Paying taxes is enough to contribute to the society?

Some people think that paying taxes is enough to contribute to the society. Others argue that being a citizen involves more responsibilities. Discuss, what is your opinion? 

A good citizen is a blessing to society. Some people opine that paying taxes is enough contribution towards the society whereas others believe that a good citizen has a lot more responsibilities than just paying taxes. I personally go with the latter view. In the following paragraphs I intend to enumerate the responsibilities of a good citizen.  

It is irrefutable that paying all the taxes and in a timely manner is one of the major responsibilities of a citizen. It is necessary to pay taxes because the money that is paid by citizens is used for constructive purposes, like building and maintaining roads, schools, fire protection, defence services etc. The different types of taxes to be paid by citizens are income tax, excise tax, property tax, sales tax etc. Most people try to avoid taxes, but to have the freedoms that we have, we must fund our government agencies. All taxes exist to make our lives better. To enjoy our comparatively trouble free lives, we must pay taxes. 

However, there are many other obligations which a good citizen must fulfil. To begin with, voting in elections is very important. When citizens fail to vote or have political opinions, they allow vested interests to have their way. Secondly, they must obey law and order. If all citizens are law abiding, then the whole nation would be a paradise on Earth. 

It is also the responsibility of a good citizen to provide public service to the government. This means volunteering for various agencies and charities. Finally, it is a citizen's duty to scrutinize the government's actions and take stands when something wrong happens. When citizens get too complacent, they will not notice when their freedom is being cut down. 

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, a good citizen should pay taxes, exercise his voting rights, be law abiding, do voluntary work to help the government and take a stand if anything goes wrong. Blythe Danner has rightly said, “We all have an obligation as citizens of this earth to leave the world a healthier, cleaner, and better place for our children and future generations.”  

Should mothers stay home to take care of their children after pregnancy?

Mothers generally stay home to take care of their children after pregnancy. Do you support the opinion that these mothers should be compensated by the government? 

I definitely agree with the notion that mothers, who stay at home to look after their children after pregnancy should be compensated by the government. In the following paragraphs I intend to put forth my arguments to support my views.  

My major argument is that the future of the world rests largely in the hands of the generation we are rearing. Once a child is born, it becomes national property. Mothers are the front line child care providers and therefore, if they are supported by the government they can do their job better. This help can be in the form of a paid maternity leave. In most Indian homes the mother’s salary is necessary to support the family. So, if the mother does not get a paid maternity leave, then she has to go back to job earlier and this affects the childcare. Nurseries fail to provide the one-to-one interaction children need. 

Secondly, a woman has to go with very stressful time physically, emotionally, and financially during pregnancy period. There is extra financial burden related to her prenatal care, preparing for a new baby, and then the care of the baby.  Therefore, government help can ease their burden and they can look after their babies nicely. Finally, if women are supported by the government, they can look after their health. Health as such involves several factors. It is not simply being free from diseases. So, proper education, enough employment opportunities, food security and affordable medical care are some of the contributory factors that the government can provide to make women healthy. Needless to say, there should be enough provision for all these in a society that expects to be healthy today and tomorrow. It is well known that women play the most crucial role in managing the health of the family. And healthy families contribute greatly to social welfare. 

The opponents, however, claim that it is a personal choice to have a baby. So, why should there be government support for women who stay at home to look after their children?  They have a point, but I still feel that women need the aid considering the physical, emotional, and financial stress they face.  

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, women should be supported by the government after delivery to look after the baby and themselves. This can contribute a lot to social welfare.  

Everyone should stay in school until the age of eighteen?

Everyone should stay in school until the age of eighteen. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 

In many countries, school attendance is mandatory for all children up to a specific age. In India this is 14 years of age. In the UK and many other countries it is 16, although the UK government now has plans to raise the school leaving age to 18. I agree that children should be in school till the age of 18. In the following paragraphs, I intend to put forth my arguments to support my views. 

The most important reason for raising the school leaving age to 18 is that, the age of 14-18 is the most impressionable age of a child’s life. During this period of adolescence, the children undergo physical and hormonal changes because of which they are under a lot of pressure. Therefore, lengthening compulsory schooling helps protect childhood. While at school students will be protected from some of the pressures in life. They have the rest of adulthood to work, make budgets balance and make choices. Providing them with space to grow for as long as possible can make them better prepared for adult life. 

Secondly, more education provides the opportunity to acquire more skills and therefore more options. It has been shown many times that those with more education find it easier to find work and that they are more likely to find that work satisfying. What is more, raising the school-leaving age is a crucial investment in society's future. Doing so increases the economic potential of the future workforce, and so will bring increased tax revenues in the long term. 

However, the opponents claim that extending the period of compulsory education requires a huge investment in teachers, books and new school buildings which would be very expensive. They also say that many families need their children to make an economic contribution to the family income and working early can help these families to survive.  Finally, just being in school does not guarantee that a student is learning. Unwilling students become disruptive and damage the education of others in their class.  

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, as every garden has weeds, similarly compulsory schooling also has some drawbacks. However, these drawbacks are nothing as compared to the vast benefits this approach would bring and the cost needed to implement would be negligible if compared to the huge economic potential of the future workforce. Therefore, I believe that everyone should stay in school until the age of eighteen.

Many people are now leaving their country to work abroad and take their family with them. Advantages & Disadvantages?

These days many people leave their country to work abroad and take their family with them. Do you think benefits of this outweigh disadvantages in terms of family development? 

The opportunities to work abroad are more today than they have ever been in the history of mankind. The big planet Earth has become a small global village and sovereign barriers seem to have disappeared. While working in a foreign country, some individuals take their family with them. This situation has both merits as well as demerits but definitely the merits outweigh the demerits. 

There are many obvious benefits of going abroad to work along with family. To begin with, individuals have more bonding with family. The family relationship would not be weakened by distance. Some couples finally end up in divorce, as one or both of them cannot endure the long-term separation. Secondly, many people feel homesick and lonely and therefore cannot adjust in the foreign country and return home thereby missing the golden opportunity of working abroad.  

The most important point is that children, especially who are in young ages, need the care from both parents. Childhood is a crucial phase of life and comes only once. If children are deprived of one parents love it may have a considerable impact on their psyche. Therefore, working abroad with family can provide complete love and care to the children.  

On the other hand, there are some problems of working abroad with families. To begin with, living with family members abroad means more expenses. A single person can share room with someone in the initial stages but a complete family needs a proper house. What is more, all the members face stress of adaptation to alien surroundings. Parents themselves feel culture shock and therefore cannot help their children.  

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, there are both advantages and disadvantages in any choice of this issue. Personally, I believe that people should decide according to their specific circumstances. If there are financial constraints, then it is better to go alone initially. However, the family should be called as early as possible.  

Some languages are increasingly spoken in different countries, while the usage of others is rapidly declining. Is this a positive or a negative development?

Some languages are increasingly spoken in different countries, while the usage of others is rapidly declining. Is this a positive or a negative development? 

