As global trade increases between different countries, many daily necessities are produced in other countries. Such goods are usually transported a long distance. Do the benefits of this trend outweigh its drawbacks? (2008 – same essay)

As global trade increases between different countries, many daily necessities are produced in other countries. Such goods are usually transported a long distance. Do the benefits of this trend outweigh its drawbacks?

Globalisation has revolutionized our world in many aspects. Now, we don’t belong to a big planet Earth. We belong to a small global village. Everything is available everywhere. There are many advantages and disadvantages of transporting goods over a long distance. In my opinion, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. 

On the positive side, transporting goods over a long distance gives us a lot of choices. We can taste a variety of fruits and vegetables from all parts of the world. For example, about ten years ago, we hardly saw kiwi fruit which is from New Zealand. But, now it has a place on every fruit stand. Earlier, we had very few shoe brands like Bata and Carona but now the market is flooded with Reeboks, Nike, Adidas and other foreign brands.  

Secondly, many people get employment in this field. Small businesses have a chance to expand globally and it increases the overall economy of the country. Finally, it helps in developing good relations between countries which helps in international co-operation and peace. If countries are dependent upon one another’s economic success then armed conflict would be less likely. 
On the downside, importing goods can have a negative effect on local culture. This can be seen in countries such as Japan where imported food has become more popular than traditional, local produce, eroding people’s understanding of their own food traditions. A second major disadvantage is pollution. When goods are transported thousands of miles by road, sea and air, it increases pollution from exhaust fumes.  

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, importing goods has both merits and demerits but the pros outweigh the cons.

Advertising encourages consumers to buy in quantity rather than promoting quality

Advertising encourages consumers to buy in quantity rather than promoting quality. To what extent do you agree or disagree?  

Whether it is on TV, radio or hoardings at the side of the road, advertisements have become a part of our lives. Advertising is a powerful and persuasive medium. I agree with the former half of the given statement that adverts encourage people to buy in quantity. However, I disagree that adverts do not promote quality. I shall put forth my arguments to support my views in the following paragraphs. 
On the one hand, advertisements make us pile up things in the home which we may never ever use. For example, we get lured by the one-on-one scheme that companies promote just to sell their old stock in bulk. For example, recently, I bought three pairs of jeans of Levis brand because there was a two-on-one offer. What I did not realise then was that the designs were outdated and defective. Now those jeans are just occupying space in my almirah.  

Because of advertisements, sometimes we buy what tempts us without the insight of what we need actually. Impressive images, videos, or captions are bound to leave an imprint on us. For example, media is flooded with the advertisements of beauty products and they all claim to make you fair in a few days. Women, and these days, even men are crazy about these things and buy these things even without consulting their dermatologist.  

On the other hand, advertisements are very crucial given the fast pace of life today. The advertisements open our eyes to all the latest facilities and trends and with that give us the chance and opportunity of choosing from the wide range of products available for we have little time to make discoveries about what is required. Advertising links producers and consumers by providing relevant information of the latest products and services. Thanks to advertising, we know that there are so many nice things available. Moreover, an overwhelming majority of consumers are sensible enough to consider their options before they decide on a particular item.  
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that adverts promote quantity but they tell us about quality too. The onus lies on us to look into our real needs and not be swayed by adverts.

Some people think the increasing business and cultural contact between countries brings many positive effects

Some people think the increasing business and cultural contact between countries brings many positive effects. Others say it causes the loss of national identities. Discuss on both sides and give your opinion. 

Globalisation has resulted in more business and cultural contacts among different nations. This also means that in many ways people around the world are becoming more and more similar. This situation has both pros and cons which I shall discuss in the following paragraphs.

There are many benefits of globalisation. To begin with there are more jobs because of globalisation. Multinational companies have opened in many parts of the world providing jobs to thousands of people. Secondly, there is more efficient trade between different countries around the globe thereby improving the economies of developing countries. People have more opportunities to travel and therefore have awareness of other cultures. What is more, today people have more choices of products because of globalisation. 

