The advantages brought by the spread of English as a “global language” will outweigh the disadvantages?

The advantages brought by the spread of English as a “global language” will outweigh the disadvantages. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view? 

English has become the lingua franca in many parts of the world. Because of this, I agree with the given statement that the spread of English as an international language will have more pros than cons. 

Second, English is easier to learn than any other language. Unlike Chinese, for example, English has only 26 alphabets which are combined to make words and sentences. It is easy even for non-native speakers to read written English. In addition, a number of English words have been borrowed from many other languages, and many English words have been adopted by many languages and are used as part of their own languages. Therefore, many people in different countries already know some of the English. So, it could be the easiest language to learn. 

Furthermore, it is the language of global business and also jobs. It is the language of technology. You can make the best use of internet if you know English as many websites are written in English. Knowledge of English makes travel easier. There would also be no need of expensive translations. Finally, English will be the most promising language. Since English is used in many fields such as economics, politics, and academics, more and more people will study English in the future. If you have an international meeting in any field, it will probably be done in English. The demand of English will never stop. 

As every garden has weeds, there would be some disadvantages also. Many people fear that local languages would die out and with that, local cultures would die out because language and culture are inter-related. Moreover, it is bound to be divided into dialects.
  
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, there are more advantages than disadvantages of English as a global language. Its popularity and demand will increase more and more in the future.

Should we encourage our students to evaluate and criticise their teachers?

Nowadays education quality is very low. Some people think we should encourage our students to evaluate and criticise their teachers. Others believe that it will result in a loss of respect and discipline in the classroom. Discuss on both sides. 

It is a highly debated issue whether students should evaluate their teachers after each course. Some people believe the system has many advantages to the students and the teachers. Others argue that it would lead to poor discipline in the classroom. Indeed, evaluation of teachers by students has both pros and cons. 

There are many drawbacks in student assessment. First of all, students are very young and, compared with their teachers, are less knowledgeable both in theory and practice on a subject. Therefore, they are unable to evaluate their teachers’ performance in a sound way. Secondly, student assessment would lead to poor discipline in the classroom. If each of the students is allowed to comment on the teacher’s performance, then there would be chaos in the classroom. Thirdly, in order to gain a better evaluation, teachers would seek to please the students and not bother about the content of their lectures. This would harm the students’ academic performance in the long run. 

However, advocates of student assessment have their reasons. Firstly, this kind of feedback can be used to improve teachers’ performance. Teaching methods can only be successful if they are student-centered. Therefore, listening to the students’ constructive suggestions, teachers will have a better idea of what students’ needs are and can then adjust their teaching to meet them.

Secondly, the process of writing evaluations will help the students think in their own way independently. Students should be encouraged to learn by even challenging their teachers’ thinking.

Thirdly, it would help the administrators. Teachers who provide good educational services could be retained and others could be laid off. So, all teachers would strive to do their best. This would be a win-win situation for all. 

In my opinion, student evaluations of teachers would be beneficial to both teachers and students. Of course, the evaluations must be done responsibly, but when the students feel that their views are important and are listened to, I think they will do their best to contribute to the improvement in education.  

Pressure on the school and university students is increasing?

Pressure on the school and university students is increasing and students are pushed to hard work when they are young. Do you think it is a positive or negative development? 

It is irrefutable that the burden on school and university pupils is burgeoning and they have to work very hard at a young age. This situation has both positive and negative effects. A balance needs to be created in which parents and teachers have a big role. In the following paragraphs, I shall discuss the issue in depth. 

Pressure on students is increasing because of many reasons. Firstly, today we belong to a highly competitive era. Students need to get good scores to get into a good college. To add to it, higher education is very costly and students need to do part time work to fund their education. What is more, sometimes parents push children to adopt those subjects in which the child has no aptitude. This also creates tension on the mind of the students. 

This is a positive development because the habit of working hard right from early years makes them realise the dignity of labour and they are better placed in life later on. Secondly, they do not indulge in any violence and crime and drugs. This is because they don’t have time for such activities. Finally, if they work hard in early years they will develop a sound career and will have a happy and contented later life. 

It is a negative development because it leads to stress and strain. Sometimes, students cannot strike a balance between work and leisure which may result in boredom. Secondly, when students face failures or can’t cope with the pressures they can have suicidal tendencies.  Students also face stress if they are forced to choose a course against their wishes. 

On balance, I believe that being pushed to hard work is a positive development. However, parents and teachers need to do proper counselling and guide them properly. Aptitude of the student needs to be given consideration. Alternate career choices should be explained to both parents and children  

Cultural traditions may be destroyed when they are used as money-making attractions aimed at tourists?

Some people think that cultural traditions may be destroyed when they are used as money-making attractions aimed at tourists. Others believe it is the only way to save these traditions. Discuss on both sides and give your opinion.  

It is irrefutable that cultural traditions attract tourists from all over the world and develop local economy. Some individuals are of the opinion that these may be destroyed if they are modified to attract tourists. Others, however, hold the view that if we don’t use them for tourism, they will die. In the following paragraphs, I shall discuss both sides of the argument.  

We have to make these cultural traditions alluring for tourists because we need tourists. Firstly, tourism boosts our economy and secondly we get a chance to spread our culture to different countries. If our artists and artisans do not earn money from their art, which depicts our culture and tradition, then this art will die off and we’ll only be the losers.  

Tourism is the backbone of any country’s economy and every country does their effort to attract tourists. Many people depend on tourism for their livelihood. People in the food industry, hotel industry and transport industry depend on tourism. Presentation is very important to attract visitors and to present nicely, some change is inevitable. 

On the other hand, when cultural traditions are used as money-making attractions, they lose their original features. Sometimes it makes cultural traditions disappear altogether. However, I believe that culture and tradition are deep rooted and minor superficial changes cannot harm them in any way. Change is the law of nature and all we should look into is that the changes are made with caution to retain the inherent elements of culture.  

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, to save cultural traditions we need to make some changes to make them alluring to the tourist of today. If we don’t do so we’ll lose our cultural traditions altogether and we’ll lose our tourists also.  

Education is of vital importance to the development of individuals and the well-being of societies?

It is generally believed that education is of vital importance to the development of individuals and the well-being of societies. What should education consist of to fulfil both these functions?

 
It is irrefutable that education is of crucial significance to the progress of people and societies. It has been well said that – ‘Education is a companion which, no future can depress, no crime can destroy, no enemy can alienate and no nepotism can enslave.’ In the following paragraphs I shall discuss how education can benefit individuals and societies. 

