that modern technology is giving people more time, while others think it is making them busier. Discuss both views and give your opinion. Discuss 

Some feel that modern technology is giving people more time 

• People are saving time on various activities such as going shopping, paying bills, banking, communicating, cooking 
• Traveling,  by cars, trains, airplane
• Conducting business is now quick, sending email, and communicating online. Advertising, closing deals 
• Attending classes from the comfort zones without needing to travel to institutions

Others think it is making them busier

• Technology had expanded the scope of work, loading people with responsibilities 
• More and more interaction with others through technology has expanded the list of acquaintances and people take longer to interact with them 

Proliferation of technology to every walk of life and its impact has evoked mixed reactions from various sections: some say that one has more free time at their disposal, others feel that this has made life more occupied than the past. 

Undeniably, speed has become associated with every imaginable task one can do, be it sending communications - where they do not have to wait for weeks or months to receive replies from their counterparts, or be it traveling to far-off destinations - that was an arduous task in yesteryears when people spend days and week to finally arrive at their desired destinations. Now, one can communicate in matter of hours if not minutes, and also reach half way across the globe within a matter of 17 hours. This has helped make big savings on time.   

Similarly, one does not need to spend half say committing themselves to fulfilling the task of paying bills, buying necessities or depositing or withdrawing money from banks since all these can be conveniently negotiated using online mediums from the comfort zones within a matter of a few minutes. People need to simply log on to portals like amazon to shop, use mobile phones to pay bills and use bank websites to remit money. 

Nevertheless, some argue that they have less time than the past, by virtue of companies expanding their operational areas using online methods and loading their workers with an extra burden of responsibilities and jobs that take longer to complete. Most MNC organizations allocate additional overseas assignments to their personnel making them spend longer at their job. 

To recapitulate, after assessing both the sides of the coin, it can be safely asserted(said) that technology has impacted human life in both ways. It has brought relief in some areas like cooking and traveling, but fetched  additional professional obligations along with.  

Some people say that technology has decreased the time people spend on various tasks, while others say that this has loaded them with more work and it takes longer to finish it. 

I

While recruiting a new employee, the employer should pay more attention to their personal qualities, rather than qualifications and experience. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give your opinion and include relevant examples.

While recruiting a new employee, the employer should pay more attention to their personal qualities, rather than qualifications and experience. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give your opinion and include relevant examples.

In incumbent times, recruitment is crucial for any organization; hiring the right candidate underpins long-term growth and success. Some argue that employers should prioritize personal qualities over academic qualifications and work experience. I feel that while personal traits such as integrity, adaptability, and teamwork are essential, qualifications and experience remain equally important, and therefore, a balanced approach should be adopted.

An army of individuals thinks personal traits often play a decisive role in determining how effectively an employee integrates into a workplace. For instance, highly skilled workers lacking ethos of cooperation, or discipline, may disrupt team productivity, whereas those moderately skilled but reliable, and hardworking, can contribute positively to organizational culture. Dexterity in problem-solving ability, leadership, and communication are vital in the contemporary dynamic business environment, where adaptability is often valued more than technical finesse. Moreover, employers can provide training to enhance skills, but shaping core values and attitudes often remains far cry.

Nevertheless, undeniably, although a modern enterprise needs personnel capable of working in sync with their colleagues,  completely overlooking qualifications and seasoning is unwise. Certain professions, especially medicine, law, or engineering, require technical acumen, and are irreplaceable  by mere personality. For example, doctors must possess professional qualifications, and years of practice, to treat patients safely; qualities like empathy and patience, despite being essential, cannot supersede medical knowledge. Similarly, in highly competitive industries, prior exposure bolsters efficiency, and needs minimal supervision, saving both time and resources for employers.

In conclusion,  businesses should indeed value personal qualities because they shape workplace harmony and long-term commitments. However, occupational adroitness  and experience provide the technical foundation required to negotiate specialized tasks. The most effective recruitment strategy, therefore, is one that evaluates both aspects in equal measure, ensuring that employees are competent, and culturally aligned with the organization.