There are also many reasons why people say that national identities are being lost. We eat the same food, watch the same TV programmes, listen to the same music and wear the same clothes. People have also started speaking one language, English, in many parts of the world. In fact, English has become the lingua franca today. 

However, I feel that this is a very narrow definition of national identities and nations are as different as they were ever in the past. Cultural identity is based on far more than just the films we watch or the clothes we wear. For example, take my own culture of India and compare it to the west. We may wear any clothes, but we never take the names of elders and call them with respect. In the west, it is quite OK to call anyone by name. In fact, they appreciate it more. I believe that after knowing about other cultures, we learn to respect our culture even more. So, some very deep rooted national identities will always be there. 

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that there are more advantages of increasing trade and cultural contact among nations. Whatever similarities we see today are only on the surface. Total loss of national identities can never take place.

The speeding up of life in many areas such as travel and communication has negative effects on society at all levels—individual, national and global

The speeding up of life in many areas such as travel and communication has negative effects on society at all levels—individual, national and global. To what extent do you agree or disagree

It is irrefutable that the IT revolution and faster means of travel have affected society at all levels. However, I disagree that all these effects are negative. The society has also benefitted enormously from this speeding up of life which in other words we can say globalization.  

At the individual level, we have more choices, more opportunities to travel, better job prospects and more awareness and tolerance of other cultures. Due to better communication, people are connected with their near and dear ones and distances are no longer a barrier. There has been a fall in face-to-face communication but the social network of friends that the young generation of today has is far more than ever before in the history of mankind. 

At the national level, countries are getting closer and the boundaries are disappearing. Because of this fast era of today, nations are developing strong bonds doing successful trade with each other. The rich nations are opening Multi National Companies in developing countries and thus providing job opportunities to millions. This is narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor. No doubt the people working in such companies are underpaid but it is definitely better than being unemployed. Because of this the economies of the poor countries are improving. 

At the global level, nations are joining hands to fight evils such as poverty, disease, terrorism and global warming. Who has not heard of the Kyoto Protocol. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions .  

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, the accelerating pace of life has both negative as well as positive effects. However, the positive effects are much more than negative effects.

In many countries, good schools and medical facilities are available only in cities. Some people think new teachers and doctors should work in rural areas for a few years, but others think everyone should be free to choose where they work

In many countries, good schools and medical facilities are available only in cities. Some people think new teachers and doctors should work in rural areas for a few years, but others think everyone should be free to choose where they work. Discuss and give your own opinion. 

As a big gap is there between the urban and rural areas, some people opine that teachers and doctors who are fresh out of college should work in villages for a few years. However, others believe that the choice of where to work should be left on the teachers and doctors. In this essay I shall discuss the merits and demerits of both approaches and finally give my opinion. 

There are many advantages of having teachers and doctors work in rural areas. Firstly, the people in the villages will have access to medical care and education which they are deprived of normally. Secondly, it would be good for the teachers and doctors who are fresh from university to translate their theoretical knowledge into practice.  In urban areas there already so many experienced teachers and doctors. Therefore, people would naturally not opt for fresh ones. In a rural setting, they would gain a lot of confidence very early on in their career. Finally, a few of these doctors and teachers may choose to live permanently in those villages to serve humanity.

On the other hand, this compulsory policy may have some negative effects. To begin with, we belong to a democratic country and everyone has a right to work where one pleases. Such enforcement may result in working passively and there will be no motivation. So the rural residents may not get appropriate treatment and service. Secondly, fewer and fewer students would choose such majors and careers and so in the long run there would be shortage of such professionals. 

In my opinion, it would be better to have such a rule. It would be a win-win situation for both, rural people and the professionals. It would also help to bridge the gap between the cities and the countryside. The government can, however, make fresh teachers and doctors want to work in the rural areas by offering higher salaries and other incentives. 