First of all education should impart professional knowledge. Such knowledge enables individuals to earn a livelihood. In this way they are benefited themselves and also they can look after their families better. This leads to better societies because an educated society is a crime free society. People are self-sufficient and so do not need to go on the path of crime.  

Physical education should also be provided by a well-rounded education. It is a well known fact that healthy individuals would make a healthy society. Good health is a basic human need and for the holistic development of individuals,  physical education should be incorporated in school curricula. 
Education should also teach moral values. This makes us adaptive to society. There is less violence and less crime in society is there if people are educated. They become more open minded and live in harmony with each other. Moral science should be a compulsory subject till high school level. 
Finally, today environmental education is the need of the hour. All schools should have mandatory lessons on saving the environment. Small steps can go a long way in saving energy. Energy saved is energy generated. We all have to do away with some luxuries if we want a better tomorrow. 
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that education should have professional, physical, moral and environmental education. After all, ‘Education is not the filling up of a pail but the lighting up of a fire’. A well-rounded education consisting of all the above components would benefit both the individual and the society.

Visitors to others countries should imitate local customs and behaviours?

Some people think visitors to others countries should imitate local customs and behaviours. Some people disagree; they think the host country should welcome cultural differences. Discuss the two views and give your opinion. 

Today, with the passage of time each and every country is on the path of development, and with this development there is a growing trend of visiting different places in different countries. It is a highly debated issue whether tourists should do and behave as the people of the host country or should the host country accept visitors as they are. Both situations have their own pros and cons which I shall discuss in this essay.   

There are many benefits of adopting host countries customs. Firstly, it decreases chances of misunderstanding and embarrassment. For e.g. in the UK it is offensive to ask about pay to anyone, which is common in India. Secondly, a nation’s customs and traditions are fascinating and offer a deep insight into that country. People visit other countries to broaden their horizon. So, if tourists copy the customs of host country, they learn more about them and that too in an interesting way. Finally, visitors establish a rapport with local people because people feel respected when their customs are understood and imitated. They become a member of the host country and so they don’t suffer any culture shock. 

On the other hand there are many reasons why a host country should tolerate and embrace foreign culture. To begin with, no country should cling to its own customs and traditions and accept the new customs and traditions brought by visitors. Secondly, there should be no binding on the visitors to adopt the customs and traditions of the hosts. For example, if the visitors are pure vegetarians, they should not be forced to eat non-vegetarian food just because the host country’s people eat that.  
On balance, I feel that someone who is moving to another country should respect the customs, culture, traditions etc. of that country. This is necessary because a newcomer is like a guest in someone else's home. So he is expected to follow the rules of that country. However, it is not reasonable to compel a believer of certain religion to ignore his religion in order to comply with the local customs.  

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, mutual understanding between both the visitor and the host is necessary to maintain harmony. A cosmopolitan society in which everyone is tolerant of each other’s customs and traditions is the need of the day. After all, today, we are part of a small global village and not a big planet Earth.

People can perform everyday tasks without meeting other people face-to-face?

People can perform everyday tasks, such as shopping and banking as well as business transactions, without meeting other people face-to-face. What are the effects of this on individual and society as a whole?  

The availability and application of modern devices and tools of communications like Fax machines, telephone, interactive TV and computer have brought tremendous convenience and efficiency to both life and work. Thanks to telecommunications, daily tasks and business transactions can be performed without meeting other people in person. This practice certainly has positive effects on the individual and the society as a whole. 

Undoubtedly, e-shopping and e-banking make life more convenient than ever before. People can stay home comfortably, looking on the Internet where a vast sea of information is available to find what they need. They Log on to the relevant websites and look for detailed information on the products and services that they are interested in. They read the descriptions, examine the pictures, and check the prices. Eventually, they make a decision and send an e-mail to order and pay for it by e-banking. All can be done at home, without scanning newspaper advertisements, reading reference print materials, going around downtown as they did before. As a result, they have more time to take part in social activities, pursue hobbies and interests and communicate with families, which are all indispensable parts of quality life. 

The trend of doing business by telecommunications equally benefits the whole society because business can be done more efficiently and effectively at a much lower cost. An extra benefit is that more natural resources can be saved. Moreover, small businesses have almost the same opportunities to advertise and promote their products and services on line to compete with those large ones, which makes the whole society fairer. 

To sum up, performing everyday tasks and business transactions by means of telecommunications benefits the individual and the society enormously. There is simply no going back.

Leisure is a growing industry, but people no longer entertain themselves as much as they used to?

Leisure is a growing industry, but people no longer entertain themselves as much as they used to because the use of modern technology has made them less creative. Do you agree or disagree? 

I disagree with the statement that people do not entertain themselves as much as they used to because of modern technology. I believe that modern technology has not made people less creative. In fact it has changed the definition of leisure and the lifestyle of people.  

Modern technology has changed our definition of leisure. Earlier, leisure meant going out and meeting people, playing outdoor games, going to cinema to watch movies and so on. However, today, leisure time is full of choices. We have so many things to do within the four walls of our house. We can watch countless programs on national and international channels; we can play online games; we can chat with friends and relatives in any corner of the world; we can do arm-chair tourism by which we can visit any historical place or museum sitting in our arm-chair. That is why perhaps it looks as if we people do not entertain ourselves as much as we used to in yesteryears. 

Another reason why people don’t entertain as much as before is also not because of technology. Technology has, in fact, given us more time to enjoy but we can’t strike a balance between work and play. We have become workaholics. Life in the past was simpler. People worked for basic needs. Now work is not just a way of life. It is for personal fulfillment. We set goals for ourselves such as a house or a car. We choose this way of life. Now we have improved standard of living but this has come at a very high cost.  

Finally, I would like to state that the given statement is flawed because nowadays people specially take out time to entertain themselves. This can be evident from the mushroom growth of leisure centres such as hotels, restaurants, fun parks and spas. Tourist places are full of people and train and air reservations have to be done well in advance. 

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, technology has not made us less creative. We entertain ourselves more than earlier times but the ways of entertainment are different and technology has given us more choices than before.