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.

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.

It is generally suggested by some that the professional and personal conduct of in-form players should be overlooked.  However, this notion can be challenged on various grounds. 

Those rallying behind embracing a liberal policy propound that the ones excelling in their respective sporting disciplines must be given some room, by virtue of them being under extreme pressure to sustain their fitness and performance, which can sometimes prove to be overwhelming pushing them to act capriciously. Moreover, these individuals, with their sterling performances, boost the reputation of the country at the international level, highlighting youthfulness and its caring approach towards its populace, making them deserving candidates for being pardoned for their approach in all domains. 

Nevertheless, the perfection and adroitness displayed by sports personnel does not, in any way, imply that their erratic attitude, on professional or on personal fronts,  can be condoned; they are prominent public figures, enthusiastically idolized by millions of their countrymen, especially the youth, and their unacceptable demeanour can send a wrong signal, prompting  similar responses from society. 

Similarly, affording such latitude to anyone it will have severe ramifications for team discipline as well as the reputation of the sports, upsetting several keen/ avid followers of that game. That was the only reason why the celebrated cricketer, and the captain of South African team, Hansie Cronje, was banned for life from cricket, after  he was charged for match fixing: it was done to set a benchmark for future and assert that no such approach would be forgiven.

In hindsight, this recommendation lacks substance, and is likely to produce unwarranted outcomes. Undisciplined conduct, even if by successful sports professionals cannot be accepted as this will adversely impact social environment and other teammates, or counterparts: these noted figures must exhibit civility and noble behaviour. 

Many people who are born in rural areas move to big cities when they grow older. Do you think this is a positive or a negative development? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Many people who are born in rural areas move to big cities when they grow older. Do you think this is a positive or a negative development? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

In modern times, migration of people from rural to urban areas has become a common phenomenon. This leads to the development of society, but on the same page it has negative consequences, making it imperative to analyze whether it is favorable or unfavorable. 

Young ruralites by migrating get a chance to explore opportunities available in urban areas which can help them to get employment and sustain a good lifestyle. They can obtain chances to fully utilize their potential which they cannot do in their home towns, owing to lack of opportunities, and foster better skills, in their desired areas of specialization. This can help them gain better paid jobs and improve their lifestyles. 

However, it may have a negative impact on the lifestyle of people originally belonging to urban areas, as the immense influx makes city areas overpopulated and residential areas congested. To exemplify, people from rural areas shift to urban areas, but end up being jobless, worsening their situation: they are compelled to live in slums and face hardships.   

Furthermore, they come to urban areas leaving their hometowns which make those places vulnerable as they are left with no young able-bodied people to take up occupations related to agriculture, and so forth it is likely to hinder the development of the farming industry. For instance, the countryside in many countries is facing a steep shortage of workers to engage in agricultural activities, and as a result, they are forced to bring migrants from other parts of countries, which is making farming an expensive activity, and reducing profitability.

In conclusion, this frequent influx of ruralites in urban areas, has more of a negative impact. This recurring phenomenon is diminishing the quality of lifestyle of people and is affecting society at a larger level.

When asked to choose between a life without work and working most of the time, people would always choose not to work. Do you agree or disagree?

When asked to choose between a life without work and working most of the time, people would always choose not to work. Do you agree or disagree?

It is generally perceived that if offered an opportunity, a majority will prefer surviving without engaging in any kind of occupational undertakings. However, this notion is quite misplaced and not founded on facts, I shall elucidate this in the following paragraphs.

Some assume that many like to live freely, and do not want themselves to be bound by the constraints of employment. They find it better to be surrounded by their families at home, and this provides them an immense level of contentment. In addition, some individuals find it difficult to do hard work and proceed to lead a prosaic/ mundane lifestyle.