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, sending doctors and teachers to rural areas would be an ideal situation but the government should offer some financial and nonfinancial schemes.

Some people think that using animals for experimentation purpose is cruel, but other people think that is necessary for the development of science

Some people think that using animals for experimentation purpose is cruel, but other people think that is necessary for the development of science. Discuss both views and give your opinion.  

Animal experimentation has been a debated issue for many decades. Some people believe that scientists’ locking up animals in a laboratory environment is not what nature intended – and they are probably right. Others believe laboratory animals perform a great service for humankind.

For many years now, scientists have been working hard to develop cures for diseases. From time to time, new medicines and drugs are created which may be a solution to a serious illness affecting mankind. In order to determine if there is any level of danger in these drugs, these are first tested on animals. For example, who has not heard of the Thalidomide case? In 1952, a drug was used for vomiting of pregnancy. Obviously, it was not tested properly. All the children born had seal-like limbs. By the time it was known that thalidomide was responsible, it was too late and much harm had been done.  

Another reason for justification of animal experimentation is that the life span of guinea pigs used for experimentation is very small, only 3-4 years and so the effect of drugs can be tested over generations. Even if humans volunteered for testing, it would not help to test whether the effect passed from one generation to the other.  

The arguments against animal experimentation are that animals are also sentient beings and we have no right to exploit them for our selfish motives. Secondly, they are very different from humans and so what is tested on animals cannot be applied to humans. Finally, unnecessary experiments are done just for new cosmetics which are not even needed, which is bad. 

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that animals are not humans. Although the life of animals in a lab is regrettable, I much prefer a guinea pig to die than a human being. The human need must always come first. It is sad that any living thing must suffer but the use of laboratory animals in testing new products made today goes a long way toward helping humankind enjoy a better tomorrow.

The only way to improve the safety on our own road is to have stricter punishment for driving offenders

The only way to improve the safety on our own road is to have stricter punishment for driving offenders. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 

It is irrefutable that careless driving and violation of traffic rules certainly result in a large number of accidents and stricter punishments are necessary to reduce them.  However, there are also certain other measures that have equal or more effectiveness in ensuring road safety. 

In the first place, there are certain accidents that occur not because of traffic violations.  To explain it further, poor road condition is considered a major reason for road casualties.  For example, narrow roads and sharp curves often force even law-abiding drivers makes mistakes.  Therefore, it should be noted that drivers alone cannot be blamed for such mishaps and giving them stricter punishments in these cases is no solution.  A more effective strategy by the government would be to straighten accident prone curves and widen narrow roads.  Larger number of road signs and proper traffic signals can also be effective in reducing accidents on roads. 

Furthermore, poor climate condition can be a major cause of accidents.  For instance, poor visibility due to dense mist and rain, slippery roads on account of snowfall cause make driving difficult and cause serious accidents in many countries.  Stricter punishment for drivers is a futile exercise in handling such problems.  Modern technological innovations should be used to deal with such emergency situations. 

On the other hand, reckless driving, speeding and breach of traffic rules by careless drivers have caused many accidents.  Moreover, drunken and drowsy driving have also resulted serious traffic mishaps.  While we admit that more stringent punishment for drivers would be an effective measure to an extent, it should not be considered the only way towards road safety. 

In summary, there are certain situations where drivers are not responsible for a particular accident.  Hence apart from punishing drivers with heavier penalties other effective measures should also be taken.

Children who grow up in families which are short of money are better prepared with the problems of adult life than children who are brought up by wealthy parents

Children who grow up in families which are short of money are better prepared with the problems of adult life than children who are brought up by wealthy parents. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 

Role of family atmosphere in a child’s development is a cause of concern. However, I disagree with the notion that children of poor families are better equipped in dealing with the challenges of adult life than those of rich families. No doubt, adversity is a good teacher of life, but rich parents can also prepare their children to face the problems of adult life by good education and good nurturing.