Discuss about some of the methods used to produce cheap food may be dangerous to human health

Food can be produced much more cheaply today because of improved fertilisers and better machinery. However, some of the methods used to do this may be dangerous to human health and may have negative effects on local communities. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 
Yesterday’s fiction is today’s reality. Such colossal developments have taken place in agriculture which we could not even think of earlier. It is a highly debated issue as to whether these improvements in fertilisers and technology are a blessing or a curse. In my opinion, there are both pros and cons of this situation but the advantages are much more than disadvantages. 
On the positive side, farmers now have a wide range of selection, in terms of seeding, irrigation and use of pesticides and fertilizers. Technology has saved people from tedious work and in the mean time increased the production markedly. Machines save the cost of labour and also save time, so productivity has increased dramatically. All this is needed to meet the demands of the burgeoning population.  
Furthermore, genetic modification of foods has given us such species which need little or no insecticides and no fertilizers. The quality of food has also improved. For example, fish gene has been added to tomato to make it frost resistant. A nut protein has been added to soya bean to increase the protein content. We have more choices and even the colour and shape can also be changed. We have sweeter fruits and square watermelons and yellow coloured ones. Finally, factory farming, in which animals are fed nicely so as to increase their meat, is also the need of the hour. 
On the downside, such technology has reduced the need for manpower and many people are now jobless. This has a negative effect on communities. Genetic modification is also considered unnatural and as it is relatively new, people are also concerned about its long term harmful effects. Some methods are also dangerous to environment as there is contamination of the neighbouring crops by the altered gene pool. Last but not least, the rich countries can use this technology and further increase the gap between the rich and the poor. 

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that as every garden has weeds, such developments have their pros and cons. We should know where to draw the line and take maximum advantage of this technology minimising its harmful effects.

The effect of increasing number of crimes committed by young people

In recent years, the number of crimes committed by young people in major cities throughout the world is increasing. Discuss this issue. Give reasons and suggest some solutions. 

It is a very shocking situation that the number of youngsters involved in crime is increasing day by day. In this essay, I intend to discuss the reasons for this phenomenon and suggest some solutions. 
A number of factors are responsible for juvenile delinquency. Media is one powerful influence. Many times, vulgarity and violence is shown on TV. Children are vulnerable and accept it as natural and try to copy what is shown.  For example, in Virginia USA, a student killed 30 students just after watching a TV program.  Another cause of crime among youth is the changing family structure. Nuclear families are the norm of the day. Earlier, there were joint families in which grandparents used to teach moral values to children. They kept an eye on the friend circle of their grandchildren. Nowadays, both parents are working and children are left unattended at home. They may fall into bad company and resort to drugs under peer pressure. For drugs they desperately need money which turns them towards crime. 

Furthermore, increasing poverty, unemployment and competition is causing hopelessness and frustration among the youth. They are over ambitious and want to earn quick money. They have a lot of energy and if that energy is not harnessed in the right direction, they can go astray. Consumerist society is also a big factor to put them on the path of crime. When they see new things in the market, they want them by hook or by crook. Parents cannot satisfy all their whims and so they start doing petty crime which turns to major crime very soon. 

The solutions are not simple. The issue has to be dealt with on a war footing. Some censorship of TV channels is needed. Parents should ration the TV viewing hours of children. Parents should watch TV with children so that they know what their children are being exposed to. We should also encourage joint families. Parents should be good role models Good family atmosphere should be provided to children. Friend circle of the children should be monitored. We should also educate children about the harms of consumerism. Schools should also provide good education. Finally, government should try and reduce unemployment and poverty which are the root causes.  

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, crime among youth is a big problem and youth alone cannot be blamed for that. We should look into the causes and take relevant steps to fight this problem.

Students should be organised into groups to study?

Some teachers say students should be organised into groups to study. Others argue students should be made to study alone. Tell the benefits of each study method. Which one do you think is more effective?  

Some educationists hold the view that studying in groups is better for students while others believe that studying alone is better. This essay shall delve into the benefits of each study methods. 

There are many benefits of studying in groups. To begin with, when you work with other students you are able to share your ideas and experiences, and have more time to do this. For example, if every student spends just two minutes talking individually to the teacher, the class time is soon finished. However, if students work in groups they can spend much more time talking to the teacher than just two minutes.  

Secondly, when we study in groups this helps students practise negotiation skills like making a contribution, agreeing or disagreeing with someone and asking a person to give examples of their point. Finally, we can put forward working in groups as an example of what happens in real life, in work situations and say that studying in groups in class prepares us for this. 

On the other hand, when students study alone then they have no distractions and they can concentrate better on study. This is especially helpful in subjects like mathematics and physics. Studying alone also increases the confidence and ability to solve problems on one’s own. Students become more competitive which is a necessary virtue in the competitive era of today.  

I feel that teachers should mix and match both these methods depending on the subject and the situation. For boring subjects like history and philosophy students should be organised into groups but for subjects that need concentration, individual study should be encouraged. Both methods have own importance and should complement each other rather than being treated as rivals.

People get information through news and papers, but meanwhile are uncertain about the truth of these news?

Nowadays, people get information through news and papers, but meanwhile are uncertain about the truth of these news. Should we believe the journalists? What qualities should a good journalist or correspondent have?  

News and newspapers are an indispensable part of our everyday life because they keep us connected with the outside world. This essay shall discuss whether or not we should believe the journalists and also explain the characteristics of a good journalist. 

We have to believe the journalists because they are our only source of information. But, we should take it all with a pinch of salt. Sometimes they may spread ill-founded news just to sell their papers. On the whole, they are doing great service to us. They are a link between the government and the people. They shape our opinions. They make us feel part of this global village by keeping us in touch with it and at times they even provide justice. For example, in the Jessica murder case, it was because of the effort of these journalists that a politician’s son got punishment and Jessica’s family got justice. 

A good journalist should have many qualities. First of all, he should promote the truth and not rumours of ill founded news. Only authenticated news should be given. Secondly, he should be unbiased and not favour any group or political party. He should not hurt the sentiments of any particular community. This is very important in a pluralistic (multicultural and multi-religious) society like India. He should also have excellent communication skills. 

Furthermore, a good journalist should be versatile – he has to cover varied fields such as sports, business, entertainment and politics. He should always be on his toes because you never know when the sky is going to fall. Finally, he should be bold and brave because he has to handle tough situations. For instance, during the 26th November terrorist attack at Mumbai, it was these journalists who brought us the first-hand news. 

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that we have to believe the journalists because they bring us the latest news and a good journalist should be a multifaceted personality.

Many students have to study subjects which they do not like. This is a complete waste of time?

Many students have to study subjects which they do not like. Some people think this is a complete waste of time. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? 

In today's competitive world, a broad knowledge is needed to succeed in any field. Therefore, I disagree that it is a waste of time if students study subjects which are not of their interest. 

