As reading is important for good education, we should encourage children to read whatever appeals to them. Do you agree or disagree?

 As reading is important for good education, we should encourage children to read whatever appeals to them. Do you agree or disagree?

Yes? 

- The paramount task is to foster reading habits among youngsters,

selection and guidance can come later. 
- If young individuals are compelled into reading what their parents or
teachers want them to, by virtue of being rebellious, they will
stop reading with interest, turning the whole exercise futile
No 

• • Children are immature and may wander off into the wrong direction, end up reading something that is too mature for them, making them vulnerable to content that may contain violence or porn. 

  • With a humongous amount of information available on every subject today, because of availability of various resources, there is a good chance that young minds may get inundated with information, confusing them: guided reading is suggested.

    

Reading is considered to be a crucial exercise for gaining academic excellence, but should youngsters be afforded liberty to access the material that fascinates them is an intriguing question.

A school of thought professes that the youngsters should be allowed to access the content that they find intriguing: the most paramount task is fostering an inclination among them towards reading, and it can only be done if the little ones are rendered with enough liberty. It has been seen that when children start turning pages of books, magazines and comics to name a few, they develop a close connection with the colorful content that they can associate easily with or at least appreciate. This raises curiosity among them to also read what is printed along; eventually, inculcating a habit to read. 

Having said that, the former suggestion may hold some substance, but in contemporary times, offering such liberty can lead to unwarranted consequences, making it unacceptable. By virtue of these young individuals being naive enough to decide between what is right or wrong for them, there is good chance of them going astray, and in the process, accessing something that is either too complex for their tender minds - far beyond their ability to comprehend the things - that could confuse them, or mature content - freely available on the internet in various manifestations such as one containing violence and indecent behavior - that could distort their personalities. This makes it imperative to monitor what youngsters read today.

In hindsight, it is hard to concur with this suggestion: this practice, especially in the concurrent times, can expose youngsters to unwarranted consequences and also cause problems for mothers and fathers. Inexperienced minds are incapable of deciding what is suitable for them. Hence, extreme caution is recommended.  

Some people say history is one of the most important school subject. Other people think that ,in today's world, subjects like science and technology are more important than history. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

 Some people say history is one of the most important school subject. Other people think that ,in today's world, subjects like science and technology are more important than history. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. 

 

A tug of war has ensued between a diverse section of educationalists to decide which subject holds greater relevance for young learners. While a school of thought professes that history should be priority in the formal tuition, others argue that science and technology holds greater significance.

The lobby backing history strongly puts forward its opinion asserting that studying about the past is of critical importance for the young generation, for this can expose them to how life and civilization evolve on this planet; how ancestors settled in the form of communities;  how they gave rise to fundamental technologies, basic skills and language. This subject can also inform about  changes in the environment and climatic shifts over the eons/age. Cumulatively, this can help the upcoming generation in not only perpetuating the knowledge transfer by the past generations but also find solutions to the current challenges facing the world today. Apart from that this domain can also act as a rich source of wisdom and important lessons for life.

Having said that, those rallying behind the notion of science and technology being more relevant today than history point out that the need of the hour in the current paradigm is to brace oneself up for the future as the advent of modern methods and techniques has necessitated/entailed productive engagement of youngster with concepts of science and technology. This will help them apply sophisticated techniques in diverse realms of life as well as obtain suitable employment, allowing them to earn livelihood and survive comfortably.

In hindsight, after assessing both the views, it can be clearly said that drawing parallels between both the subjects is quite a ludicrous idea as both subjects serve different purposes and target diverse areas of personality. Therefore, both domains are essential for pupils.

Many people believe that physical appearance and clothing of famous personalities is given more importance. What is your opinion?

Many people believe that physical appearance and clothing of famous personalities is given more importance. What is your opinion?

It is a million dollar question when it comes to assessing what is more significant for a key public figure, it is quite effortless to pass the credit to their looks and dressing sense for their fame; however, this certainly is a notion worthy of being challenged. 