A child of poor family has more situations to solve a problem or make a decision as both parents are working to make both ends meet and children have to look after themselves. They realise the value of money as they have to live with the barest minimum and as a result they find it less difficult later on in life when they face financial challenges. In contrast, the children of wealthy families are born with a silver spoon in their mouth. They are completely ignorant of the value of money as everything is provided for them in their youth and expect the same situation in adulthood. 

On the other hand, children of rich families study in the best schools and get the best higher education. They can learn problem solving in such academic institutes. What is more, a wealthy child may be well trained by a parent who himself has a lot of knowledge of money. Such parents themselves know money management better and can pass on those skills to their children.
Life experiences also play a role. Children can have innate ability to face problems of life. They may have personality traits such as being optimistic, outgoing, confident and openminded. Due to these abilities they can solve problems in a better way. 

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, a poor child may learn to get along without wealth and a wealthy child may be well trained by a parent to face hurdles of life by effective education. Therefore, I disagree that the economic situation of the family has a role in problem solving skills.

Some people think that people moving to a new country should accept new culture in the foreign country rather than living as a separate minority group with different lifestyle

Some people think that people moving to a new country should accept new culture in the foreign country rather than living as a separate minority group with different lifestyle. Do you agree or disagree?  

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 immigrants should do and behave as the people of the host country or should they stick to their traditional lifestyle and live as a separate minority. It is necessary to look into pros and cons of both situations before forming an opinion.   

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 move to other countries to broaden their horizon. So, if immigrants 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 advantages of making a minority group. If a person is from a country with strong and old traditions, it will be difficult for him to adapt to the new customs. He can’t break the old customs such as food habits and wearing certain types of clothes. In such cases if he retains his old customs and lives with his own community as a separate minority, he won’t suffer from homesickness.  

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 should not be obligatory for him to follow those customs and change himself altogether. As time passes and he gets to know the hosts better then he can decide if he wants to adopt any custom or stick to his own. After all being a cosmopolitan is the need of the hour.  

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

Some scientists believe that studying the behaviour of 3-year-old children can tell which children would grow up to be criminals.

Some scientists believe that studying the behaviour of 3-year-old children can tell which children would grow up to be criminals. To what extent in your opinion is crime a product of human nature or is it possible to stop children from growing up to be criminals?
 
Some scientists are of the opinion that hereditary characteristics are responsible for the person’s temperament and hence future career. I disagree with this notion. I believe that genes do play a role but the primary determinant is nurture – education and bringing up. It is definitely possible to mould a child into any direction by proper bringing-up. 

If we adopt the mindset that if parents are criminals so will the children be then we are limiting or even damaging the individual’s basic right to achieve his very best. Children can rise above the gene pool and rise to great heights. Even if a child is born to criminal parents but brought up away from that environment and provided quality education, he will not be a criminal.  

The debate on nature versus nurture has been raging for ages and no clear cut answer has come forward. A child prodigy can be born to ordinary parents and many intelligent parents can have ordinary children. A talented person can go unnoticed in the absence of right environment and upbringing and an ordinary person can reach great heights with proper training. So, interplay between hereditary and environmental factors must be there.  

It has been seen that children born to intelligent parents also are intelligent and successful. But it is also possible that such parents provide an environment which nurtures the development of their children. When we see some programmes such as ‘India’s Got Talent’ and ‘Little Champs’, we notice some extremely gifted children who are born with talent and also some who have achieved great heights with great perseverance and proper coaching.  

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that both nature and nurture play a part in determining the character of a person. It can also be concluded that both are inextricably linked with each other. But nurture weighs over nature and it is definitely possible to prevent children from growing up to be criminals.