However, this notion is denied by significant numbers, majorly by those feeling life cannot be spent in vain without achieving any goal. Further, some people have a faith that they cannot waste their valuable time being lethargic, and thus, they like to go to workplaces and spend their time in a productive way. 

Similarly, many are inclined to choose to engage in professional endeavors to ensure their and the survival of their families, like fulfill basic needs, including food, shelter and clothing, and advanced requirements such as education and healthcare, apart from ensuring their and the future of their upcoming generation: investing into creating buffer for higher education and  post-retirement life. For example, as per studies a majority of the global populace cannot think of sitting idle; they must earn to make their ends meet, and also create resources to afford comforts for their kin.  

In conclusion, I would disagree with the statement as a work free lifestyle may not be opted by many, and the reasons for it are quite evident. A life with work feels more satisfactory and productive, and often is the only solution for survival for many.  

We can get knowledge from news, but some people think we can’t trust the journalist. Discuss and give your opinion. What do you think are the important qualities that a journalist should have?

We can get knowledge from news, but some people think we can’t trust the journalist. Discuss and give your opinion. What do you think are the important qualities that a journalist should have?

Yes  

• There have been cases, although rare, infrequent, sporadic which have cast a doubt on the sanctity of this profession. Some people are stimulated by commercial compulsions: viewership and readership ratings 
• Political correctness has also had a corrupting influence on them. They are driven by the majority opinion. They avoid derision and indignation of the masses and their fraternity 
• influence of elite and powerful who reward them for the

No 

• Barring a few, most are devoted to this noble task, they never let any kind of inducement interfere with their professional objectives. 
• They risk not on their but also the lives of their family members 
• They are non-judgemental and present news as it is. 

Qualities 

• Unbiased, impartial 
• Non-judgemental 
• Empathetic - must practice self censure to avoid presenting news  in such way that could cause social discord 
• Fear less 
• Incorruptible 
• Good communicator 
• Having knowledge of the subject, they are presenting reports about  

Although many question the credibility of contemporary journalists, this notion is misplaced. I feel  that excluding exceptions, most professionals in this domain strictly adhere to the fundamental tenets of their occupation, and exercise fairness.

The  apprehension casting doubts on the integrity of correspondents is their craving for gaining visibility together with prosperity quickly. This persuades them to compromise with their principles and resort to either leaning towards political correctness, or distorting the information to create sensation and gain popularity. For instance, some reporters, especially the ones covering ‘the Gulf War’ were blamed for being highly biased, and presenting lopsided details despite knowing that the majority of their audience is  already well-informed about the causes and circumstances of the conflict.

Nevertheless, although the concerns highlighted are not unfounded, such reporters are anomalies; an overwhelming majority remain devoted to their professions, and practice transparency. They always quote all possible angles of an event, and present the news as it is without being judgemental. To exemplify, the award-winning press woman, Ms. Kassa was praised highly for investigative journalism in the famine plagued Ethiopia.   

To be considered reliable, news professionals must be incorruptible, fearless, and defiant of  the compulsions - greed for money, and influence of the powerful - that coax them to go astray, and instead comply with the ethics of their trade. To corroborate, it  is easy to find dedicated media men, and women, worldover hopping jobs frequently simply because they refuse to yield to the owners of media houses, or the temptations to amass wealth.

To reiterate, notwithstanding the unscrupulous minority, a majority engaged in journalism remain committed to their work by upholding unbiased character, and demonstrating ethical behaviour. They remain insulated from all kinds of personal and professional influences, and never deviate from their path.  

Young drivers are careless and overconfident, and too many are killed in accidents. To eliminate this problem, we could teach children the skills of safe driving while they are at school. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Young drivers are careless and overconfident, and too many are killed in accidents. To eliminate this problem, we could teach children the skills of safe driving while they are at school. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Nowadays, fatal road mishaps, involving young individuals, are witnessing a surge, so many opine that to eliminate this problem, schools must train youngsters about appropriate driving, but how far this proposal can be deemed acceptable, is a matter that needs a profound scrutiny  

A school of thought backs this idea by citing the obligation of schooling: to foster and polish the overall personality of young individuals, and since using roads safely as motorists forms an integral part of the persona of lawful citizens, it is pertinent to inculcate this education in classrooms. Further, schools have an appropriate learning environment for better grooming as learners can effortlessly absorb the new skills with their peers, and also retain it enduringly, as it has been seen in several other areas of learning. 