Today, we do not belong to a big planet called Earth. We are part of a global village and there is more interaction among people of different parts of the globe than ever before. Therefore, some languages are being spoken more and the use of a few languages is declining. This is both – a negative as well as a positive development. 

On the positive side, the increasing use of some languages is easing communication among people. For example, English is now spoken in more than 86 countries of the world and French in around 33 countries. In fact English has become the lingua franca in many parts of the world. Because of this people do not face difficulty when they travel from one country to the other. What is more, if people speak the same language then they also find it easy to do business with each other. Global trade is based on good communication. We all know that lack of communication gives rise to many misunderstandings. Businesses cannot flourish if for every small communication an interpreter is required. 

Nowadays, we belong to a 24/7 society. Many multinational companies have opened in different parts of the world. The rich nations who own these MNCs provide jobs to millions of people worldwide. Naturally, a person who knows their language is better placed in these companies. The pay package is also better and chances to work abroad also go up. In a way the widespread use of a few languages also helps to decrease the gap between the rich and the poor. 

On the downside, the decline in use of some languages is also something to be concerned about. It is a well known fact that language and culture are inter-related. If languages die out then culture also dies out. We all enjoy life on this planet because of its diversity. If diversity decreases, then boredom sets in and the earth becomes a dull and boring place to live in. 

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, the increase in use of a few languages and the decline of others is both a positive as well as a negative development. This situation is an inevitable sequel of globalization. If the governments take steps to protect the endangered languages, then the negative effects can be minimized.

Tourists should accept social and environmental responsibility?

Some people believe that tourists should accept social and environmental responsibility while others believe that tourists should not accept any responsibility at all. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is irrefutable that tourism industry has become the backbone of many economies of the world. No wonder all countries are opening their doors to tourists. The negative social and environmental impacts of tourism have led many to suggest that tourists should accept responsibility for this. I definitely agree with this notion. Eco-tourism, sustainable-tourism, responsible-tourism, modern-tourism or whatever name you may like to give it, is the need of the hour. In the following paragraphs, I intend to put forth my arguments to support my view. 

The most important reason why tourists should be responsible is that many tourist destinations are endangered now because of the litter and pollution spread by the tourists. For example, the Sukhna Lake in Chandigarh, which is a popular tourist spot, once got so badly damaged by the wrappers and plastic bottles which tourists threw that no boating could be done there and it smelled so bad that people stopped going there. It took months to get it cleaned up and restore tourism there. The local people and the governments cannot handle such situation effectively unless the tourists themselves lend a hand by being careful. 

Secondly, there is over-consumption of resources by tourists such as of water and fuel and this is incompatible with sustainable development. Tourist demand for resources such as water and food may also compete with the needs of local people and may lead to injustice with the locals. For example, in Shimla, a popular hill station, tourists stay in five star accommodations and take two showers a day where as the people outside are short of drinking water. To add to it many tourism activities such as skiing, boating, motorised watersports, and trekking represent a stress to fragile ecosystems. Who will welcome the tourists to those places if tourists don’t accept responsibility? Instead of five star accommodations, they could live with the locals and be satisfied with one shower a day. 

Finally, if tourists do not respect the local people’s culture and environment, then the natives would be hostile towards them and the whole purpose of tourism would be lost. For example, in our religious places, it is customary to cover our head and take off our shoes. If tourists don’t do so they would not be welcome by our people there. So, the onus is on the tourist to know beforehand the norms of the place and fortunately nowadays, everything is available on the net or one can get all information from the tour operators. 

Responsible tourism is everyone's responsibility. The well being of the destination is not only the responsibility of the tourism sector - it is also the responsibility of the tourist. That is why it has rightly been said that – ‘ A good tourist is one who leaves behind nothing, but footprints; and takes away nothing, but photographs.  

History tells that people have often thought about creating an ideal society?

History tells that people have often thought about creating an ideal society, but most of the times fail in making this happen. What is your opinion about an ideal society? How can we create an ideal society?

If we look at history, it is clear that since time immemorial, people have always wanted to create an ideal society but have been unsuccessful. In the following essay, I intend to discuss what makes an ideal society and how we can create one. 

An ideal society is a society where needs of the people regardless of their race, religion or wealth would be met. Many great thinkers, such as Plato, Thomas More and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. have offered their opinions on this to the public over the years. However, these dreams failed because different people have different ideals about a perfect society. To make it happen, either the ideals of all the people have to be fulfilled, or all the people would have to have the same ones. 

Imagine a society with no crime, no terrorism, no warfare, no conflicts of cultures, no racism, no gender discrimination, no poisoned tongues, no killing, no lying, no stealing, no adultery and no excuses. Such a society can never exist. It would be wrong even to think of one. A perfect society needs some kind of social inequality, or as I call it, a distinction in ability. Those in the higher strata of society would be there because of their superior abilities and have greater responsibilities and, therefore, a higher social standing. An ideal society should have some struggle. If you had no struggle in life would you be happy? No, because that takes all the fun and enjoyment out of the difficulty, the losing, the failures, and the overcoming, the victory, the success.

There are many ways in which we can make an ideal society. First of all, there must be democracy and a strong government which has the ability to rule over the country. It should try to make the citizens life better by making better social and financial conditions to live. There should be no corruption in the government. Finally, I believe, one of the most necessary things of ideal society is freedom. No people and no society are happy and ideal when they are not free. However, we must remember that – ‘One’s freedom ends there where other’s starts’. If we will feel free and do not disturb others freedom we will have ideal society. An ideal society would allow complete freedom to everybody and complete individuality. 

To sum up, I pen down saying that, a perfect society is difficult to attain as everyone has different concepts of an ideal society. However, if we all respect our freedom and in doing so know our limitations, so that others can enjoy their freedom then it can be called an ideal society.

Charity organizations should only offer help to people of their own country?

Some people think that charity organizations should only offer help to people of their own country. But others believe that these organizations should give aid to people in great need wherever they live. Discuss both views and give your opinion. 

“To have enough to share; to know the joy of giving; to thrill with all the sweets of life - is living”. Helping others is a very virtuous thing. Charities help in basically two ways. One is by offering support to people in their own country, and the second is by helping the needy irrespective of their country. In this essay I intend to delve into the benefits of both approaches. 

There are many advantages if charities help their own country’s people. Firstly, these organisations remain directly in touch with the needy. They can see how the money or other the other resources provided by them are being used. It has been well said that charity begins at home. What is more, domestic charities target problems specific to their home country, for instance the Help Age India is an Indian charity providing help for the aged in India. 

There are also many advantages if these organisations help the needy in any corner of the world. In such cases these organisations work on a larger platform and provide help for global issues. A larger platform is a must if one has a lot to offer in charity. Help activities can be better spread through a larger network. Help need not be always in the form of money. It can be in the form of services also.  For example, these organisations can provide doctors and teachers who volunteer to provide medical aid and also teach in the underdeveloped nations. 

Help in any form is good. The condition of one’s country could influence the way of helping. In a developed country, where even the poorest of the poor has the basic amenities of life, it would be better to help in any part of the world where people need help. But, in the case of a developing or underdeveloped country it would be better to help those around you. 