It is generally perceived that, despite this view hinging onto a precarious logic, celebrities in various fields - especially those engaged in film, theater, modelling - are able to gross more and more work due to their appearance and their way of dressing up. Their immaculate personality lures paparazzi into pursuing them rigorously, making them talk of the town and then ubiquitous. There have been instances where many public idols have been able to grab offers to work in advertisements and promotions due to their photogenic faces and perfect dressing up. 

Nevertheless, the notion lacks substance, if the things are analyzed closely and deeply. One cannot discount the fact that common individuals obtain bigger than life status through their hard work and unswerving determination: be it in any field, sports, movies, art or even journalism. One, as it is said, touches the pinnacle if they are unperturbed by the challenges they face, and are prepared to brave the hardships.     

Moreover, one rules the fascination of masses because of not their facades of looks and clothes  but due to their interaction with society. Those engaging in a meaningful dialogue and relationship with their surroundings: indulging in altruistic work and something that benefits society, are considered to be more  deserving by people: followers and critics alike.  

Overall, I find this notion quite ludicrous, gaining popularity among masses just by virtue of clothes and appearance is short-lived, what one must consider to remain in the limelight is the never say die spirit and continuous enthusiasm. 

Environmental problems such as pollution and climate change affect all the people in the world. Although global decisions are made to reduce these problems, the solutions are not effective. Why are the solutions ineffective? How can these problems be solved?

Environmental problems such as pollution and climate change affect all the people in the world. Although global decisions are made to reduce these problems, the solutions are not effective. Why are the solutions ineffective? How can these problems be solved? 

 

Undeniably, environmental issues such as global warming are affecting every country adversely. However, even though multiple decisions are made at transnational level, it is not showing much difference.  

 

Multiple reasons can be attributed to impediments presented in implementation of solutions for alleviating/mitigating the problems facing the planet include non-implementation of policies. For example, littering on the land, and in water bodies, has still not been banned and there is still no fine on it in many countries, thereby letting the problems persist. Also, several governments have not yet made it mandatory for car manufacturers to produce vehicles complying  with the latest pollution norms. There is a fear that implementing such a policy might impede growth, by forcing manufacturers out of business by virtue of them not having appropriate resources to implement such conventions.  

 

Similarly, there is gross mistrust among elite and  impoverished nations because the latter allege that such rules are being enforced upon them to present hurdles in the way of their development. To add to the woes, the ever rising population has also forced regimes of various countries, especially the underdeveloped countries, to shift their focus to rendering facilities to their citizens, which makes the reforms take a back seat.     

 

To resolve this imbroglio, the UNO and governments should make rules that should be applicable to all and should be strictly followed. Each country should carry out audits in every city to make sure that rules are being followed strictly.  Additionally, prosperous nations should share technology and expertise with the poor ones to let the global environmental laws be enacted effectively. 

 

Overall, the apathy towards environmental norms is quite conspicuous and driven by mistrust and local priorities. Nevertheless, the global community must take requisite prudent steps  in haste to avert any catastrophe.

Music is appreciated in every major society and culture of the world today. Sone people believe that music is to be shared. Others, however, believe that music belongs to those who make it and should only be shared with their authorisation.

 

Music is appreciated in every major society and culture of the world today. Sone people believe that music is to be shared. Others, however, believe that music belongs to those who make it and should only be shared with their authorization.    

  

Why free access 

• Music is collective property with no one having proprietary rights, and inspires composers
• Allowing free access can fetch visibility to people 

Why not

• This could discourage creators of music 
• Creators enjoy the privilege of decision of to share or not to      

Music, in all its manifestations,  has always fascinated humans, but should it be rendered freely to all, or  should the composers enjoy the right to share it, is a matter deeply debated. 