Many people say that we have developed into a “throw-away” culture, because we are filling up our environment with so many plastic bags and rubbish that we cannot fully dispose of

Many people say that we have developed into a “throw-away” culture, because we are filling up our environment with so many plastic bags and rubbish that we cannot fully dispose of. To what extent do you agree with this opinion and what measures can you recommend reducing this problem?   

Environmentalists today are campaigning for "reduce, recycle and re-use" in a bid to save the world, but we as a nation, have adopted "replace" as our mantra. This and many other factors are leading to a throwaway society. In this essay, I shall discuss some steps that can be taken to solve this problem.  

To begin with, modern lifestyle has contributed greatly to the increasing amount of waste and garbage we produce every day. In other words, we have turned into a materialistic and mass-consumption society where we use more and throw away more than ever before. Once new things are acquired, we dispose-off these "unwanted" things to second hand shops or just in the trash cans. The solution lies in changing our attitude. We should get old things repaired and try to use them as long as possible.

Secondly, the markets today are flooded with cheap, single-use-only things that are more in demand than high priced quality items. Our houses and closets seem to be overflowing with goods that are more in quantity and less in value. Then, there is too much packaging done by the companies in a bid to make their things more attractive. Here too, the onus lies with us. We should not buy things with excessive packaging. This will deter companies from doing too much packaging. We can also bring our own personal shopping bags instead of using plastic bags provided by stores and shops. Besides, the government can enforce stricter laws on companies to use biodegradable packaging.  

Furthermore, plastics, waste metal, glass can be recycled. Companies can also contribute by developing new raw material which is recyclable and will ultimately lead to less garbage.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, individuals, business and the government can share the responsibility to reduce the amount of waste material and to save the earth. If we do not take steps to tackle this problem on a war footing, our Earth will become uninhabitable

The detailed description about crime will affect the people and cause many social problems

The detailed description about crime will affect the people and cause many social problems. Some people say that the media should be strictly controlled. Do you agree or disagree?   

Nowadays, we are surrounded by a variety of media like the Internet, newspaper and TV, which are very informative, and in doing so give a detailed description of crime. This causes many problems in society and therefore some people opine that there should be censorship of media. I feel that the media should be very judicious in selecting what to report and how much to report. So, I agree with the statement. In this essay, I intend to support my views with my arguments.

As I see it, the news outlets should pay more attention to the affairs themselves, rather than the details of the crimes. To start with, the details of crimes make a misleading statement to the children and adolescents who are curious about the process of committing crimes, and are likely to copy the criminal actions blindly. Moreover, the excessive violence and pornographic contents can also raise the adults' criminal tendencies. In the other words, detailed crime news can generate individuals' potential desire to commit a crime, thus induce many social problems. So, there should be some control on the media.

Moreover, the detailed report of a crime does not show enough respects to the victims and their family. For example, if any murder or robbery has taken place in someone’s house then if it is shown in detail on TV, the whole privacy of those people is lost. Another very strong argument in favour of censorship of media is that sometimes this detailed description can help the criminals also. For instance, when terrorists attacked Hotel Taj in Mumbai, the media reported details of the commandos’ position on TV. This was also viewed by the terrorists hiding in the hotel. They changed their positions accordingly. Had there been some regulating authority the terrorists could have been caught much earlier.

However, the opponents claim that we have a right to know every detail and so media should report every detail. I still feel that it would lead to more problems. I think the media has an obligation to show the right direction to the public. It should report news in a balanced manner rather than high-lighting the details of the crime.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that although it is the duty of the media to keep us informed, the details of crime should not be shown and for that censorship of the media is a must.  

Many employees may work at home with the modern technology

Many employees may work at home with the modern technology. Some people claim that it can benefit only the workers, not the employers. Do you agree or disagree?   

Working from home with the help of telephone lines, or, in other words, telecommuting has become very popular especially where internet connections are fast and reliable. I, disagree with the given statement that it can benefit only the employees and not the employers. Telecommuting is a win-win situation for both employers and employees.