However,  many assert that the basic objective of the formal tuition is affording the strong foundation of academics, and this topic will only cause distraction and disruption: everyone will only want to learn this, instead of other more essential but complicated domains. Moreover, this will precipitate chaos by persuading young minds to  commit misdemeanors, as was observed in the Hisar road accident case in India, wherein the driver was just sixteen years old, who learned some fundamentals about road use while sitting behind the wheel, and he ended up trying dangerous stunts on a bridge to flaunt his abilities in front of his peers, resulting in his death by falling off the 100 ft bridge.

In hindsight, I strongly believe that driving should not be a part of the formal curriculum; it is something that develops with maturity, and can be learned from the certified institutions. Therefore, it would be better for the sake of society to keep this subject out of bounds for juveniles. 

A government’s role is only to provide defense capability and urban infrastructure (road, water supplies…). All other services (education, health, social security) should be provided by private groups or individuals in the community. To what extent do you agree or disagree.

A government’s role is only to provide defense capability and urban infrastructure (road, water supplies…). All other services (education, health, social security) should be provided by private groups or individuals in the community. To what extent do you agree or disagree.

Many have started suggesting that the role of contemporary regimes should be confined to administering defence and other infrastructural facilities, while the rest such as education should be made the responsibility of the privately-run enterprise. Although this proposal seems feasible on many grounds, I feel executing this completely could prove to be a recipe for disaster.

Privately-owned undertakings focus on optimal utilization with no, or a minimal wastage, allowing efficient operations unlike state-supported initiatives. It is felt that this would help preserve invaluable resources majorly contributed by taxpayers, and also ease the burden of policy makers who would be able to focus on strategic sectors that do not make profits, but are critical for the smooth functioning of society and its security. For example, the USA follows this model, wherein its lawmakers detach themselves from this task and allow commercial enterprises to take the onus of educating and taking care of the health of citizens. This has resulted in efficient collaboration between the government and citizens.

However, despite promising efficiency, this arrangement could precipitate chaos. Undeniably, the primary objective of every business is earning profits, and thus, even though they might usher in innovation, as they have done in the domain of education and healthcare where they have introduced the state-of-the-art equipments and methods, the prices they charge for the services extended are exceedingly exorbitant, taking them out of the reach of a sizable percentage of middle income groups, and all of those who are marginalized, and cannot survive without subsidized interventions.

To recap, I cannot completely concur with these proposed settings, for it will create disparity in society, and widen the gap between the affluent and the impoverished. Thus if such a policy is adopted, lawmakers should keep certain sectors out of its ambit. 

Some people think that when recruiting, companies should aim to take on people who are innovative and able to work independently while others consider they should recruit people who are able to work in a team and follow instructions.

Some people think that when recruiting, companies should aim to take on people who are innovative and able to work independently, while others consider they should recruit people who are able to work in a team and follow instructions.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.

In the current scenario of cut-throat business environment, a great variation in selection strategies of job aspirants is being observed: some profess shortlisting those who are resourceful and can operate autonomously, others lean in the favor of those adapted to functioning in coordination with others.  

Generally, the Industries such as pharma, drone Manufacturing, Food, IT, and so on,  which are hardcore research and development oriented, and require to preserve their intellectual property rights, seek personnel, capable of thinking out of the box and execute their knowledge without needing external intervention, so that they can run independent profit earning centers. Additionally, professional firms engaged in the business of rendering services of legal, financial, secretarial and other need-based advisory, usually prefer to have employees with in-depth knowledge and capability to deploy their genius without needing directions, so that the process of extending suggestions can be shortened.  