There is a strong argument in favor of making this form of art available to everyone without  any restriction, which banks upon the fact that music is deeply entwined with the culture and  tradition it represents; thus, no one enjoys  a proprietary claim over it. When even the best of composers draw  inspiration from the  native genres of this art form and churn out melodious notes, why should it not be accessed by all without worrying about permissions to enjoy it. 

Another  perspective that looks at the positive  side of permitting free access to musical compositions. This can help creators gain visibility among the listeners, fetching them not  only work but also aiding in survival in the times when, every  day, new musicians  are surfacing on the horizon. Keeping creations obscure will be of little assistance,  and  will be forgotten by those,  who pay to listen because of fresh work being made public every day.    

Nevertheless, the critical opinion on this issue favors the practice of creators reserving the privilege of rendering free public access to their work. They have every right to enjoy the exploits of the investment  of their creativity and efforts,  in terms of monetary gains, and no one should object to this since musical  notes are  just another form of artistic work, like paintings and  sculpture, which sell for money.     

Overall, it may seem to some that discretion of sharing music should rest on the creators, I, nonetheless, feel that this art form should be allowed a free access by all: it will bring rich yields for producers.  

It is a natural process for animal species to become extinct (e.g. dinosaurs, dodos, etc.). There is no reason why people should try to prevent this from happening.

 It is a natural process for animal species to become extinct (e.g. dinosaurs, dodos, etc.). There is no reason why people should try to prevent this from happening.

Do you agree or disagree?

The great public discourse of contemporary times is aligned with the matter of preserving animals as many suggest that the permanent disappearance of these creatures is influenced by forces of nature. However, several sections vehemently protest against this opinion. 

Those rallying behind this notion propose that in the past, a myriad of species have appeared and vanished from this planet: they were not able to adapt to the evolving environment that brought about climatic shifts, transformation in habitats and availability of food. Even today, a similar phenomenon is being experienced, and thus,  mankind does not need to expend its efforts and squander its resources on a futile exercise.

Nonetheless,  humans must undertake this endeavor: it is strongly asserted the historical events may have been driven by alterations in the surroundings, but the current events of animal extinction are perpetrated by humans. The insatiable hunger for development and prosperity has led to rampant deforestation. Large swathes of land are being cleared of greenery to make way for agriculture, industry and dwelling areas, robbing wild fauna of their habitat and food, and causing them to die out. 

Similarly, humans cannot escape the responsibility of protecting animal species as it is their endeavors such as poaching of exotic fauna that is leading to catastrophic outcomes. For instance, it has been reported that elephants, white and black rhino, blue whales, tigers and lions, to name a few, are on the brink of vanishing permanently from the face of the earth due to mindless hunting of these creatures for their body parts and other material.

Overall, the given belief lacks substance as it is the society that has caused this disaster, and therefore, the onus lies on it to do whatever possible to conserve various animal species. 

Weddings are getting bigger and more expensive. What is the reason for this? Is it a positive or negative development?

 WEDDINGS ARE GETTING BIGGER AND MORE EXPENSIVE. WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THIS?

IS IT A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE DEVELOPMENT?

 

 

Nowadays, weddings have become a status symbol, turning them into an extravagant affair. This growing propensity can be attributed to several causes, but it does have favorable and unfavorable effects on people. 

The primary motivation promoting this extravagance lies in many considering marriages to be a once in a lifetime event. Umpteen numbers, especially parents consider this as an opportunity to celebrate such rare occurrences with all the fanfare, and with the nuclear families becoming ubiquitous, the number of children per family have shrunk, turning tying nuptials into a rare occasion. This persuades the populace to go in for lavish marriage events. As per them, this helps create memorable moments that will become a part of nostalgia later, something to be relished by all in the family alike.    

Nevertheless, this evolution is surely not something one can term as laden with benefits. It has been observed that people tend to spend their entire savings, or even take loans for making weddings more lavish. This can have a long lasting impact on their future as many times it becomes an uphill task to repay the debt, leading families into a vicious cycle of financial crisis.