There are many advantages of telecommuting to employees. To begin with, it saves time as no time is wasted commuting to and from the office. It also saves money as no spending on private or public transport has to be done. Furthermore the worker can look after family commitments like dropping the child to school etc. Although most of the work done by teleworkers is monitored, still a few minutes can be snatched at times. Finally, the tele-worker can do some side business side by side.

On the other hand there are many advantages to employers. Firstly, less office space is needed as the workers are working from home.  It is a fact that land prices are exorbitant and it is very expensive to build large offices. Not only building but maintaining offices is also very costly. Then, it has been seen that employees take less sick leave and other leaves. This is also beneficial for employers.  

It would be worthwhile to consider why some people opine that telecommuting is not beneficial for employers. They argue that supervising tele-workers is difficult. Statistics have proved that telecommuters take pains to work well from home as they realise the benefits it has for them.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, telecommuting benefits both workers as well as employers.    

Some people think the government should pay for health care and education, but other people claim that it is the individual’s responsibility

Some people think the government should pay for health care and education, but other people claim that it is the individual’s responsibility. Do you agree or disagree?

Nowadays, health care and education have become the focus of the people’s concern. It is a highly debated issue as to who should pay for these services. There are those who argue that the government should pay for them while others think the costs should be shouldered by individuals. Personally, I think that basic health care and primary education should be on the government but advanced health care and higher education should be borne by the individual.

It is irrefutable that it is the government’s responsibility to make basic health care and primary education accessible to everyone. The reason is that a nation’s prosperity very much depends on the contribution made by its well-educated citizens who are in good health. After all we all pay taxes and so we are entitled to get something back in return. Private schools and private hospitals can be available for those who want and can afford it but the free schools and free government hospitals should always be there.

On the other hand, individuals should be responsible for their advanced health care. Actually, the advanced medical and surgical treatments are very expensive. So, instead of depending on government we should take some health insurance or save in any other way with the tomorrow in mind. Higher education, too benefits the individual more than the nation. So it is quite reasonable to pay for it from one’s pocket.  

There are, of course, some sections of society who cannot afford their own healthcare. The government should have some system of knowing their financial status and provide free healthcare so that nobody dies for want of treatment. As far as higher education is concerned, the government can have some system of interest free loans for the needy and meritorious students.

To sum up, basic education and primary education should be borne by the government but advanced health care and education should be paid by the individual from his pocket.  

Some people think that the news media nowadays have influenced people’s lives in negative ways

Some people think that the news media nowadays have influenced people’s lives in negative ways. To what extent do you agree or disagree?  

I disagree with the given statement that media has a negative influence on our lives. In the following paragraphs, I intend to put forth my arguments in support of my views.

There are many positive effects of media. To begin with, the usefulness of the media in almost instantly providing information about events around the world is undeniable. It is because of the media that today we don’t belong to a big planet Earth; we belong to a small global village.

Furthermore, media also shapes our opinions. It is a link between the government and the people. Our conceptions of our elected officials spring from television images and newspaper stories. Most of us will never meet prime ministers or presidents, but anyone who is regularly exposed to the media will know about them. When it is time to cast our vote, we will make our decision based on the media coverage of candidates.  

The media are also influential in the way they facilitate the spread of culture and lifestyle. Today, the popularity of Indian culture is an example of the media's enormous impact. It is the media which highlights the good points of our own culture through programmes such as ‘India’s got Talent’. What is more, the reality shows of today have given exposure and fame to the common man with talent today. Indeed, with technological advancements such as the Internet bringing even more forms of electronic media to our homes and workplaces, it is likely the media's influence will grow even stronger. Finally, the media also helps in providing justice to the common man. Who has not heard of the Jessica murder case and the case of Nithari killings? Were it not for the media, Jessica’s parents would have never got justice.