Let us first examine the reasons why some people hold the opinion that students should not have to study all the subjects and should be allowed to choose the subjects they want to study. They opine that in this case the students will probably be more enthusiastic about their study. In addition, if students are forced to study all subjects, they can easily lose interest in education. What is more, if all subjects are compulsory for studying, students will not have enough time to learn all of them properly therefore they will be constantly under a lot of pressure. 

However, I believe all subjects are of great importance and for the holistic development of the students they need to study all subjects equally at school level.  Later on, during admission to the colleges, students can select the subjects of their choice and can explore them further. At that age they are mature enough to decide their subjects for themselves. At school level the student may not know what his real interests are. 

Furthermore, nowadays, the job market is very demanding and the recruiters select students who are skilled in various fields. Having the basic knowledge of varied subjects during school time definitely widens the horizons for the students. To add to it, it is a well known fact that most subjects are related to each other in some way or the other. For example, a basic knowledge of mathematics is needed to excel in computer languages. Finally, I believe that it is up to the teachers to develop interest of the students in any subject. For instance, during my school days, my history teacher was so good that a boring subject like history was the favourite subject of the whole class. 

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, students should learn all subjects at school level as they are not mature enough to know their real interests at school level and a broad knowledge is also needed for their holistic development.  

Do you agree or that improvements in technology reduce the role of Olympic Games?

Do you agree or that improvements in technology reduce the role of Olympic Games?

Olympic Games are the world's most important international athletic competition. They bring together thousands of the finest athletes to compete against one another in a variety of individual and team sports. Although technology is having an impact on the Olympics in a profound way I disagree that it is reducing the role of Olympic Games. I believe that technology allows us to more fully appreciate everything about the competition and the athletes who commit their lives to fulfill their dreams.

To begin with, winning an Olympic event is the highest honour people can achieve even in the modern times. Unknown athletes get the chance to attain national, and in particular cases, international fame. Secondly, Olympic Games are the best medium of cultural exchange even today. Different people of different countries, religions, cultures etc get together at Olympics and the participants get a chance to know about other cultures. The Games also constitute a major opportunity for the host city and country to showcase themselves to the world. 

Although the technological realities of the modern times have brought many changes in the Olympic Games of today, they have not reduced the importance of the Olympic Games. Technology plays a part in every aspect of these games, from the first torch relay hand-off to the closing ceremonies. Athletes and trainers use technology in preparing for the games to optimize their training. Sports equipment manufacturers use design technology to build improved apparatus, gear and more that will enable their clients to deliver a high level performance. Broadcasters use technology to better inform viewers of all aspects of the events. As a consequence, more and more people are exposed to these games.

People who opine that technology has reduced the role of Olympic Games say so because the ugly claws of commercialism have crept into this field also. As a result, the Olympics has shifted away from pure amateurism to professionalism. The win-at-all-cost attitude has come up and many use unethical means to win. They also say that only the rich can afford technology to boost their performance and this creates a gap between the rich and poor. I still believe that without inherent ability no amount of technology can make anybody a winner or loser.  

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, technology has brought colossal changes in The Olympic Games of today but in no way have they decreased the role of Olympic Games.

Fossial fuels and alternative souces of energy

Fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) are the main sources in many countries, but in some countries the use of alternative sources of energy (wind energy and solar energy) are encouraged. To what extent do you think it is a positive or negative development? 

It is irrefutable that fossil fuels are the main source of energy in many parts of the world, but some nations are taking a step forward and using renewable sources like wind, solar and tidal energy. Definitely, it is a positive development. In the following paragraphs I intend to support my views with my arguments. 

The main advantage of using alternate sources is that the conventional sources like coal and oil are non-renewable. They take millions of years to make and we are finishing them at an alarming rate. This means that if we finish the existing resources they will be gone forever as far as our and the coming many generations are concerned. Energy from the wind, the sun and the sea is an everlasting source of power. So, more and more governments should come forward in promoting these sources. 
Another big advantage of these non-conventional sources is that they do not pollute the environment. We all know that global warming and damage to the protective ozone layer are caused by carbon-dioxide and other by-products of fossil fuels. If urgent steps are not taken towards the use of natural sources like sun and wind, then the time is not far when the whole earth will transform into a boiling pot.  

Although the use of these alternative sources has some hurdles such as the initial cost of setting up solar panels and wind farms is very high and these are also dependent on the geographical locations. However, once the initial cost has been met with, their maintenance is practically negligible.  

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that the use of these alternative sources is a very positive development. It should be the global priority to invest in such research and development.  

People can work and live in anywhere they want, because of the improvement of communication technology and transport. Agree?

Today, people can work and live in anywhere they want, because of the improvement of communication technology and transport. Do advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages? 

It is irrefutable that because of the advances in telecommunication technology and travel, today’s person can live and work in any part of the globe. The advantages of this definitely outweigh the disadvantages. In the following paragraphs I shall put forth my arguments to support my views. 
There are many advantages of being able to live and work from anywhere. First of all, people have more choices of jobs because of technological advances. Not only can you work in any part of your home country, you can work for any company in any part of the world by telecommuting. Secondly, modern wireless technology has made work easier and created more time for self and family. What is more, people can lessen their work hours and still do their work more efficiently. Another advantage is that people can manage more than one work at a time. This is the need of the day as inflation is touching the sky and people need to earn more and more. 

Furthermore, the modern transportation modes like the metro and light rail have lessened the travel time and also made it more convenient for commuters. This has also decreased the need for people to live in the cities to do jobs because now it is possible to work in cities and come back to peaceful countryside in the evenings because of modern transport systems. This has decreased the overcrowding of cities which was making cities unbearable to live in. 

On the downside, this is leading to a sedentary lifestyle as people don’t need to travel. Another disadvantage is that people become so dependent on technology that any network failure may lead life to come to a standstill. Nevertheless, I still believe that these minor disadvantages are of no importance if we look at the plethora of advantages this situation has to offer. 

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, people can live and work anywhere today and this situation is more of a boon than a bane.

Students at schools and universities learn far more from lessons with teachers than from others sources (such as the internet, television)?

Students at schools and universities learn far more from lessons with teachers than from others sources (such as the internet, television). To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is irrefutable that students can learn a lot nowadays from internet and television and these have become an indispensable part of education but I firmly believe that teachers play a more significant role in the classroom. I believe that no amount of technology can ever undermine the importance of the teacher. In the following paragraphs, I intend to support my views with my arguments. 

To begin with, 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 through internet and TV 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. In addition, teachers are role models for students. They are scholars in action. They not only teach academic subjects, but also many social skills.  