To corroborate, this can be supported by citing the outcomes of studies carried out by eminent social theorists from across the world that have revealed that a major cause of bad credit standings owes to lendings for marriages that are hard to repay back. Many have been found sacrificing their other essential necessities to surmount the problems stemming from such spending.  

Overall, big fat marriage events do look an attractive idea, but the aftermath of undertaking such endeavors can cause an undue stress of financial credentials and eventually affect the quality of life. Thus, I feel it is an unfavorable trend.   

Educating young people is naturally important. However, some think governments ought to invest more in education for adults in need. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 Educating young people is naturally important. However, some think governments ought to invest more in education for adults in need. 

To what extent do you agree or disagree? 

 

Education plays a major role in society for all age groups, but of late, some have been proposing prioritizing educating disadvantaged grown-ups rather than youngsters. This statement can, however, be challenged on various grounds.  

It is important to invest into spreading illiteracy among adults. This could help them to attain their diverse objectives, and assist them in improving their earnings. It has been observed that a colossal ratio of the adult population, especially in poor countries, is either lacking education or does not possess skills that can fetch their money to make their ends meet, forcing them to survive in extremely poor conditions. This can have a long lasting impact on society as poor economic conditions could push these people to either depend on government support, raising public expenditure astronomically, or compel their young ones to engage in child labor. Thus, laying emphasis on providing them with education would aid them in getting their children and also contributing to the economy of the country. 

Having said that, there is skepticism about this proposal. It is believed that even though educating adults is important, juvenile education cannot be demoted to a lower pedestal. Youngsters are the future of society and preparing them to be literate holds paramount importance: it will create a future potential for effective participation in economic activities in various strategic economic sectors, and also create room for innovation, besides facilitating capability to face and surmount challenges arising in the future.

In hindsight, I fail to  concur completely with this suggestion since, although it is necessary to spread literacy among the adult citizens, educating children cannot take a back seat; it will surely hamper the future prospects of progress. Thus, equal priorities to both categories should be allotted.

Most people spend major part of adult life at the work, in which case job satisfaction is an important element of individual well being. What factors contribute to job satisfaction? How realistic is the expectation of job satisfaction for all workers? Discuss and give your views. Write no at least 250 words.

Most people spend major part of adult life at the work, in which case job satisfaction is an important element of individual well being. What factors contribute to job satisfaction? How realistic is the expectation of job satisfaction for all workers? Discuss and give your views. Write no at least 250 words.

Factors that influence Job Satisfaction

- Monetary Benefits: let people participate in family with more money

- Non-monetary inducements: Fuels a sense of belongingness

Unrealistic approach as alleged

- Any new additions tend to become obsolete very soon, and expectations rise

- Everyone is not moved by similar stimulants, making contentment an elusive element

Nowadays, when a majority of grown-ups tend to spend most of their day at work, it becomes imperative to ensure that they are happy with their employment. These are several factors that contribute to such stage of mind, but it remains to be seen weather this phenomenon holds any relevance, or not. 

The most prominent component that contributes to contentment at work  are monetary benefits. Appropriate salary as per the rank and work, timely and productivity linked incentives, to name a few, are some of the examples of financial inducement  that can make personnel feel happy with their jobs . It is undeniable that one takes up employment for the sake of livelihood, and additional or satisfactory earnings can help them participate in their family with more money. 

Moreover, there are certain elements that also have a greater role in making people satisfied with their work. Stimulation such as work as per skills, qualification, promotions, free health care support and education for their children, free annual trips , a comfortable environment, and so on, can make workers feel belonged to the organization and fetch unparalleled pleasure.  

However, the critics to this notion feel that this concept is no more than a hoax, something that is elusive, since the expectations of humans keep rising with new addition to earning or facilities. The old sops offers became obsolete, and employees back asking for more and more that in turn, fuels discontent. Moreover, everyone is not driven by similar stimulants. For instance for some money is on the top of the list, while for others, acknowledgement and more affiliation are a priority.    