As every rose is accompanied by thorns, the media too has its downside.  The paparazzi can invade the privacy of famous people. Sometimes violence and vulgarity is shown and at times it can shape our opinion in negative ways. For that my counter argument is that once the person becomes famous then his private life becomes public and he has no right to crib about the paparazzi. People can choose what they want to see and technology has provided them the tools to block those channels which they don’t want their children to see. Finally, God has given us brains to judge what is right or wrong. The media is just doing its job by providing us with the latest information.  

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate by saying that the influence of media on our lives is largely positive.

Sending criminals to prison is not the best method of dealing with them. Education and job training are better ways to help them

Sending criminals to prison is not the best method of dealing with them. Education and job training are better ways to help them. Do you agree or disagree?  

There are many different opinions on the best way to reduce crime. The traditional solution is to punish the criminals by putting them in prison. Some hold the view that education and job training are the long term solutions to cut crime. In my opinion, prison is the only answer in a few situations, but in most cases education, vocational training and rehabilitation are better.
Prison is the only answer in case of criminals who are a risk to the society, such as murderers. They cannot be made to mix with society. Some people also say that people would not be afraid of doing crime if fear of imprisonment is not there. But I still feel that in majority of cases, we can do without prisons.

In traditional prisons, people learn a lot about crime and so when they leave prison they will commit even more crime. In other words prisons act as universities of crime. So petty offenders like shop-lifters and pick-pockets should be given some vocational training and education. It is a well not fact that the basic causes of crime are poverty, illiteracy and unemployment. So, if we provide education and job training then we would be removing the causes of crime. If criminals are rehabilitated by some form of employment then they would certainly not re-offend.

Furthermore, the prisons are expensive to maintain. The government can spend that money on other important matters such as education and healthcare. This would ease some burden from the government’s shoulders. The petty and minor criminals can also be employed in some community service projects after providing education and vocational training.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that we should hate the crime and not the criminal. To fight crime we should focus on the causes of crime. Education and job training help to rehabilitate the criminals. So, people who commit less serious crimes should not be sent to prison. Focus should be on reforming them.

The government is responsible for protecting a nation’s cultural identity.

The government is responsible for protecting a nation’s cultural identity. Thus, some people believe new buildings should be built in traditional styles. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?   

Every city has its architectural character, and this architecture represents the culture of the place. However, I disagree that modern buildings should be built in traditional styles. In the following paragraphs I shall put forth my arguments to support my views.
Firstly, in most large cities, land is scarce and consequently it is very valuable. This has led to the construction of tall buildings which occupy only a small area of land while providing lots of floor space where people can live or work. We also have to meet the needs of the growing population for which tall buildings are the answer. Moreover, there is no need for deforestation to provide more land.

Secondly, modern materials are more practical. Now we use concrete and steel instead of stone, timber or brick. Because of these things buildings can be built comparatively quickly using prefabricated materials. They do not use local materials, such as stone, timber or brick, which used to give character to those buildings. Finally, changes are taking place in climate and energy sources are depleting fast. So we need energy efficient houses. Modern buildings use double glass front walls and POP( Plaster of Paris) ceilings which lessen the energy requirements. Moreover, now we need smaller houses as family structure is changing.

However, I believe that every city should preserve the already existing historic buildings which give character and identity to the city. The various forts and palaces in Rajasthan, India have been preserved and are being used to attract tourism. I agree with this kind of initiative taken by the government.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, it is the need of the day that modern buildings be built in today’s contemporary styles and to give identity to a place one or two historic buildings may be there in every city.

Nowadays, some universities offer graduate students skills that assist to find employment, but some people believe the main function of a university should be to access knowledge for its sake

Nowadays, some universities offer graduate students skills that assist to find employment, but some people believe the main function of a university should be to access knowledge for its sake. What’s your opinion?   

As university education is the last stage before the starting of career, many people believe that it prepares students for employment only, but the fact is that it serves a lot many purposes. In this essay I shall discuss the various functions of a university.