Furthermore, there are many practical subjects which students can learn best from the teacher. For example, experiments of physics and chemistry are best learnt by the teacher guiding you at every step. What is more, teachers give assignments and regularly check them. This helps the teachers to recognise the weak points of students and guide them accordingly. All this cannot be done by the internet and TV.  

On the other hand, it is also true that the internet is an ocean of knowledge. You can get information about any topic on Earth from the internet. But there is no authenticity of this information. What information to get and from where to get requires a lot of expertise. The television also has a lot of educative programmes but students still need the guidance of the teachers at all stages of learning. Teachers can make even the dull and boring subjects seem interesting. So definitely students learn more from teachers.  

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, no doubt TV and the Internet are very educative these days but students definitely learn more from the teacher.

The range of technology available to individuals today is increasing the gap between poor people and rich people?

Some people believe the range of technology available to individuals today is increasing the gap between poor people and rich people. Others think it is having an opposite effect. Discuss these points of view. What is your opinion? 

Technology seems to promise infinite benefits for mankind. While it could be argued that the development of new technology always expands the gap between rich and poor, it is also true that the level of technology used in developing countries and low-income countries has been quicker than the developed countries over the last few years and this has helped to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. So, both views have some ground which I shall be discussing in this essay. 

There are many reasons why people say that technology increases the gap between rich and poor. To begin with, new technology itself tends to be affordable by only the richer elements of society and the poorer elements are denied the opportunities that this provides, such as the ability to be able to train for better paid work. It is understandable that because of their ability to acquire new technology, the learning ability within the richer elements of society is much improved. Therefore they get better job placements and continue to grow further.  

What is more, with the power that wealth and knowledge brings, richer segments are more able to exert influence over the direction of society, usually to their own benefit. The poorer segment does not have this ability, and therefore their demands and needs tend to be driven lower down the list of political priorities. 

On the other hand there are reasons to hold the opposite view. While it is true that the initial level of technology in lower-income countries was much lower to begin with, there is strong evidence of catch-up between middle-income and high-income countries. Technological progress increased 40% to 60% faster in developing countries than in rich countries. Use of some new technologies, such as mobile phones, has risen quickly.   

Technology has created huge opportunities for the poor where none existed previously. For example, some technologies such as communications or networking give poor people a chance to earn a better living. It is not uncommon for some people who used to live in poverty becoming millionaires or billionaires by taking advantage of the internet. This has definitely led to narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor.  

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that technology can do both – widen the gap between the rich and poor as well as narrow the gap if the poor get access to it. Therefore, it is not the technology to blame for the gap; it is the access to technology which is to blame. So, we should see to it that everyone gets equal access to technology.

Films can have effect on the children’s education and teach them many things?

Films can have effect on the children’s education and teach them many things. Do you think it is always a positive influence? Discuss. 

It is irrefutable that movies can be very educative for children. However, the effect of movies is not always beneficial. In the following paragraphs, I intend to discuss the positive and negative effects of movies on children. 

On the positive side, movies are enjoyable for children of all ages. They stimulate children’s emotions, imaginations and conversations. Movies also introduce children to cultures and historical events. Movies used in the classroom enhance learning. Therefore, if the movies are good they can have a very positive influence on a child’s growth. 

On the downside, children are negatively affected by movies with sex, violence drug abuse and offensive language. Older children and adolescents may copy the risky things they see in movies. What is more, movies glamorize things like smoking and drinking and children are quick to pick up these traits.  

Furthermore, watching too many movies can impede the development of healthy habits like playing outdoor games, reading and spending quality time with family. Children who are avid film viewers are more likely to suffer from obesity related problems throughout their lives. 

I believe that as everything has its pros and cons, movies too can have both - good and bad influences. It is very important for parents to check the movie ratings before allowing their children to watch any movies. The best thing for parents could be to watch movies with their children. Watching movies together could be a very rewarding experience.  

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that movies can have a positive or a negative influence on children but if parents take steps in choosing their children’s movies, then the effect can be largely positive.

Competitive sports are considered to add a lot of value by bringing people of different states and nationalities together?

Competitive sports like football are considered to add a lot of value by bringing people of different states and nationalities together. Yet some people argue that these sports divide people on the basis of nationalities and age groups. What is your opinion? Write about each view and then describe your answer supporting it with relevant examples from your own experience. 

It is irrefutable that competitive sports such as The Football World Cup and The Olympics are watched by millions of people worldwide. There are divided opinions on whether these games unite or divide people on the basis of age and nationalities. In the following paragraphs, I intend to discuss both views followed by my opinion. 

Sports provide people with entertainment and something to get excited about and they are topics for conversation. They provide a common bond for complete strangers and a common team to cheer for. For example, Brazil has a high rate of unemployment and crime because of which Brazilians have a low self esteem. But, when the world cup starts, then the people forget all their problems. An amazing feeling of pride and patriotism comes in them and they cheer their team together. 
The  Olympic games are one of the best examples of how sporting events can bring people of different nations together. In ancient times, the Greeks and Romans would interrupt battles to participate in games. Even India and Pakistan forget their differences on the cricket ground and the players embrace each other after every match. 

On the other hand there are many examples of violence and conflicts which such games have brought about. Football hooliganism or football violence is well known to all. The 1985 European Cup final between Liverpool and Juventis in Heysel Stadium led to the death of 39 supporters. Any wrong decision by the referee can lead to violence. A lot of emotion and passion are involved and all reason and logic fly out of the window. That is why some people hold the opinion that such games divide people. 

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that competitive games generally bring people together. There are a few incidences when over-patriotism prevailed and people got divided but such incidents can be counted on the fingertips.

Competitive sports have a positive effect on the child’s education?

Some people think that competitive sports have a positive effect on the child’s education while others argue it is not so. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages and opine. 

In recent years, due to stiff competition in almost every area some people opine that competitive sports have a beneficial impact on children’s education. However, there are some who disagree with the above notion. Before presenting my view, I intend to explore both sides of the argument. 

There are many advantages of competitive sports. The first and foremost advantage is that such sports prepare children for a society that thrives on competition. Competition is a normal part of human nature and a part of everyday life. Secondly, competitive sports provide challenges and help children deal with such challenges. Finally, these games teach discipline and help build character and confidence. 

On the other hand opponents on competitive sports argue that these sports lead to stress which is detrimental to the mental health of children. If these games are played with a winat-all-cost attitude then sometimes unethical means are adopted to win and this is definitely not what children should learn in schools. Competitive sports also have a toxic effect on the relation among children. Each child may regard others as a rival to his own success and it leads children to envy winners and laugh at losers. 