To conclude , despite doubts been raised by certain section about the validity of the term contentment at work. I strongly feel that happiness with work is tangible factor which can affect the productivity of the work force.

Nowadays not many young people choose to work in the farming industry. Why do you think that is? How could young people be encouraged to work in this industry?

 Nowadays not many young people choose to work in the farming industry. Why do you think that is? How could young people be encouraged to work in this industry?

Reasons why the youth is disenchanted from joining agriculture 

• This occupation does not enjoy a good reputation as one engaged in this trade are regarded as unskilled 

• The income is not regular like other trades and is also exposed to various risks 

• No one wants to indulge in an activity that is physically demanding and needs one to spend days and nights guardian crops 

What are the ways to surmount this challenge 

• Governments should classify farming as a skilled activity and educate youngsters about using modern methods that need little physical efforts 

• Extend monthly financial support, in the form of stipend

• Offer insurance against any kind of  loss of crop 

Agriculture today is not as popular among youth as it was in the past. The roots of this problem lie in various causes. However, a little careful and prudent planning can transform the situation. 

The  primary motivation behind youngsters abandoning this field is the lack of respect for those engaged in farming. Traditionally, this trade is regarded as a domain where no skill and specialization are required, and thus, the ones working as farmers are considered to be unskilled, which is deemed as disparaging by the current generation. They do not want to be seen engaging in something that hampers their reputation. To add to that, a little education makes them harbor, and prioritize, professional dreams that guarantee them a regular income as against the irregular one that they earn by growing crops, making the latter unpopular with them. 

To corroborate, a study, conducted by eminent economist and social theorist Dr. Harmeet Singh from Toronto University, revealed that most young ruralites, who had completed their matriculation, wanted to go ahead and obtain technical skills to join manufacturing, or tertiary sector, so that they would be respected by their friends and relatives and also receive a regular salary. 

The situation can be turned around provided the state intervenes and acts pragmatically. Classifying agriculture as a skilled occupation; educating youngsters about applying scientific methods in farming; and extending stipend, or some kind of payout on a monthly basis, are some methods that can help persuade the current generation to till the land again. But, it is only governments that can arrange such facilities. 

Overall, the disenchantment among youth with this occupation is quite justified since they deserve a better deal in the concurrent times. Therefore, the state needs to install policies to make agriculture popular again. 

The Wealth of the UAE has historically come from the Oil Deposits in Abu Dhabi (The Capital of UAE). If Abu Dhabi runs out of Oil, the UAE economy will collapse. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The Wealth of the UAE has historically come from the Oil Deposits in Abu Dhabi (The Capital of UAE). If Abu Dhabi runs out of Oil, the UAE economy will collapse. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

One wonders what would happen if the UAE taps last of its oil – a traditional source of prosperity. Even though some doomsayers predict catastrophic outcomes, the chances seem far less that one would expect. 

The probability of the collapse of the economy of the UAE is remote.  The regime has woken up to the reality of life without crude; thus, they have decided to divert into other profitable venues of capital generation that would lead to a stable economy. Abu Dhabi and Dubai are being promoted as industrial hubs, proving to be a prudent move as major global giants companies have shown their interest and started transferring their operations into this Middle East nation. This has boosted employment as they have started hiring locals, bolstering the job market tremendously. 

Furthermore, tourism is another sector that has grown exponentially and is expected to become a multi-trillion dollars industry over the next two decades. These two domains cumulatively will be able to match the earnings of oil extraction, ruling out the possibility of this economy being shattered once the oil is exhausted. 

However, despite holding little substance, the view of an imminent collapse being propagated is based on certain unproven assumptions that propose that, up to now, whatever has been earned by drilling and selling crude will be lost, by virtue of this country not focusing on any other sector. Other businesses established are simply ancillary to oil industry. Nevertheless, these speculations will hardly prevail once the diversified economy of this Arab country starts to churn out colossal economic performance.      

