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.