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that the purpose of charity organizations is to help people in need and it does not matter where this help goes. If people of the home country need help then it would certainly be advisable to help those around you first.

The computers are widely used in education instead of teachers?

The computers are widely used in education and some people think that teachers do not play an important role in the classroom. To what extent do you agree? 

It is irrefutable that computers have become an indispensable part of education but I disagree that teachers do not play a significant role in the classroom. I believe that no amount of technology can ever replace the teacher. In the following paragraphs, I intend to support my views with my arguments. 

It is an undeniable fact that teachers can never lose their importance. In learning and practice of more complex ideas, the computer is not adequate. It can tell if the answer is right or wrong but it cannot tell where the student went wrong. Tasks involving reasoning cannot be taught using computers. Moreover, teachers add their own knowledge gained through experience to that of books and other resources. 

Furthermore, teachers can stimulate interest and it is an undeniable fact that interested stimulated people tend to learn more. They can keep students focused on study. A student studying by himself may get bored and stop studying. Teachers can provide a faster and simpler way to present information to the students. They can come down to the level of a student and so are definitely better than computers. What is more, teachers are role models for students. They are scholars in action. They not only teach academic subjects, but also many social skills. 

On the other hand, it is also true that the use of computers in today’s classrooms is also the need of the day. Teachers should use computers to add innovation to their teaching methods. Power point presentations can make even the dull and boring subjects seem interesting. So computers and teachers should not be treated as rivals to each other. They should play a complementary role so that today’s classrooms become very interesting and our children can compete with other children of this global village. 

To put it in a nutshell, I can say that, no doubt computers are being used in the classrooms but they can never replace the teacher.

The world would be a much poorer place without colour. Agree or disagree?

The world would be a much poorer place without colour. To what extent would you agree or disagree. 

Colours are one of the greatest blessings that god has bestowed upon people in the world. Have you ever thought what it would be like to live in a world without colour. Forget everything for a moment and start using your imagination. Try to think how you would feel if people, cats, dogs, birds, butterflies and fruits had no colour at all. You would never want to live in such a world. Would you? 
Colours have a crucial role in man’s communication with the outside world and in the proper functioning of his memory. Hearing or touch alone, are not enough to define objects. How can we define colourless flowers placed on a colourless table. 

Human eye can recognise millions of colours. Identifying objects and our surroundings are not the only benefits of a diversity of colours. Colours also give us a lot of pleasure. The beautiful blue sky, the blood red sunset or a rainbow after a rainfall do add happiness to our lives. The colours of nature have been arranged so as to appeal to the human soul. Nowadays some prisons are painted pink and green to put prisoners in a better mood. 

Colours hold a special significance in our culture also. In some parts of the world white is worn for weddings and black for funerals. In other parts white is the colour of mourning. Red is the symbol of love. Red also represents danger. Blood is red; fire engines are red and traffic signals are also red. 
Colours also reflect the personality of a person. The colour of your clothes can have a considerable impact on how you are perceived. Light colour reflects a sober personality. Colours also have been used as a treatment of some mental disorders. 

To put it in a nutshell, I can say that the world would definitely be a much poorer place without colour. They add life and beauty to our world.  

Children should learn how to compete or should be taught to cooperate to become more useful adults?

Some people think that children should learn how to compete, but others think that children should be taught to cooperate to become more useful adults. Express some reasons for both views and give your own opinions.

It is a highly debatable issue whether children should learn to compete or co-operate in order to become productive citizens of society. In my opinion, both competition and cooperation are necessary virtues of life and children should learn both. What is more important is to teach children where they need to compete and where they need to cooperate.

Competition is very important in life. Children can be taught to compete when they prepare for the exams or when they play solo sports like athletics. They have to learn to compete to excel in studies or win a race or any athletic event. This virtue comes handy in adult life. For example, when they do any business, they have to compete with other businessmen to succeed in business. Definitely, successful businessmen are useful adults in society. 

On the other hand, there are many fields where cooperation is needed. Children can be taught this virtue in the sports field when they play team sports like cricket and hockey. They can also be taught cooperation when teachers give them group assignments in studies. This virtue also makes them useful adults because they have to cooperate in many fields of life. For instance, when they work as scientists to research the treatment of diseases like cancers and AIDS then it can never be a one-man show. It has to be a joint effort. Software developers also have to work as a team to bring benefits to all of us who use technology nowadays. 

There are also situations where both competition and cooperation are needed simultaneously. For example, when children do team sports, they learn to cooperate with their team members and at the same time they learn to compete with the opposite team. Similarly, in adult life they have to learn to cooperate with their country-men to compete with those of other countries. We all know that today’s era is highly competitive and the big planet Earth has shrunk to a global village. For example, Indian auto industries have merged to compete with the German and Japanese industries. So, competition and cooperation go hand in hand. 

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, it is clear that children should be taught both – to compete as well as cooperate and more importantly where in life they have to apply these attributes.

The government should put money on medical care and education instead of building theatres and sports stadiums?

Some people say that the government should not put money on building theatres and sports stadiums. They should spend more money on medical care and education. Do you agree or disagree? 

It is a highly debatable issue whether the government should spend money on medicine and education rather than on theatres and sports stadiums. In my opinion, all these things are important for the people and therefore, the government should allocate equal resources for both. 

Basic medical care is very important for the general public. If people are healthy, there will be more productivity of work and the country will prosper as a whole. There are many people who live below the poverty line and it is the government’s responsibility that they should receive medical aid whenever needed. There are also the elderly who have paid taxes throughout their working life and now need good medical care.

Good education facilities are also the duty of the government. Today, there are a number of children from deprived backgrounds who get substandard education. They would definitely require a high quality of education if they are to succeed in later life. What is more, an educated society has less crime and violence and the country gets good recognition in the whole world if its people are educated. 

On the other hand, theatres and sports stadiums are equally essential for people. Art and entertainment is also a basic human need. Theatrical shows provide entertainment and at the same time preserve our culture and tradition. Our artists earn name and fame for our country. Sports stadiums, similarly, attract millions of spectators to watch matches every year. Many more millions watch games on television, read about them in newspapers, and discuss them with their friends. Therefore, we cannot say that these are unnecessary expenditures and therefore the government should ignore them. 

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, medicine and education are needs that we recognize, but theatrical or sports events are also basic needs. Therefore governments should allocate resources for both these things.  

Tabacco should be illegal to use it comparing with other drugs. Agree or disagree?

Tobacco is a kind of drug. People have been free to use it. Some people think that it should be illegal to use it comparing with other drugs. To what extent do you agree or disagree? What is your opinion?
(Against banning)

Every year, thousands of people worldwide die from both smoking tobacco and involuntarily breathing it in. Despite this, I do not agree that it should be made illegal. However, I also believe that there should be a regulation on its use, considering its harms to health. In the following paragraphs, I shall put forth my arguments to support my views.