However, there are sectors that require large manpower such as security, project operations, and mining, among others, with well-defined hierarchy, and rely heavily on coordination between disparate organizational components to function flawlessly: these businesses can only function if their work environment engenders a harmony between actions of various workers, levels and departments, otherwise a chaos could descend and conflicts could precipitate, hampering the productivity. Such sectors can only flourish if they are populated by individuals prone to synchronization with their colleagues. Therefore, human resource departments of such entities only shortlist those candidates who express their willingness to engage in endeavors as team players.   

In conclusion, it can be said that the choice of personnel: high fliers,  or team players, overwhelmingly depends on the organizational structure and nature of business, and the hiring policies are adapted as per those expectations and future projections. 

 

Nowadays cultures around the world are becoming more and more similar, as compared to the past. What are the reasons for this? Is this a positive or a negative development?

Nowadays cultures around the world are becoming more and more similar, as compared to the past. What are the reasons for this? Is this a positive or a negative development?

In contemporary times, it has been observed that “one identity, one culture” has gained acceptance across the world. This  is driven by several factors and can impact people and countries both favorably and unfavorably.

Educational institutions are guiding youngsters towards globalization, and the contemporary generation is also focussed on self awareness and so does not want to be restricted by socio-cultural boundaries. They consider all cultures, religion and tribal factors  as obsolete, and wish to transcend all barriers and doing whatever they like has become a trend unlike the past, where people cared for their ancestral socio-cultural obligations and cast based barriers.

Experts consider this a positive approach, as this mindset brings a positive attribute on the society, which lets people live like a global citizen and avoid being stuck in the regional and ethnic constraints. In addition, this phenomenon is bringing peace and harmony amongst people of diverse cultures. This positive change has also carved the way to find mechanisms to eliminate the enduring challenges such as bias based on race, creed and socio-cultural backgrounds, helping build a better and cohesive global society. 

However, some fear that this approach might cause the demise of several cultures; with the universal aspirations  gaining acceptability, people, especially the youth might end up forgetting their native identity and history. This could mean a great loss not only a society but also the world as the traditions, rituals and local knowledge associated with the disappearing culture might also be lost forever

In hindsight, disputes aside, although the modern aspirations that lean towards a uniform global way of life do present a challenge for weaker societies, these impediments can be surmounted provided the concerned governments and communities act prudently, and endeavor to preserve their home-grown beliefs. 

In many countries, coffee chains are expanding rapidly, which some claim threatens the survival of small local cafés.To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In many countries, coffee chains are expanding rapidly, which some claim threatens the survival of small local cafés.To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The growing ubiquity of giant coffee house brands  has propounded the notion that these are forcing their local competition to close. However, some do not concur with this, making it imperative to analyse this matter critically before delivering a justified conclusion.

To begin with, established cafes have a comfortable ambience along with facilities  allowing people to sit there, and spend their time lair time, as well as do their work there. For instance, in Canada Tim Hortons having more than 4000 outlets at several locations allow students to work there for hours without any disturbance. This has made them immensely popular among their customers and overtake their smaller competitors.

In addition, big coffee brands make huge investments and they are following the concept of aggressively promoting their brands. Besides advertising, they offer uniform taste and prices, which compel people to choose their brand over others. For instance, Starbucks, whether located in India or Dubai, would offer the same aroma and tastes of coffee. 

However, some people believe that authentic tastes that small cafes offer cannot be matched by big cafe houses. Moreover, the flexibility in their location attracts customers, they are located in unique environments and atmosphere which make people avail their services. For instance, small cafes comfortably placed in various parts of Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Delhi, and so forth,  tend to offer genuine local flavors which can never be replicated by big coffee brands. These factors allow them to survive in the face of stiff competition from global brands.

In conclusion, I partially subscribe to this notion. Even though global brands have established themselves firmly everywhere, the genuineness offered by the small cafes are allowing them to endure the stiff competition successfully, and survive.