Universities provide specialised education in fields such as medical, engineering, commerce etc. They provide library facilities, which support the curriculum. They provide laboratory facilities for science and technology related subjects. They send students to factories and industries so that they get practical experience. This job-oriented training helps them to understand the working conditions and also gives them an idea about competition in the market. They also create job opportunities for the students by arranging campus interviews.  

On the other hand, universities also perform other functions which help the students in their personal life. They organise co-curricular activities such as cultural programmes, sports, debates, fairs etc. They gain many qualities such as self-confidence and positive attitude, which help them in their future life. Moreover, some people just go to university for gaining knowledge just out of interest for the subject. For example, a doctor may want to learn French language just for interest in the language.  

Furthermore, a university is a place to know more about the world because there are students from across the globe in a university. For many, who may never travel abroad, this may be a chance of a lifetime for them to broaden their horizons and know more about the different cultures of the world. For example, in LPU( Lovely Professional University), there are 200 students from Malaysia, Korea and other parts of the world.  

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, universities do not simply prepare a person for employment, but also have many other functions. Version

Many people are optimistic of the 21st century and see it as an opportunity to make positive changes to the world

Many people are optimistic of the 21st century and see it as an opportunity to make positive changes to the world To what extent do you share their optimism? What changes would you like to see in the new century?

Change is but natural. Everything undergoes a sea of changes over a period. Many changes are expected in the 21st century. I am an optimistic person and I believe there will be many beneficial changes which I would like to see in the 21st century.  

To begin with many positive changes are expected in the medical field. Our researchers are working day and night to find treatment of various types of cancers and other fatal diseases such as AIDS. Because of advanced diagnostic techniques like MRI and nuclear scan, many diseases can be detected so early that treatment is now possible. Advances are also going on for cell transplant instead of organ transplant. If this becomes true, transplant surgeries will become a thing of the past.  
Furthermore, terrorism and wars will be there only in history books. The whole planet Earth has already shrunk into a global village. National boundaries will disappear completely. We will also have better alternatives to energy sources. Global warming will be dealt with effectively and everyone will have the basic amenities of life.

Finally, illiteracy and poverty will be wiped out. Everyone would be educated and contented and therefore there would be peace, harmony and happiness all around. Holidays in space might be common. Change is imminent in every sphere of human life. What is certain is that those who accept changes, instead of those resisting them, will be more successful.
 
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that all this might sound too optimistic, but I would surely wish to see all these in the 21st century.    

Some school leavers travel or work for a period of time instead of going directly to the university. What are the advantages and disadvantages.

Some school leavers travel or work for a period of time instead of going directly to the university. What are the advantages and disadvantages.  

A gap year is a year after high school when a student takes time to explore his or her interests, which usually entails some type of travelling or working. After the gap year is over, the student begins his or her career. It has both pros and cons which I shall discuss in this essay.
There are many benefits of taking a year off. Firstly, the student can explore his interests before deciding on a major. Just passing out of secondary school, a student does know what his real interests are. A gap year gives him time to introspect and he may also find something he has never considered studying before. Secondly, he can save money to finance his education and ease some burden off his parents’ shoulders. Higher education is very expensive and some parents cannot afford the full cost of students’ university fees.

Furthermore, during this year, the student meets different people and experiences different cultures. As a result his personality develops and he comes to know about the outside world. Finally, a well planned gap year is attractive to some admissions tutors and to future employers. For example, a student can add his activities of the gap year in his resume when he applies to the university or for some job after completion of his education. This is taken in a positive light by the admissions committee and some job providers.

As every garden has weeds, similarly a gap year also has a downside. A student may find it difficult to get back to study. A year is a long time and once that tempo of attending classes and doing home-work etc. is lost, a student may not feel like studying again. Secondly, if he starts earning enough, education may seem unimportant. Finally, if a student doesn’t plan it properly, it may end up as a wasted year.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that a gap year has a lot of advantages provided it is planned well.