The rise of social media platforms has transformed the way people communicate and interact with each other. Some argue that social media has brought people closer together by facilitating connections and fostering communities. Others contend that it has led to increased social isolation and superficial relationships. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

The rise of social media platforms has transformed the way people communicate and interact with each other. Some argue that social media has brought people closer together by facilitating connections and fostering communities. Others contend that it has led to increased social isolation and superficial relationships. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

The advent of social media has revolutionized the landscape of communication, offering unprecedented opportunities for connection and interaction. While proponents argue that social media platforms have brought people closer together and fostered vibrant online communities, others contend that they have contributed to increased social isolation and the proliferation of superficial relationships. This essay will explore both perspectives before presenting a reasoned opinion.

Advocates of social media assert that these platforms have facilitated connections and fostered communities among individuals with shared interests and experiences. Social media enables users to stay connected with friends, family, and acquaintances regardless of geographical distance, allowing for real-time communication and interaction. Moreover, social media platforms serve as virtual gathering spaces where individuals can form communities based on common interests, hobbies, or identities. These online communities provide a sense of belonging and support, enabling individuals to connect with like-minded individuals and share experiences, ideas, and resources. Thus, social media has played a pivotal role in breaking down barriers to communication and fostering connections on a global scale.

However, critics of social media raise concerns about its impact on social relationships and well-being. They argue that the prevalence of social media usage has led to increased social isolation and decreased interpersonal connections in real life. Instead of engaging in face-to-face interactions and meaningful conversations, individuals may prioritize virtual interactions on social media platforms, leading to a decline in the quality of their relationships. Moreover, the curated and often idealized nature of social media profiles can contribute to feelings of inadequacy and social comparison, exacerbating mental health issues such as anxiety and depression. Additionally, the pervasive nature of social media can lead to excessive screen time and addiction, further isolating individuals from real-life social interactions.

In my opinion, the impact of social media on interpersonal relationships is complex and multifaceted. While social media has undoubtedly facilitated connections and enabled the formation of online communities, it is essential to acknowledge the potential drawbacks and challenges it poses. Rather than viewing social media as inherently positive or negative, it is crucial to adopt a balanced approach that recognizes its benefits while mitigating its adverse effects. This may involve setting boundaries around social media usage, fostering healthy online habits, and prioritizing real-life social interactions.

In conclusion, the rise of social media has reshaped the way people communicate and interact with each other, offering both opportunities and challenges. While social media has the potential to bring people closer together and foster vibrant online communities, it also poses risks such as increased social isolation and the proliferation of superficial relationships. By approaching social media use mindfully and fostering a healthy balance between virtual and real-life interactions, we can harness its benefits while minimizing its negative impact on social relationships and well-being.

Climate change is one of the most pressing issues facing humanity today. Some people argue that individuals should take personal responsibility for reducing their carbon footprint, while others believe that government intervention and policy changes are necessary to address climate change effectively. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Climate change is one of the most pressing issues facing humanity today. Some people argue that individuals should take personal responsibility for reducing their carbon footprint, while others believe that government intervention and policy changes are necessary to address climate change effectively. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Climate change has emerged as a critical global challenge, prompting discussions about the most effective approaches to mitigation and adaptation. While some advocate for individual action to reduce carbon emissions, others argue for government intervention and policy changes. This essay will explore both perspectives before presenting a reasoned opinion.

Proponents of individual responsibility argue that small-scale actions can collectively make a significant impact on reducing carbon emissions. By adopting environmentally friendly behaviors such as reducing energy consumption, conserving water, and minimizing waste, individuals can lessen their carbon footprint and contribute to mitigating climate change. Moreover, lifestyle choices such as adopting plant-based diets, using public transportation, and investing in renewable energy sources can further reduce emissions on a personal level. Advocates for individual action emphasize the importance of raising awareness and empowering individuals to make sustainable choices in their daily lives.

However, critics of the individual responsibility approach argue that systemic changes are necessary to address the root causes of climate change effectively. They contend that relying solely on voluntary actions by individuals is insufficient to achieve the deep emissions cuts required to limit global warming to safe levels. Instead, they advocate for government intervention and policy changes to incentivize sustainable practices and accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy. This may include implementing carbon pricing mechanisms, investing in clean energy infrastructure, and regulating emissions from industries and transportation sectors. By enacting robust climate policies, governments can create a supportive framework that encourages sustainable behavior and drives systemic change at scale.

In my opinion, both individual action and government intervention play crucial roles in addressing climate change effectively. While individual responsibility is essential for fostering a culture of sustainability and reducing emissions on a personal level, government policies are necessary to enact systemic changes and drive transformative action across society. To achieve meaningful progress in combating climate change, a collaborative approach that engages individuals, communities, businesses, and governments is required. By combining grassroots efforts with ambitious policy initiatives, we can work towards a more sustainable future for generations to come.

In conclusion, the debate surrounding climate change mitigation underscores the importance of both individual action and government intervention. While individuals can take steps to reduce their carbon footprint, systemic changes and policy interventions are necessary to drive widespread emissions reductions and accelerate the transition to a sustainable society. By working together at all levels, we can address the challenges of climate change and create a more resilient and equitable world for future generations.

In recent years, there has been an increasing trend towards remote work, facilitated by advancements in technology. Some people believe that this trend has numerous benefits for both employers and employees. Others argue that it poses challenges and drawbacks. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

In recent years, there has been an increasing trend towards remote work, facilitated by advancements in technology. Some people believe that this trend has numerous benefits for both employers and employees. Others argue that it poses challenges and drawbacks. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

The rise of remote work, propelled by technological advancements, has sparked a contentious debate regarding its implications for employers and employees alike. While proponents argue that remote work offers numerous benefits, detractors raise concerns about its potential challenges. This essay will examine both perspectives before presenting a reasoned opinion.