Overall, after assessing the statement in detail,  I strongly feel that the  economy of the this nation will endure and instead prosper by being driven by other upcoming sectors, and all the forecasts will fall flat.

Many researchers show that overeating can have negative effects and people believe that advertising of certain foods should be banned, in the same way that some countries banned advertising of cigarettes. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this.

 

Many researchers show that overeating can have negative effects and people believe that advertising of certain foods should be banned, in the same way that some countries banned advertising of cigarettes. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this.

The great public discourse of the contemporary times is aligned with a topical issue whether ads featuring certain edible items be prohibited in a similar manner as those promoting tobacco products, or not, since indulging in an overconsumption is detrimental to health just like smoking. There are views that are in favor and against this notion.

To start with, forbidding advertisements of food seems quite relevant to some health experts. They suggest that humans have a natural tendency to be tempted by scrumptious looking food, and most of the adverts are made in such a way that the dishes presented look mouth-watering and delectable, and fuel a desire in the viewers to buy and consume the promoted products, most of which are junk food and can cause serious health issues if taken in large quantities. The objective of publicity campaigns is generally to raise the sales of the publicized goods, and in the case of food such a goal can be met only if consumers are pushed into having more and more of items being advertised. 

However, the other lobby is not convinced with the former opinion; they suggest that imposing a prohibition on publicity of edible goods is unlikely to help, and thus not required. Over consumption is generally linked to/ associated with the individual habits that push one into eating in moderation, or binge-eating, and advertising has got little role to play in this. Those interested in satisfying their taste buds and their craving for eating like a horse will be able to find their desired food even without commercials. 

Overall, I completely dissent with the statement since  overindulgence with food is not due to advertisements, but because of personal likes and dislikes. Therefore, forbidding food promotions will be an unnecessary step.

Some believe that nuclear weapons benefit the world at large. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 Some believe that nuclear weapons benefit the world at large. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 

How are nuclear weapons benefiting the world?  

• The stocks of these weapons have acted as effective deterrents against wars 

• Keeping countries safe from aggression of enemy states 

Why not? 

• Any accidental use could cause havoc  

• If these fall in

  
  
  wrong hands such as terrorists, the humanity will face a serious jeopardy 
  

Atomic weaponry, undoubtedly, has been a remarkable feat of mankind but has also become a highly controversial topic as some praise it for the advantages  it offers, while the others  are wary of its darker side and suggest a vigilance.     

These  weapons have emerged as a formidable tool of deterring full scale wars between enemy states as the possession of such type of armaments dissuades foes from initiating a large-scale altercation - since this might provoke either of the nuclear states to use these weapons, resulting in widespread destruction - and persuades them to resort to bilateral and multilateral negotiations to resolve differences and disputes. 

History has been the witness to this non-aggressive stance of various nations, or  rather alliances they have adopted after the invention of this weapon technology between 1945 and 1949.  Prior to this, the world had been engaged in a perennial tussle to gain control over the resources and land area, and had experienced two great wars within a span of 30 years. However, since the time major global players have armed themselves with atomic ammunition, they have not dared to pursue aggression as a policy.

Nevertheless, it would be too naive to overlook the grave danger the stockpiles  of these instruments pose to every form of life on this planet. An umpteen number of people are seen expressing a fear that accidental detonation could result in millions of casualties as observed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and turn the affected region into an uninhabitable area because of radioactivity. 

Overall,  I completely agree with this statement as this technology has acted as an insurance against the war and has helped evade any major conflicts across the globe post second world war. A little careful policy can assist in overcoming any possible hazards.  

Every country has poor people. Every country has different ways of dealing with the poor. What are some of the reasons for world poverty? What can we do to help the poor?

 Every country has poor people. Every country has different ways of dealing with the poor. What are some of the reasons for world poverty? What can we do to help the poor?

Undeniably, impoverishment is a burning issue,  and every country embraces different methods to alleviate this social malady. In this essay, I will assess the main reasons behind this, and suggest some ways surmont this challenge.