It is irrefutable that tobacco products, especially cigarettes, could cause lung cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses. Drug abuse also has many potentially harmful effects not only on individuals but also on family, friends, work and society. Frequent drug users may turn to crime to meet the increasing expense for their habit. Continued drug use may cause personality changes. Some users lose interest in school or work, or have difficulty meeting the responsibilities of a job or family.
Nonetheless, it costs society far more to prohibit a drug than it does to regulate it. And I’m not talking about just money. Prohibition creates organized crime, and with it you get street wars, and police corruption. With more violence comes more police, and that means more cost. Regulation on the other hand, works quite well. The government should decide who gets to make it, who sells it, and who it is sold to. There should be controls on tobacco regarding potency, packaging, advertising, and a lot of other things. This is definitely better than banning a drug which leads to organized crime.
Moreover, tobacco has long been a source of money for the governments in many countries. This income comes from taxes on the manufactured products. Excise taxes also come from tobacco that arrives from other countries. Finally, I believe that it is better to educate people about the harms of tobacco. This approach has worked better in many countries and there has been a reduction in the sale of tobacco products

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, banning tobacco is not a good idea. Drug prohibition has been the most failed social policy and banning tobacco is a step backwards. However, there should be control on the manufacturing and sale of tobacco.  

Car: advantages and disadvantages

Some people claim that there are more disadvantages of the car than its advantages. Do you agree or disagree? 

Someone has rightly said that – “The car has become an article of dress without which we feel uncertain, unclad, and incomplete”. In my opinion, the advantages of the car outstrip its disadvantages. 

There are many advantages of car. The most important advantage is that it has given people freedom of movement. The ease of transportation which a car brings is more than any other form of transportation. For instance, you can go from destination to destination and no time is wasted waiting for the bus or train. Therefore, time and distance are not a barrier any more. What is more, families can go out together. This becomes especially helpful when there are elderly or the disabled and sick members in the family. 

Furthermore, the automobile industry provides jobs to millions of workers. Filling stations, restaurants, and other businesses that serve automobile travelers are of major importance to a country’s economy. In addition, many developing nations have begun making automobiles to boost their economy. That is why India has promoted many automobile manufacturing industries such as Tata and Mahindra. 

On the other hand the disadvantages of the car cannot be overlooked. The increase in pollution, traffic jams and accidents are the natural sequelae to the burgeoning population of cars. Moreover, our overdependence on cars can lead to decrease in practices such as walking and cycling and this has led to a number of diseases such as obesity. 

On balance, the advantages to people’s lives and the economic impact created by the car definitely outweigh the disadvantages. However, we must know when and how-much to use the car so that we can minimize the demerits to some extent.  

Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, and the protection is a waste of resources?

Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, and the protection is a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 

I disagree with the notion that wild animals are redundant in the current century and therefore we need not waste our precious resources in protecting them. I believe that the conservation of these species should be our top priority as they are our most precious resources. In the following paragraphs I shall put forth my arguments to support my views. 

The most important reason for saving wild animals is that they are part of our ecosystem. Every species of wildlife plays a role to maintain the balance of life on Earth. Thus, the loss of any species can affect us directly or indirectly. Let us consider species to be like a brick in the foundation of a building. We can probably lose one or two or a dozen bricks and still have a standing house. But by the time we have lost 20 per cent of species, we are going to destabilize the entire structure. That's the way ecosystems work. 

Secondly, wild animals provide many valuable substances such as medicine and fur. The horn of the rhinoceros has medicinal value and the fur of the mink is very valuable. The recreational viewing of animals at zoos is also a source of revenue.  Thus, the financial value of wild species is important to the economies of many nations. 

Finally, wild animals have aesthetic appeal. They are beautiful creatures of nature and are a part of our bio-diversity. Their beautiful and mysterious life has enchanted mankind since the dawn of evolution. Scientists have been awed by observing their behavior. Such study has helped scientists understand how the human body functions and why people behave as they do. Scientists have also gained medical knowledge by studying the effect of many drugs on these animals. 

In conclusion, the protection of wild animals in the 21st century is by no means a waste of resources. In fact it should be the most important global priority today. I pen down by a quotation – “Scientists know we must protect species because they are working parts of our life-support system”.

Parents have the most important role in a child’s development?

Some people say that parents have the most important role in a child’s development. However, others argue that other things like television or friends have the most significant influence. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. 

Human development is a complex interplay of many factors. Some individuals are of the opinion that parents have the most significant role in a child’s development whereas others opine that friends and other environmental factors such as TV have a more important role. It is necessary to look at both arguments before forming an opinion. 

Parents have direct interactions with the children. They provide a sense of identification to the child. These have their greatest effect on intellectual development and character traits. They also play a very important role in the socializing process of the child. Right from the bed time stories to the behavioral habits parents play a very important role in making a child a responsible citizen. They know their child’s temperament better than anyone else. They can provide critical input better than anyone else. That is why it is believed by some that parents have the strongest role in a child’s development. 

Friends, on the other hand, are important in order to help children grow emotionally and socially. Children find out who they are by comparing themselves to others. They learn about attitude, character and personality. Building good relationships boosts a child’s self esteem and they find comfort in those friendships when things get tough such as losing a pet or facing family problems. Therefore, friendships are essential to assure children develop a healthy psyche. When kids are surrounded by friends or have one close friend, they have better self esteem, feel a sense of well being and experience fewer social problems.   

Television is also one of the most prevalent media influences in kids' lives. How much impact TV has on children depends on many factors: how much they watch, their age and personality, whether they watch alone or with adults, and whether their parents talk with them about what they see on TV.  
In my opinion, we cannot generalize as to what has more significance. In the early years family generally has more impact but in adolescence peers and TV may impact more. It appears that the power of the peer group becomes more important when the family relationships are not close or supportive. For example, if the parents work extra jobs and are largely unavailable, their children may turn to their peer group for emotional support.  

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that behavior is affected by a complex interaction of many different factors such as parents, peers and environment. All these are inextricably linked in the development of children. There is individual variation and therefore it is difficult to generalize which factor plays the most significant role.

When families have a meal together it is considered social activity. Do you think eating together is important to people in your country?

When families have a meal together it is considered social activity. Do you think eating together is important to people in your country?

It is irrefutable that eating together is a social activity. Sharing dinner together gives everyone a sense of identity. It can help ease day-to-day conflicts, as well as establish traditions and memories that can last a lifetime.  

The first and foremost advantage of eating together is that it creates a sense of belonging. Conversations during the meal provide opportunities for the family to bond and learn from one another. It’s a chance to share information and news of the day, as well as give extra attention to your children and teens. Family meals foster warmth, security and love, as well as feelings of belonging. It can be a unifying experience for all. 

Secondly, family mealtime is the perfect opportunity to teach appropriate table manners, etiquette, and social skills. Parents can be perfect role models in this and children learn by following them. What is more, meals prepared and eaten at home are usually more nutritious and healthy. They contain more fruits, vegetables, and dairy products along with additional nutrients such as fiber, calcium, vitamins A and C, and folate. 