In my opinion, competitive sports are good but over competitiveness should be discouraged. The win-at-all-cost mentality should not be there. In childhood, competition should be introduced gradually and children should build skills, participate fully and focus on playing rather than winning. 
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, competitive sports have more pros than cons. Students should play competitive sports because they make them adapt better to this competitive society. However, schools should take effective measures to avoid destructive competition.  

Road transport is taking over rail service?

Road transport is taking over rail services. Discuss the positive and negative effects of this development. Is this situation true for your country? 

Transport refers to the activity that facilitates movements of goods and individuals from one place to another. So, it removes the distance barrier. Roadways and railways are the two means of land transport. It is true that in many countries road transport is becoming more popular. It is both a negative as well as a positive development which I shall discuss in this essay. 

There are many advantages of road transport over rail transport. To begin with, it is a relatively cheaper mode of transport than rail transport. Secondly, perishable goods can be transported at a faster speed by road carriers over a short distance. Moreover, it provides door-to-door service. So, loading and unloading is possible at any destination. Finally, it is the only mode of transport in hilly areas which are not connected by other modes of transport. 

On the downside, road transport has its limitations which are indirectly the plus points of rail transport. Firstly, due to limited carrying capacity, road transport is not economical for long distances. Secondly, road transport is affected by adverse weather conditions like floods, rain, landslide etc. on the other hand rail transport is hardly affected by such situations. Finally, road transport leads to too much congestion on roads which in turn may cause accidents and increase pollution. 

In India, over the years, more and more inland freight traffic has been shifting from rail to road. In 1951, 88% of the country’s freight was moving on rail and 10% on road. But today, about 60% of the freight moves on road and 38% on rail. 

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, road transport definitely has an edge over rail transport. That is why it is becoming more popular. This situation has both pros and cons which I have explained in the above paragraphs.

Students should be afraid of the teacher or have a friendly relation?

Some people think if students are afraid of the teacher it is better. Others say that having a friendly relation is better. What do you think? 

Young children are buildings under construction and teachers are the builders. It is a highly debatable issue whether teachers should be friendly or strict. In my opinion, extremes of both approaches are bad. I good teacher should know when to be friendly and when to be strict and also know the degree of friendliness and strictness required. 

There are many advantages if teachers are strict. To begin with, discipline can only be maintained if teachers are strict. For example, if students are afraid of the teacher, they will attend classes regularly and complete their work in time. But, if the teacher is too strict, then the students may lose interest in the subject and may not come to the teacher with their problems. 

On the other hand, a friendly teacher is like a good mentor with whom students can share their problems. Students also take more interest in the subject. Students bloom under the guidance of such a teacher. The disadvantage, however, is that a too friendly or partial attitude results in diversion from studies.  

In my opinion, a good teacher should be like a friend, philosopher and guide for his students. But, from time to time, he should pull the reins so that the students do not go out of hand. After all, he is shaping the future of the nation. There is a well known saying in Sanskrit that ‘Acharya Devo Bhava’ which means that a teacher is like a God. 

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, it has to be decided by the teacher when to be friendly or strict and how much degree of friendliness or strictness is required because extremes of both approaches are detrimental for the future of a student and ultimately for the future of a nation.

Parents should control their children’s behavior from a very young age?

Some people say that parents should control their children’s behavior from a very young age. What do you think? 

I definitely agree with the view.  Young children are beginners.  They have lots to learn and one of the biggest lessons they must learn is to behave or act in an acceptable manner. So parents have the onus of instilling the best values in their children.  They must do so from a really young age because a little late may be too late. 

Firstly, restrictions create responsible and respectful children who, in turn, mature into respectful adults. They know the value of respect for others. They know the importance of relationships. They know their cultural values as well. They know their boundaries.  

Moreover, children are like sponges which very easily absorb what is taught to them. If you teach them good values, they will imbibe them. If parents don’t realize their role and don’t bother much, children will learn from other sources like TV and the people around them. They learn whatever they see and observe and if no one tells them at an early age what is wrong and what is right, they may learn vulgarity and violence. Later on parents may find it impossible to make them unlearn those things. 

Furthermore, if parents don’t control their children’s behavior from a very young age, they may fall into bad company. They may start taking drugs under peer pressure. Once children become drug addicts, it is very difficult to bring them to normalcy once again. 

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, parents are responsible for bringing children into this world and it is their responsibility for instilling good behavior in them. So, the earlier they do so the better. If they keep waiting, things may go out of hand.

Children should be given freedom to do whatever they want?

Do you think children should be given freedom to do whatever they want or parents should impose restrictions on them.

Young children are beginners. They have lots to learn and one of the biggest lessons they must learn is to behave or act in a responsible manner.  So, it is a debatable issue whether there should be rules on children or whether they should be given total freedom. 

Firstly, restrictions create responsible and respectful children who, in turn, mature into respectful adults. They know the value of respect for others. They know the importance of relationships. They know their cultural values as well. They know their boundaries. 

However, if too strict restrictions are imposed on them, they may become rebels. They may start doing just the opposite of what is told them to do. What is more, they may show abnormal behavior. They may fall into bad company or start taking drugs. Finally, imposing too strict rules destroys the individuality of children. They may withdraw into a shell and become introverts.  

What is important is that parents should learn where restrictions are needed and where it is important to give room to children. Having absolutely no restrictions and letting children do whatever they feel like would be very wrong. They are not mature enough to solve all problems and they have to be taught their limits. 

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, parents should impose restrictions but should also know where to draw the line. They should be flexible and modify the rules according to circumstances.

Should old people live with family or separately with the same aged people?

Should old people live with family or separately with the same aged people? 

It is a highly debatable issue whether old people should live with family or old-age homes. This is a very important issue because demographic trends suggest that we are part of a graying society in which the population of the elderly is growing by leaps and bounds. I have strong arguments to suggest that they should live separately. 

Aged people should live separate because this will give them a feeling of independence. Moreover, by doing so, they will command more respect in the eyes of their children. It is irrefutable that relationships become strong and meaningful when people are not under the same roof. Hence, if aged people are away from their children physically, both will be closer to each other emotionally. 
What is more, the mushroom growth of old age homes is ample evidence that they are a boon for the society. They give the opportunity to the elderly to be in the comfort of people of similar age and experience.  They also remain healthy with timely day-to-day activities. In such homes, the elderly also get a chance to do some social service activities which in turn help the society.
 
