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.