Furthermore, research shows that frequent family dinners (five or more a week), are associated with lower rates of smoking, drinking, and illegal drug use in pre-teens and teenagers when compared to families that eat together two or fewer times per week. To add to it, children do better in school when they eat more meals with their parents and family. 

In my country most people do value shared mealtime. However, the fast paced life and influence of the global culture is taking some away from this custom. Fortunately, some recent studies have shown that even in the developed countries people are realizing the importance of family meals and are downshifting. It is indeed time to bring the "family" back to the dinner table.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that eating together is definitely an important social activity. That it why it has been said that, ‘The family that eats together stays together’.  

People try new dangerous sports such as sky-diving or rock climbing. Should such sports be banned?

People try new dangerous sports such as sky-diving or rock climbing. Should such sports be banned?

 
In recent years we have seen a considerable rise in dangerous or extreme sports. Although I do not support an outright ban on such sports, I do feel that the government should regulate such sports so that they are played under supervision which will minimize the risks.  

It is irrefutable that dangerous or extreme sports can cause injury or even death to the individuals. However, banning such sports is not the answer. Instead, the government should ensure that the companies or centres which provide the facilities for such sports should meet the required, legal safety standards. Another argument against banning is that then people would play them in hiding and then they would be even more risky. After all we all know that forbidden fruits taste sweeter. 
Furthermore, if government bans such sports, it could be viewed as an infringement of the rights. Those who choose to participate in these sports know the consequences. They know very well what is good or bad for them. They argue that if such sports are banned, then all those other things that are harmful for individuals should be banned like smoking, drinking and eating fast foods. 
What is more, those sportsmen who excel in such sports bring name and fame to their country. They break records set by others and when they do so, the name of their country shines in the whole world.  
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, such sports should be performed after sufficient training and under supervision of adults. Dangerous sport companies should require a license for providing such training. To lay a ban on such sports is not the answer.  

Some sports are extremely dangerous but many people still like them very much. Why do people take part in dangerous sports?

Some sports are extremely dangerous but many people still like them very much. Why do people take part in dangerous sports? Give some suggestions on how to deal with these dangers. 

In recent years we have seen a considerable rise in dangerous or extreme sports. This essay shall discuss some of the main reasons why people engage in such sports and suggest ways in which some risks involved in such sports can be reduced. 

The main reason why people go for dangerous sports is that they get the thrill out of them. They like taking risks. They like to challenge their abilities and potentials. They feel a sense of satisfaction when they come face to face with fears while bungee jumping, rock climbing and so on. In addition, going through a dangerous experience gives them courage and confidence to face the hurdles of their daily life. 

Another reason for pursuing such sports is that there is a lot of fame and money involved in them. They get attention by doing stunts on motorcycles and jumping from tall buildings. They make headlines in newspapers and TV News Channels. They feel great when their name comes in the Guinness Book of World Records. Once they get famous they get a lot of money also. For instance, many businesses hire them to endorse their products. They also get jobs on the basis of such skills. 
Many steps can be taken to reduce the risks are that involved. Firstly, these sports should be done under strict supervision. All safety precautions should be taken.  Such sports should be performed after sufficient training and under supervision of adults. Sport companies which cater to such sports should require a license for providing such training. Some people suggest banning some sports. However, I do not believe that banning is a good solution. We all know that forbidden fruits taste sweeter and people will do such sports in hiding which would increase the risks involved.  
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, people do such sports for fun, for money and for fame. However, such sports should be performed after sufficient training from licensed companies and under some supervision.  

Old buildings or new ones? Discuss.

Old buildings or new ones? Discuss.
---

 Ancient buildings are relics of the past and should be preserved, in the view of some people. Others, however, believe that the appearance of modern buildings will open a new horizon for the development of a nation. My essay will discuss the validity of both sides....

The ancient houses are, first, believed to be the reservoir of the glorious past of a nation. With their existence along each road, it is undeniable that no sooner does young generation grow up than they become proud of their country’s admirable old-day history through the image of roof, ceiling and walls. Philosophically speaking, like a person who clings to the past to reflect, views the present to enjoy and contemplates the future, a city itself entails an inextricable link of these three time axes to revise, thrive and fly. Nevertheless, in case of derelict and run-down old houses, such experience of living in these shelters could be a nightmare to quite a few people, for instance, Hanoi people who are suffering a low-quality life in ancient streets. It is a common scene to some that three to four households have only one toilet system with their wall painting layers bound to peel off and their ceilings sagging owing to weathering.

Another rationale is that these old houses are symbolic of the unique architecture and serve as a mental panacea for hurry-sickness city- dwellers. Hardly can the modern day people recreate such beauties as that by famous architects of yesterdays who utilized the past materials, and for that reason, some streets adorned with second-to-none buildings are ideal destinations for the visitors world-wide to savor themselves in the sense of serene old days. To those who are sucking in a life of craze, the tiny old houses resemble oases to ease their stress.

Opponents have their points in the belief that as a result of the explosion of population, so crowded do streets turn out that these old, unsafe and dirty houses should be demolished to give way to skyscrapers to accommodate an ever-increasing number of people who flock to the city in hope of a better life. Also, not until the cities are paved with modern buildings and wide roads do investors from other continents pay greater attention, which, in turn, generates a huge amount of profit for the entire nation.

In the final analysis, each idea has its own reasoning, but in my opinion, the presence of old houses is essential to the survival of any city for their originality and unforgettable destinations of travel lovers.

People are not paying attention to environmental protection. What is the cause and suggest solutions to deal with this issue.

People are not paying attention to environmental protection. What is the cause and suggest solutions to deal with this issue.
----

 Environment is calling our name world-wide, especially with the frequent occurrence of natural disasters from tsunami to earthquakes. That is the acknowledged threat to the survival of humankind, but the truth remains that people seem to ...be busy with something else, rather than the mission of salvaging the world before it is too late. Reasons for people’s blatant ignorance of this fact are various, subjectively and objectively.

Governments are partly to be condemned for their lack of serious effort and radical law enforcement on environment protection. The fact is people around the globe are still releasing a huge amount of waste, without being heavily penalized or get away with this, perhaps by simply lobbying government or bribing some key figures in the authorities. Also, despite the fact that authorities are urging people into using environment friendly products and campaigns to keep the environment clean, ironically, they are, simultaneously, allowing businessmen to produce as many cars as possible and advertisers to spur consumerism among people, which is undeniably the catalyst for the booming of air pollution and early exhaustion of natural resources.