Furthermore, the culture of the old age homes tends to refine some attitudes of the aged such as short temper and negative thinking. Old age homes are also a boon for those elderly who face social isolation in their own homes where their so-called loved ones neglect them badly and have no time for them.  

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, the elderly should live with people of their own age group, in old age homes, where they enjoy the retired period of their life nicely, comfortably and productively.

Animals should be kept in men made cells?

Do you agree or disagree that animals should be kept in men made cells. 

I disagree that animals should be kept in men made cells. I feel that zoos are an unsuitable environment for animals and therefore should be abolished.  

Firstly, zoo animals are kept in very confined area compared with their vast natural habitat. Due to this zoo animals develop unnatural habits like pacing back and forth or swaying from side to side. For example, polar bears are given about 10 metres of walking space where as in their arctic home they roam for hundreds of kilometers. Similarly, lions and tigers are confined in cages where they lack exercise and stimulation. What is more, it is very common for visitors to tease and provoke caged animals. This also leads to unnatural behavior in animals. 

Secondly, the breeding programmes taken up by zoos are not very successful. For instance, the ‘Panda Breeding Programme’ has been very costly and unsuccessful. Also, zoo life does not prepare animals for the challenges of life in the wild. They are provided good food in the zoos, but if left in the jungle, they may die of starvation because they cannot hunt for themselves. 

Finally, the zoo is an unnatural environment that exposes animals to many dangers. Diseases often spread between species that would never live together naturally. For example, many Asian elephants have died in African zoos after catching herpes from African elephants.  

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, zoos are unnatural habitats for the wild animals and there is no justification in caging these marvelous creatures of God.

Promotions to high positions should be given to employees inside the company and not to somebody outside the company or new hiring?

In companies, promotions to high positions should be given to employees inside the company and not to somebody outside the company or new hiring. Do you agree or disagree? 

It is a highly debatable issue whether promotions should be given to employees from within or new hiring should be done. The given statement proposes to in-house hiring. It is necessary to look at the pros and cons of promoting from within the company before forming an opinion. 

There are many benefits to hiring from within. To begin with, the employee is familiar with the company. No special training needs to be given. The person knows about the general working of the business. Moreover, employees feel that they will be rewarded for their extra effort and hard work.
So, an employee who has been tested and excelled at a lower level can be shifted to an upper level.  
On the other hand, there are some disadvantages of hiring from within. Sometimes, the established policy of hiring from within makes some employees feel that they are entitled to promotion just because they have spent time with the company. Secondly, this can hurt the feelings of other employees who are not promoted. They may feel that they deserved the position better.  

In my opinion, a manager or business owner needs to remember that all the hiring decisions need to be made with the idea of strengthening the business. This means that sometimes a person from within can be moved up and sometimes a highly qualified person can be hired from outside.  

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, each promotion needs to be done on a case to case basis and at all times the HR manager needs to do what is in the best interest of the company.

Advertising influences people to buy things such as clothes and shoes?

Advertising influences people to buy things such as clothes and shoes. What are the problems caused by that? What solutions can be given. 

It is irrefutable that advertising promotes consumerism. In this essay I intend to explore the problems caused by excessive consumerism and suggest some ways forward. 

To begin with, advertisements can cause people to be dissatisfied with what they already have and make them want more. Being exposed again and again to products which one cannot afford leads to frustration and dissatisfaction. Furthermore, not all parents are in a position to afford the goods which the children see advertised and want to possess. This often leads to feeling of inadequacy among the less well off.  

In addition to this advertisements create materialism. It is a fact that people are prepared to work longer hours and even turn to crime to buy these material goods. Last but not least, excessive consumerism leads to a throw-away culture which is detrimental to the environment. 

The solutions are not simple. Advertisements cannot be banned because they are a source of valuable revenue which is used for the benefit of majority. The onus is on the people not to get carried away and buy only what they actually need. The government can, however, ban unnecessary packaging. Furthermore, educating people is a crucial tool against excessive consumerism. People could be made to understand how they are exploited by the adverts. It is also vital to teach our children financial management right from the early years. This way there will be less chance for them to be swayed by the advertisements. 

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, advertising does promote consumerism but people could be educated about the ill effects of excessive consumerism.

How modernism can affect our health?

Discuss your opinion on how modernism can affect our health. What can the government do to overcome such situations? 

Modern life can be very taxing. Today, we live faster, work more and have less free time than ever before. In addition, our conveniences come at the expense of the purity of the environment. In this essay I intend to delve into the negative effects of modernism on our health and the steps that can be taken to overcome them. 

There is an age old saying, “We are what we eat”. This holds good even today. Nowadays, good food is hard to find. Many people are eating the quickest and the cheapest foods they can find, which, unfortunately, are the least nutritious. They lead to obesity which can predispose to many diseases such as hypertension and obesity.  

The second major effect of modernism is lack of exercise. Machines and the automobiles have made our lifestyle very sedentary. In addition to it, the fast paced lifestyle and the IT revolution have increased our expectations from work. Not only that, the consumerist society also makes us work more. This makes us workaholics and as a result we suffer from stress which has led many to a nervous breakdown.  

Many steps can be taken to combat the negative effects of modernism. The best way to do this is to start educating people on how to live a healthier life. This has to be done on a large scale. The government can take the help of the media for this purpose. There should be a ban on the ads of fast foods. People have to be told the difference between a healthy meal and a fattening one.

Secondly, exercise should be incorporated in our daily routine. For short distances, people should be encouraged to walk. This would kill two birds with one stone as people would be healthy and also pollution from vehicles would reduce. This pollution also causes health problems.

Finally, government should fix working hours. This would give people more time to relax and exercise. 

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, modernism can affect our physical and mental health but government can take many steps to lessen these effects.  

Subjects like arts, music, drama and creative writing are more beneficial to children?

Some people say that subjects like arts, music, drama and creative writing are more beneficial to children and therefore they need more of these subjects to be included in the timetable. Do you agree or disagree?

Arts have little or no place in the educational curriculum so far because we have a feeling that time spent on these things is time wasted. Recent studies, however, have shown that a good curriculum that includes arts education can have multiple benefits which I shall highlight in this essay.