To commence with, the primary reason behind destitution lies in history. The indiscriminate milking of resources of poverty-stricken countries by the imperialistic powers has caused a perennial dearth of wealth of all kinds, making it hard for the regimes to generate resources and avenues for development. Besides this, the things are exacerbated by corruption because higher authorities are the ruling parties who tend to abuse their powers and siphon off public money, leaving the poor high and dry and perpetuating the vicious circle of the poor economic conditions.   In addition to the above, another reason is the tremendous growth in population, forcing governments to divert invaluable money from critical areas to serving the rising populace, creating an absence of facilities like education and employment venues, causing illiteracy and joblessness, and keeping the people impoverished.  

However, the above problems can be mitigated, if the government becomes more transparent with the issues and works upon the required areas. Such as, by establishing educational infrastructure and employment venues, to eliminate illiteracy and create employment. This will help generate employable skills and also absorb those, resulting in better incomes. Moreover, developed countries should come forward and provide aid to the poor nations by investing in the various critical sectors, to alleviate the living conditions of the inhabitants of such countries.   

To conclude, destitution is a pressing problem that has inflicted misery on a  major part of society. It is thus imperative for governments and the international community to invest concerted efforts to mitigate this pressing issue.

The developments in technology allow more and more machines to be used rather than human employees. Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?

The developments in technology allow more and more machines to be used rather than human employees. Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?

Do the benefits of machines replacing humans outshine its drawbacks.

Benefits

·         More machines means

• o   Faster work process  
• o   Affords precision
• o   Making work economical
• o   Lesser conflicts at work.

Drawbacks

• Raising unemployment
• Loss of skills
• Cause of ecological destructions

 

Modern innovations has heralded the age of automation, superseding human efforts in almost every professional realm. This evolution has been extolled by many who feel this has rendered speed, precision and safety to the work environment, but it has also irked others who fear that this phenomenon is making people bereft of jobs and skills.

The progress registered in the field of technology has made it possible for human efforts to be replaced by mechanised processes. Many have hailed this evolution as the one that is laden with myriad benefits, but some fear this is going to open the pandora’s box/ to lead to several unwarranted challenges. 

The  age of machines has afforded speed to the work which is executed by use of the modern equipment. By virtue of being able to do repetitive and tedious tasks tirelessly, and without needing a break unlike their human counterparts, the mechanised workers are able to negotiate the allocated jobs in less than half the time. Furthermore, this switchover has helped eliminate errors greatly and allowed professionals in various fields, like surgeries to achieve near total accuracy.

Similarly, undeniably many owe their lives to the robots and modern equipment that helped them to evade hazards and perils posed by the dangerous nature of the work, such as underwater explorations, mining, rescuing survivors from disaster hit areas. Various apparatus specialised in doing such jobs can negotiate without harming surroundings and people.

Nevertheless, the cynicals warn about its aftermath: hordes of people have already either lost their jobs or are on the verge of losing it. It is expected that a large ratio of capable workforce will go jobless in next two decades, and will have to rely on the government support. Additionally, mankind stands at a greater risk of losing its invaluable skills of various trades which could make them vulnerable in case a catastrophe strikes and machines become unavailable.

Overall, despite having innumerable upsides, the takeover of work by machines might not have proved to be so favorable in the long run and could instead cause humongous problems. Thus I feel it is the drawbacks which exceed the benefits.

 

Some believe that younger family members should be legally responsible for supporting older family members when they become physically, mentally and financially unable to look after themselves. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

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

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Undeniably, young individuals in the family should be bound by the laws to take the onus to bolster their loved ones in their twilight years, whereas some dissent this view. I would analyze this perception profoundly and deliver a plausible verdict.