Objectively, economic imbalance between nations is another culprit of people’s little attention to save the environment. While some nations pass their economic heights, being willing to voice their protests against any action dirtying the environment, others are too hectic with the prodding call of poverty and illiteracy of citizens and find themselves at variance with priorities of developed world. In this case, any attempt to slow down the development of the latter proves paradoxical, and for that reason, our environment stays fully exploited. The painful truth is that the inherent basic instinct of people, after all, is to feed themselves as much as possible, taking the precedence over doing something for long-term purpose, say, environmental conservation.
Solutions to this head-aching issue are suggested. Drastic measures implemented by governments to minimize pollution are the prohibition of natural exploitation above the limit, discouragement of private means of transportation, and establishment of international treaties, for instance, Kyoto. Nevertheless, this means no worth if each citizen, himself or herself, pays no heed. Long-term remedies, educational programs to raise people’s awareness of environment protection are strongly recommended. It would be such an effective method to inculcate in our little children the immediate consequences of environmental damage, by introducing the environment protection as the mandatory subject at school and frequently showing videos of environment hazards on television everywhere. I strongly believe that once these threats caused environment degradations are deeply embedded in our minds, especially, children’s, our environment will soon be away from jeopardy and our world will be green again.

Governments should only use their spending on public services and not waste money on the arts (E.g music and painting)?

Governments should only use their spending on public services and not waste money on the arts (E.g music and painting). To what extent do you agree or disagree?
---

 How to allocate fairly government’s budget for a variety of social demands from health care, infrastructure to other mental ones such as arts remains controversial. Some people insist on that that money sho...uld be earmarked more for public services and less for arts while others believe each area should receive an inequitable amount of spending for its unique value contributed to social development. I partly agree with the latter view for the following reasons.

Admittedly, public services are of immediate benefit for the entire society. The issues of health care, education, and infrastructure are always top concerns of any government that wants to recruit high-skilled labor, strong workforce and modern facilities. To countries, say, Vietnam, Cambodia still struggling with abject misery after wars, a big amount of spending for music and painting proves infeasible.

However, the need for arts is rising these days for their long-term worth, especially during the time the country is beyond the peak of economic development and gears itself towards sustainable growth. With music, painting and other kinds of arts gaining their popularity, people’s spiritual life is continuously enriched. Such cities, say, Florence, Paris and Madrid are always unforgettable destinations of millions of visitors for their spectacular artistic creations and lure them into a different world where people are away from worries and let their creativity take off. These cities are also homes to various well-known art geniuses from Picasso, Leona De-Vinci to Gaudy who led art revolutions, partly by dint of their governments’ greater appreciation of this field and bigger expenditure on it. America and Britain are, too, other examples of nations where music industry overwhelms other key ones for their greatest generation of profit, which again derives their governments’ frequent organization of musical shows and festivals to attract audience world-wide.

In a word, governments should pay more attention to key sectors when their nations are in the embryonic stage of growth, but once they escape the life of poverty, arts should have bigger says for their mental, educational and economic merits.

Some people think that the main purpose of schools is to teach children to become good citizens and workers, rather than benefiting them as individuals?

Some people think that the main purpose of schools is to teach children to become good citizens and workers, rather than benefiting them as individuals. Agree/ Disagree?
---

The mission of education children is far from easy. Some people believe that at school, the inculcation of ethical lessons in children to become useful citizens is necessary while others claim tha...t each individual should learn to benefit himself first at school. I partly agree with the latter view for the following reasons.

First, it is argued that the priority of education of the youngsters towards their needs is psychologically conducive to their learning. It is likely that with no restriction which entails them to follow moral codes of the society, they feel relaxed and study more effectively. Is it true? Can a class achieve its high efficaciousness when each individual, because of putting their needs over others, for instance, goes to class late or forgets to do home work? Only in a disciplined environment which emphasizes their obedience to the community code can they learnt the lesson to get along with others and become confident in their work environment in the future.

The second reason in support of individualism in education at school is to encourage children to find out their inner desire. It is argued that not being affected by the herd voice, they discover what truly want in this life and come up with revolutionary inventions to change the world, like the case of Thomas Edison. However, under no circumstance can such inventions gain the support if they are only to serve the individual need of the creators and some minorities. Facts have shown that their success roots from the community purpose that is to enhance the quality of life for all. Another point is that if individualism was to be worshipped, for the sake of profit, youngsters could become businessmen without ethics or monopoly- like environment in business would take shape, leading to the prevalence of low-quality products. Also, when it comes to the solution to the global issues, say, environment, epidemics and political conflicts, can the individuals who only benefit themselves play a part?

All things considered, the purpose of education should harmonize between individual and community needs to produce citizens who can follow the moral code to become useful citizens, and at the same time, pursue their own interest to add more color to their world.

Government should allow students to pay fee after graduation or students are responsible for it or totally free education?

Government should allow students to pay fee after graduation or students are responsible for it or totally free education? Which one is the best?
---

 Higher education, especially tertiary one, is the aim of most people, but not all obtain easily. Therefore, some believe with government’s free education or allowance for students to pay fee after graduation, mor...e people can make this dream come true while others claim that by paying himself, knowledge will be definitely taken seriously. Each view has its pros and cons, actually.

The first benefit of the policy of emancipating students from financial payment during their learning time is to achieve the ultimate goal of the society i.e. a high-skilled labor. It is undeniable that several countries, say, Germany and Northeastern nations, often free their university education, which partly explains why they have the highest self-awareness and the most knowledgeable citizens. On other hand, others argue that private education in which students are heavily charged offers the best condition for students in learning with the top-notch professors and cutting edge innovations, as reflected in the case of Havard, Yale and Cambridge non state-owned schools. Equally important, let’s take Vietnam as a stark example of an education which frees students from learning in education, and not until they graduate do they move to other fields in search of high-paid salaries, which, again, bespeaks itself the unwise investment by government.

Second, it is contended that free education creates a level-playing field for everyone. It is well known that because of abject poverty, the disadvantaged and impoverished can hardly gain access to advanced education and end up with their big dreams unfinished while other eager adult learners, due to being burdened with numerous responsibilities from taking care of their parents to their own families, are reluctant to short-cut their formal training and become normal blue-workers with lower salaries. Also, no sooner are outstanding students less worried with high fee of tertiary education than their desire for knowledge materializes. However, it is equally necessary to take into consideration other cases. With families whose income is relatively high, as a result of being exempt from education, would it be fair? Another point is that so easily accessible is higher education that people may take it for granted, and hence, drop out for no reason while others who see education as expensive and competitive try their best to do part-time jobs to cover their expense, find it worthy for their effort and nurture other crucial living skills, such as, team-work, pressure dealing, right at the moment of being a students.

The third view, different from two above, is that students should still pay, but only after their graduation. Pros of this are well seen when economic burden is still liberated from poor and distinguished students who, after graduation, are likely to obtain prestigious jobs with high salaries, feel indebted to government and even decide to make big donations in the projects of upgrading infrastructure or setting up scholarship schemes for those in the same boat as them. Obama is a telling example of a person who borrowed money from government to follow advanced education in Havard law school and now becomes a prominent politician. However, when it comes to the issue of management, the question remains as to how government could effectively control the flow of students in and out after graduation, keep exhaustive records of their performance to make sure fee will be paid back in time. Another reason is that to indentify clearly the right target receives to deserve this policy is a head-aching matter, as a result of the fact that some mercenary ones whose income is rather abundant still want to take advantage for their personal gain.