The most important benefit of arts in schools is that it contributes to making a well rounded student. Not only that, certain forms of arts instruction enhance and complement academic skills such as basic reading skills, language development and writing skills. So, children do well in other subjects also.
Another big advantage is that it encourages the pursuit of extra-curricular activities. Children get a chance to show their creative expression. When such hidden abilities are exposed in school time then those with exceptional talent can be encouraged to adopt it as a profession later-on in life. It is a well known fact that people in such professions are earning telephone figure salaries nowadays. 
Last but not least, such subjects are stress-busters. In the highly competitive era of today, pressure of academic subjects is too high. Arts like music, drama and creative writing break the monotony of tough academic studies.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that our educational curriculum needs a serious revision and more of such subjects need to be added to the school curriculum. They complement academic study, bring out hidden talent and break the ennui of tough academic studies.

Small shops in towns and villages are closing and replaced by big stores. Good or Bad?

Small shops in towns and villages are closing and replaced by big stores. Explain your opinion. Do you think it is good or bad? 

Commercialization has grown rapidly in the modern era. Consequently, there is a mushroom growth of big shopping malls. As every garden has weeds, this phenomenon also has its pros and cons. On the whole, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

There are many advantages of big stores. To begin with, they save our time. We do not have to waste time going from one small shop to the other. Secondly, these stores offer a huge variety of goods. For example, in some stores you can buy anything ranging from a sewing needle to a car.

Furthermore, such stores purchase items in bulk and so they can afford to sell the products at a lower price than the other small retailers and therefore the customers are benefited. To add to it, they sell mostly the branded products and so the quality is assured. Another advantage is that most of such stores accept credit cards and so you don’t have to carry heavy chunks of cash. 

On the downside, such malls promote consumerism. They pull the customers through attractive displays and schemes and as a result customers end up buying more than they need. Moreover, such shops are opened with huge investments. So they can withstand adverse market conditions for a long time. Because of this the small retailers and vendors are finding it difficult to cope with them. 
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that big shopping malls are definitely an asset to the customer and society despite their drawbacks.  

Computers will become more intelligent than human beings?

Scientists believe that computers will become more intelligent than human beings. Some people find it a positive development while others think it is negative development. Discuss both points and give your own opinion.

There are a lot of computer scientists who are convinced that when computers become many times faster than they are now, and more complex, they will be more intelligent than human beings. Some take it as a blessing where as others take it as a curse. In the following paragraphs I shall discuss both viewpoints and finally give my opinion.

On the positive side, computer machines or robots can do lots of jobs for human beings and this saves the labour force to be engaged in other aspects. More and more automated machines have replaced human labour. Computer manages our banks and the tickets at the airport are issued by machine-robot. In addition, the robots have entered offices, departments and houses to help people to work easily and to enjoy longer leisure hours in their own homes. The computerization certainly relieves human beings from heavy labours. What is more, robotic surgery is being done to overcome the limitation of human beings such as trembling of human hands. Microscopic surgeries and eye operations can be better done with the help of robotic surgeons. 

On the downside, if intelligent machine-robots replace human being’s work then this would cause many to out of work. Unemployment would further cause a lot of problems. What is more, people would rely too much on computers and become lethargic which would lead to problems such as obesity. Finally, robots may dominate our world just like what is shown in our science fiction movies of today.

 I believe that computers hold much more information than the human brain possibly can, but the collective information that is found there came from large groups of human brains around the world. Without the human brains, computers wouldn't be available to gather that information. The computer only has information if a human being adds to the system. A computer can think to some extent. You can ask it questions and it will give you an automated answer. It cannot touch the human brain though. Experience is sometimes a better answer than the mechanical version of it. Human brains certainly outweigh computers because computers can't feel. Technology will never be able to create something that could surpass the incredibly complex and ever changing human.

In conclusion, Artificial Intelligence has both positive and negative effects. What we must do is make sure that the positive ones are encouraged and negative ones are eliminated as far as possible. After all it is in our hands not to become slaves of our own technology.

Children are getting fatter and less fit day by day?

In many countries, children are getting fatter and less fit day by day. Why is it so and suggest solutions. 

It is irrefutable that childhood obesity is a burgeoning problem these days in many parts of the world. In this essay I intend into the causes of this problem and suggest some ways forward.  
The most important reason is unhealthy diet. Children are attracted to fast food which is rich in sugar and fat. They are ignorant of what constitutes a healthy diet. Parents nowadays are busy in their work and are not present to guide their children. To add to it, children are bombarded with advertisements from fast food companies. 

Another important factor is that children are much less active than they used to be. In the past young people took part in activities that burned a lot of energy. However, today they spend a lot of their time indoors, sitting in front of the computers or playing video games. This sedentary life style is playing havoc with the health of young people.  

There are a number of steps that need to be taken to solve this problem. The first is to educate children about nutrition. Schools should organize compulsory lessons to explain the main elements of a healthy diet and teach pupils how to prepare healthy meals. Parents should also cook healthy delicious meals at home so that children are deterred from eating fast food.

Furthermore, governments should have some restrictions on the type of adverts shown in children’s programmes. Finally, children should be encouraged to take part in sports. Schools have a great role to play in this.  

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, childhood obesity is a serious problem and it should be tackled on a war footing otherwise the young people of today will have a very unhealthy middle and old age.

Today, majority of children are raised by their grandparents. Effects?

Today, majority of children are raised by their grandparents due to the fact that their parents are busy working. To what extent do you think it affects the whole family? 

It is irrefutable that both parents are working nowadays and as a result children have to be raised by either maids or grandparents. Definitely, grandparents are better than any other option and this situation affects the family in both positive and negative ways which I shall highlight in this essay. 

On the positive side, looking after the grandchildren keeps the grandparents energetic and vibrant. Grandparents bathe, feed and even read books to the child. This leads to a sort of symbiotic relation in which both grandparents and grandchildren are benefited. In other words we can say that it is a win-win situation for both. Grandparents don’t suffer from loneliness and depression which is very common at that age and children are also well looked after. 

Moreover, such a situation encourages joint family system. Therefore, all the benefits of a joint family are there. There is security in the family as we all know that there is security in numbers.

Another big advantage is that grandparents teach moral values to children. If grandparents do not look after children then parents use TVs as baby-sitters and children can become couch potatoes.  
On the negative side, it is generally seen that grandparents are over-doting and, out of love, may pamper and spoil the grandchildren. Another disadvantage is that if there is not enough harmony between the parents and grandparents then it can lead to frustration and spoil the whole atmosphere of the house. In such cases children are the worst sufferers.  

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, it is very beneficial if grandparents look after their grandchildren. Grandchildren learn moral values, are looked after well and grandparents enjoy themselves and don’t suffer from loneliness and depression.