Those  in their golden years invested their whole life in earning humongous amounts to serve their wards with appropriate care, nourishments and state-of-the-art facilities: education, and even they invested their savings in the betterment of their offspring. It has been witnessed that individuals rarely look after their elders. Therefore, the law should be implemented on the populace and the younger generations should be responsible to reciprocate for all the care, and fulfill the basic requirements: medicine, food, clothes, and many more, of their elders. To corroborate, a survey carried out by Miss Ceilia proves that in India, seventy percent of the older populace are living a happy life with their family due to the law imposed by policy makers on the youngsters.

However, those skeptical of this view assert that legally binding youngsters to serve their parents in their advanced years is not a practical decision; most of the elderly individuals suffer from disparate health issues that need to be monitored by professionals: nurses, and many are burdened with such expenses because they are nor economically stable to bear the costs, and render appropriate services to their parents. Thus, the governments should take the responsibility of such individuals; they had paid colossal monetary resources in form of taxes.

In hindsight, even though both the opinions hold- true in their own virtue, the current generation should don the mantle to support their mothers and fathers in their twilight years; the latter has devoted their life to rendering services for the betterment of the former. 

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

Television has brought sports to the living rooms of households, but even so it has been blamed for ignoring the events that feature female athletes and prioritizing male events despite being backed by several plausible attributes. This has led to voices in support of blurring the differences. 

The reason for this bias is quite conspicuous: the male branch of sports has humongous fan-following that is lacking in the case of the female domain. Therefore, it is natural for the television broadcasting companies to favor the more popular events since it can help fetch colossal viewership - that is populated by both the genders - and also sumptuous profits. However, this is not possible in the events that are participated by girls. To corroborate, the outcomes of a survey by a magazine called Stern revealed that most of the media houses and sports channels aimed at tapping and covering those areas and disciplines where the chances of earnings were abundant. That is the reason why the FIFA world cup of the males  gets more airtime than the world championship of females.    

However, the demand for TV granting more showtime to female sporting events is quite warranted: this will aid in empowerment of women. It has been observed that due to the conservative attitudes of society, females are unable to earn their deserving dues, and if the onus of emancipating women is shared by television by telecasting more and more sporting events that feature women, the latter will get a chance to break their stereotype since sports provides a way to liberation. 

Overall, commercial compulsion is the fundamental foundation for the apathy of television towards women sports, but this needs to change and more time slots be allocated to this branch: it will assist in diluting gender differences. 

Nowadays, many people change jobs quite regularly, rather than working in the one company for their entire careers. Why do you think this is happening? How can companies keep their workers?

 Nowadays, many people change jobs quite regularly, rather than working in the one company for their entire careers. Why do you think this is happening? How can companies keep their workers?

Switching employment is a ubiquitous phenomenon. This can be attributed to several reasons such as seeking advancement, and thus, organizations strive to discover the mechanism that can help retain their workforce. 

The primary driver of job hopping happens to be the intent of people to seek enhancement in job satisfaction, and the ever increasing number of companies being established every day is augmenting this trend. For example,  a study carried out recently to discover the cause behind frequent job switching revealed that nearly 75% or individuals felt that they did not derive professional contentment from the work they were allocated by their former employers. It further said that this induced a disenchantment towards their obligations that finally pushed them to seek opportunities elsewhere.   

To surmount this challenge, organizations must shift their focus from simply offering financial stimulus to extending opportunities to their personnel to obtain a sense of accomplishment, addressing the psychological need to be acknowledged of the latter. As per several human theorists and human resource researchers, this can turn the work environment into more absorbing and fascinating for the workforce and let them enjoy the work they perform, and never letting a feeling of boredom set in. To corroborate,  even if the employee is paid less, but the work is more meaningful and purposeful, there are more chances for them to contribute to the productivity of their employers. This can produce a win-win situation for both the parties. In other words, companies should help their employees to gain fulfilling professional experience rather than merely bigger pay packets.

Overall, the current propensity to switch employment stems from the need to gain professional satisfaction. Therefore, in my view businesses and employment providers must afford the mental contentment to their human resource, to curb this practice.