In brief, each method has its own pains and gains, and the most superior solution, I believe, is that fee payment should be mandatory, and for the less lucky ones, scholarships or other kinds of financial aid are available for them to realize their goal through their endeavor

More money should be poured into teaching science rather than other subjects?

More money should be poured into teaching science rather than other subjects
---

 People’s interest in science grows increasingly popular in our today’s world. The belief is that science is the key to all problems in our life while others view it as equal as other fields and claim that such a great amount of investment in teaching science would be unfair for other subject...s. I totally agree with the latter view.

First, proponents of favoring science teaching over others contend that such significant allocation for it is greatly conducive to economic development of a country. Let’s take America as an example. With billions of dollars consumed to sponsor scientific researches and other activities of teaching at school, greater economic alternatives, based on the application of this subject, have been found to revolutionize the world and enrich this country in no time, despite its late historical formation. However, would our nation really progress without the support of other equally key industries, for example, health-care, sports and arts? Only after people are well taught the way to take care of themselves by following a good diet and nurture their love for arts can they have enough stamina to turn their artistic minds into wonderful creations. Facts have also indicated that as a result of higher living standards, people’s concern about arts and their well-being is also more demanding, which urges government to equitably address these needs as well. The appearance of design schools, instead of only science ones in the academic world, are typical examples that show their crucial roles. Another problem is that teachers of other subjects would feel despised and de-motivated when governments suddenly make light of the importance of their subjects, while science teachers become centers of the world.

Second, more people will fall in love with science, by dint of this policy, and more genius were born. It might be true that science used to be seen as a prosaic subject, and now thanks to more flows of cash given to it, people have more motivation to pursue this field. Nevertheless, growing investment in it does not mean that it has more financial privileges than other subjects. In fact, the over-emphasis on science is more likely to discourage other children who are, unfortunately, born not to be encoded with a genetic flair for science, but for other fields. Hence, despite government’s significant investment in this subject and relentless endeavor to inculcate in their mind the love for it, these children see this counter-productive, possibly resulting in a huge waste of finance and turning their beloved schools into military base where they are coerced to follow, instead of f listening to their inner desire. The outcome of this scenario is that the world would, for sure, be devoid of creative artists who give birth to spontaneous poets, but full of machine-like children. Besides, seeing science as a money-making field and promising aids by government, people, including students and teachers, move to this area, not out of their true passion. Also, as there goes a saying “necessity is the mother of invention”, scientists such as Newton, Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison could still give birth to ever-lasting inventions, despite their deep poverty. In a word, it is not more money that the society would progress, but rather passion and other factors.

In the final analysis, I totally disagree with this policy for its negative impacts on teachers, students, the true meaning of science subject, and long-term growth of a nation. 

What are effects of aging population?

What are effects of aging population
---

 The phenomenon of aging population is gaining ground in developed nations where longevity is lengthened greatly by dint of higher living standards, better health care and serene life. Some people fear that this trend may cause threat to the society in the long run for its cause of young labor resource dearth whil...e others view it as inevitable and see positive effects of this issue. My essay will analyze both good and bad sides of this problem.

First of all, it is believed that the longer people live, the more they enjoy their lives. After years of diligence and contributions, the idea of taking a comfortable life in the twilight years without the worry of suffering death is wonderful; the senior can read books, write their articles, or pursue their own passion to the fullest extent. However, along with their enjoyment are pains as well. The old age is often associated with diseases which deprive the senior minutes of basking themselves in their twilight years, for instance, the attack of insomnia, hypertension, loss of memory and others.

Second of all, from the broader perspective, say, the social view point, the appearance of dense population of the old is seen as a catalyst for the booming of nursing and health-care related industry. With more old people dominating, doctors and other health experts are likely to work their brains to come up with new medicines to treat diseases and enhance the quality of healthcare of the old who, unlike other generation, put their well being on the top of their list. Nevertheless, the opposite truth is the probable danger of a huge waste of money poured into welfare, which might drive the government crazy while they are already exhausted with so many responsibilities. Besides, despite the existence of high-skilled products made by the senior who have a wealth of experience and knowledge, the society is in a dire shortage of the young who have a bigger say over the economic destiny of a nation. Third of all, it is thought that along with the presence of the old is the possibility of the preservation of well-valued traditional norms. It is reasonable to argue that the old who often hold back on the past value tend to put high emphasis on the sustenance of the old day beauty. By contrast, the counter-argument is that as a result of so-called conservatism normally seen in the old, the society will be in shortage of new ideas and ideals that are conducive to a dynamic and open economy. In a word, the society would undergo gains and pains when this trend prevails.

All in all, aging population is an acknowledged trend, having positive and negative impacts on each individual and society as a whole.

Should mathematics and philoshophy be compulsory subject at school?

Should mathematics and philoshophy be compulsory subject at school? To what extend do you agree or disagree?
 ---

 To reach a consensus on the students’ curriculum remains controversial. Some people believe that several subjects such as philosophy and mathematics should be mandatory for their essential role in children’s development while others subscribe ...to the point that it is up to them to choose subjects. I totally agree with the former view for the following reasons.

It is first cited that mathematics is of less inspirational subjects than arts and others. To some extent, it would be hardly an exhilarating experience for students to bury themselves in a series of soulless numbers while arts provide them more space for creation and imagination. Sadly enough, the ability of calculate basic figures is indispensible, especially when children, would-be adults, are supposed to go to their market everyday to buy, do business with others to survive and balance their financial budget to avoid being bankrupt at times. Also, facts have shown that no sooner are students imbued with the mysteries of mathematics than they feel increasingly intrigued and motivated to give birth to revolutionary inventions. Had it not been for the intelligent applications of mathematics in our lives, we would still labor ourselves with normal rudimentary calculations, instead of using computers for help. Advanced mathematic applications, for centuries, have reformed our world, even the artistic one which is believed to be exclusively mental and devoid of logical reasoning. With the accurate algebraic equations and measurement, architectural wonders take shape with perfect congruity, lower risks for builders and long lasting existence. In other words, lacking mathematics in our world, human could hardly see progress in any field.

Philosophy is, in addition, seen as an abstract domain. Being crammed with numerous rules of the world, students feel overloaded, and in fact, are rarely mature enough to make sense of these fundamentals. Is it really so? Since the dawn of history, philosophers have enlightened our perception of the mysterious universe through their observation and discoveries. Without the knowledge of basic rules of life, about the common and unique definitions, how could the society reach the law to regulate the society in the way that is to meet the demand of the whole community, but still appreciate the difference to motivate people for individualistic, but creative works. Another point is that the true value in the exploration of philosophical world is the cultivation of people’s self-awareness of themselves and things around them. Once human can figure out who they are, and which natural rules exert their influence on them, they begin to know how to live in harmony with others and refrain themselves from natural destruction for the sake of profit. Answers to all very basic questions of life can actually be found in philosophy, which explains why this subject used to be regarded to set foundation for other scientific subjects to thrive.

In a word, each subject has its own role in our life, yet philosophy and mathematics are exceptional in the sense that they equip us with precondition to fathom, lead and create our own lives and therefore, deserve to be introduced as compulsory subjects at school.

Information on the internet is inaccurate?

Information on the internet is inaccurate. To what extend do you agree or disagree
---

 Internet has become a household item for a decade. Some people find that nowhere can they find more useful information than in the experience of surfing the internet whereas others believe that what is transmitted on this system is not always reliable. I strongly agree... with the former view for the following reasons.

First of all, it is argued that the floods of information posted on the Internet mislead users. With hundreds of advertising companies launching their campaigns about their products and extolling their strengths, customers have little idea about the true quality and are easily confused between them. This situation persists and irks customers greatly, partly as a result of the fact that quality controllers are available to monitor the authenticity of information. Nevertheless, such is a staggering speed of information delivery that we are driven to train ourselves with the ability to absorb and filter information. Surveys have also shown that since the birth of the Internet, the fact is that by dint of being equipped with more information, people’s level of education is increased, which is conducive to their better critical thinking. Besides, as being purchasers who are given a great amount of news about products, they have more sources to compare and contrast to have the best option, by dint of their advanced critical thinking.

Second of all, for the advantage of government, news can be distorted. It is likely that in order to gain more votes, politicians and leaders use this means to hide their frauds and manipulate their citizens with inaccurate news. Again, this argument has its flaw. On the other side, it is by virtue of accessing news from different nations, areas and organizations, whether official and unofficial, that citizens eventually discover the truth. Governments can only shut the mouth of some people and show news that are most advantageous for them, but are unable to stifle all voices of people who desire for the truth and employ means to reveal it through the internet. Another point is that after all, whether the information on the websites is accurate not depends on the people who spread the news, not the device itself. If human cast their blame on the internet for its distortion, others kinds of media, say, television and radio would not be spared. Equally important, faced with the reality that damaging feedbacks and news can appear at any times against people in online discussions or forums on the internet , they are actually learning to consummate themselves and become more cautious and responsible for their words which can sometimes determine the destiny of other people.

In the final analysis, I am in favor of the appearance and popularity of the internet for its undeniable contributions to our world, increasing people’s self-awareness, bettering crucial thinking and enriching our knowledge to the fullest extent, and the truth is that, until now, it is here to stay against all odds.

The best way for a nation to prepare for the future is to invest more resources in its young people?

The best way for a nation to prepare for the future is to invest more resources in its young people. How true do you think about it? What are the best ways to spend these resources?
---

Young people are often seen as the leaders of changes in the country. With knowledge, skills, creativity and enthusiasm, they are believed to contribute greatly to the growth... of a nation, and therefore, deserve to be most invested; however, others claim that the fate of nation depends on a variety of factors and the young are part of the entire picture of thriving only. My essay will shed light on how to allocate the investment of country for the effective resources to guarantee the long-term development.

It is first claimed that in some countries where the young population dominates, for example, America, Vietnam and others, the earmarking of a high amount of budget for their education and career development schemes makes sense. It is undeniable that America, after a short time of growth, has stuck to the plan of attracting the high-skilled labor, especially, the younger group from all walks of life, bestowing upon them the high salaries and other privileges, by dint of which it has achieved staggering accomplishments in fields of technology, economics and entertainment. Nevertheless, not all nations are peopled with a majority of the young people. Facts have shown that in such developed nations, particularly, North Eastern ones where the number of the young is relatively modest, and people tend to have a lower birth-rate, it is essential for governments here to distribute their budget significantly for the maintenance of good health care system and welfare for the old, along with their constant improvement in education systems to raise awareness of the young, including the free tertiary education.

Youngsters are, second, cited to be the main work force which adds great value to the country’s work force. It is true that equipped with updated technology, being creative and enthusiastic, they can find it easy to give birth to new ideas to heighten productivity of organizations. That explains why they are normally granted more bonuses, for instance, high salaries and training programs from places where they work while governments are spending a huge amount of budget for their education to make sure that no sooner do they graduate from university than they embark on working effectively. However, the problem is that whether the young can totally make use of redundant resources given by authorities. As a result of being too young and still disoriented about their future, it is inevitable that such expenditure can go wasted and the older groups, say, the middle and senior, feel outcast and reduce their work performance for this inequitable treatment of the government. Japan is a telling example of a nation which is able to obtain sustainable growth with strong emphasis on the step-by-step effort and slow economic bonus for this group in work places; it is said that only after, at least, being adherent to the organization for about 10 years will the young employees stand a chance of being promoted or being given a more important task.

In the final analysis, I strongly believe that all groups of people in the society, whether the old, young and middle age should be equitably addressed for their unique value. While the young tend to be dynamic and creative, the senior are the old hands of the jobs and are able to deal with any unexpected situations with calmness, loyalty and foresight. A group of people that I think government should greatly take into account is female who prove their outstanding and equal value in the modern work places, but still undergo unwanted discrimination. Another suggestion to ensure the effectiveness of their investment is that the close supervision of their outcome of their policy and the understanding of their country’s current context to figure out which group, at a certain stage, will receive the most significant investment.

Television injects violence in children, and programs with violent scenes should be banned?

Television injects violence in children, and programs with violent scenes should be banned? Agree to what exend?
---

According to social studies, violence among children is escalating day by day, which keeps the entire nation on alert, especially their parents. Some people cite the best solution to this thorny issue is to eliminate all violence-related programs on telev...ision while others perceive it as a drastic answer.

On one hand, it is undeniable that with a view to attracting an increasing number of viewers each year, programmers try to modify their movies, shows and documents dotted with sensational scenes, particularly violence one. Studies have shown that some kids who used guns and threatened others at school confessed that they just imitated naively their heroic actions on television. In this case, television programs are partly to blame. Nevertheless, would it be totally equitable when the reasons are traced to other sources, say, internet, newspaper and others, apart from television? Internet is a typical example of having such viral influence which affects adversely kids’ behavior due to belligerent online games while newspapers and picture books are fraught with images with guns, whips and other means, even in the hands of sexy teenagers.

In addition, the lack of parental caring, environment and moral education are culprits of spiral violence among children. Born and growing up in families where their parents often resort to barbaric actions in teaching children, the latter are vulnerable to see this behavior as acceptable whereas educators, instead of endeavoring to engender in children moral codes, are too busy with academic teaching and cast this mission on the parents who are unfortunately in the circle of rat race. Children are not spared the social effects when they are living in the society in which the unemployment rate is on the rise, leading to a corresponding climb in crime rate. In a word, without close supervision of parents and educators and a crime-free ambience in places children live, it is undeniable that they will be easily injected with any flow of thinking and action, especially from uncut sources on the internet, television and through unhealthy real life experience.

Other effective remedies to this dilemma are that programs on television should be censored before being publicly shown along with the limitation of age in watching any violence-related movies. More importantly, it is time for government to set limit on themselves for the fact that they often let advertisers and producers promote sensational programs for the sake of profit, rather than educational one. It would be ironic to expect kids to be exempt from violence when each day, their eyes are awake with aggressive actions from celebrities on television’s advertisement.