Advocates of remote work contend that it brings a host of advantages for both employers and employees. For employers, remote work can lead to increased productivity and cost savings. By allowing employees to work from home or other remote locations, companies can reduce overhead expenses associated with office space and utilities. Moreover, remote work eliminates time spent commuting, enabling employees to dedicate more time to their work tasks. Additionally, remote work fosters a sense of autonomy and flexibility among employees, which can enhance job satisfaction and retention rates.

Similarly, employees stand to benefit from the flexibility and convenience afforded by remote work arrangements. Working remotely allows individuals to create a customized work environment tailored to their preferences and needs. This flexibility can lead to improved work-life balance, as employees can better juggle professional responsibilities with personal commitments. Furthermore, remote work eliminates geographical constraints, opening up opportunities for individuals to pursue employment opportunities regardless of their location. This can be particularly advantageous for those living in rural areas or areas with limited job prospects.

However, critics of remote work raise concerns about its potential drawbacks and challenges. One significant issue is the erosion of work-life boundaries, as the line between work and personal life becomes increasingly blurred in remote settings. Without the physical separation provided by a traditional office environment, employees may struggle to disconnect from work, leading to burnout and decreased well-being. Moreover, remote work can exacerbate feelings of isolation and loneliness, particularly for individuals who thrive on social interactions in the workplace. The lack of face-to-face communication and collaboration may also hinder teamwork and innovation within organizations.

In my opinion, while remote work offers undeniable benefits in terms of flexibility and convenience, it is not without its challenges. To maximize the advantages of remote work while mitigating its drawbacks, organizations should adopt strategies to promote work-life balance, foster virtual collaboration, and prioritize employee well-being. By embracing a hybrid model that combines remote work with opportunities for in-person interaction, companies can harness the benefits of technological advancements while maintaining a supportive and connected work culture.

In conclusion, the trend towards remote work has sparked a nuanced debate regarding its implications for employers and employees. While remote work offers advantages in terms of productivity and flexibility, it also poses challenges related to work-life balance and interpersonal connections. By carefully navigating these challenges and leveraging technology to facilitate collaboration and communication, organizations can create a work environment that maximizes the benefits of remote work for all stakeholders involved.

Some people believe that technological advancements, such as the internet and smartphones, have improved communication and connections between people. Others argue that these technologies have led to a decline in face-to-face interactions and interpersonal relationships. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some people believe that technological advancements, such as the internet and smartphones, have improved communication and connections between people. Others argue that these technologies have led to a decline in face-to-face interactions and interpersonal relationships. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

The rapid advancement of technology, particularly in the realm of communication, has sparked a debate regarding its impact on interpersonal relationships. While some argue that technological innovations have strengthened connections between individuals, others contend that these advancements have resulted in a decline in face-to-face interactions. This essay will explore both perspectives before presenting a reasoned opinion.

Proponents of technology argue that it has revolutionized communication, making it easier and more efficient to stay connected with others. The internet and smartphones have enabled instant communication across vast distances, allowing individuals to maintain relationships regardless of geographical barriers. Social media platforms and messaging apps provide platforms for people to share updates, photos, and thoughts with friends and family in real-time. Additionally, video calling technology has facilitated face-to-face interactions, albeit virtually, fostering a sense of closeness despite physical separation. Thus, technological advancements have undeniably expanded the scope and convenience of communication, enhancing relationships in the process.

However, detractors of technology raise concerns about its impact on the quality of interpersonal relationships. They argue that reliance on digital communication has led to a decline in meaningful face-to-face interactions. Instead of engaging in deep conversations or spending quality time together, individuals may opt for superficial interactions through text messages or social media posts. Moreover, the constant connectivity afforded by smartphones has resulted in a phenomenon known as "phubbing," where individuals prioritize their devices over real-life interactions, leading to feelings of neglect and disconnection among friends and family members. Consequently, despite the illusion of connectivity created by technology, many argue that it has eroded the intimacy and authenticity of interpersonal relationships.

In my opinion, while technological advancements have undoubtedly transformed the way we communicate, their impact on interpersonal relationships is multifaceted. On one hand, technology has facilitated connections and bridged geographical divides, enabling individuals to stay in touch with loved ones more easily. However, it is crucial to recognize the potential drawbacks, such as the erosion of face-to-face interactions and the risk of superficial connections. Therefore, rather than viewing technology as inherently positive or negative, it is essential to strike a balance and use it mindfully to enhance, rather than replace, meaningful human connections.

In conclusion, the debate surrounding the impact of technological advancements on interpersonal relationships highlights the complexity of modern communication. While technology has expanded the possibilities for connectivity, it also poses challenges to the depth and authenticity of human interactions. Ultimately, striking a balance between digital and face-to-face communication is essential for fostering healthy and meaningful relationships in the digital age.

In today's society, it is common for people to choose to live in cities rather than in rural areas. What are the reasons for this trend? Do the benefits of living in cities outweigh the drawbacks?

 In contemporary times, there has been a noticeable trend towards urbanization, with more individuals opting to reside in cities rather than rural areas. This phenomenon can be attributed to several factors, but whether the advantages of urban living outweigh the drawbacks remains a topic of debate.

One primary reason why people prefer city living is the abundance of opportunities available. Cities serve as hubs for employment, education, and innovation, offering a wide array of career prospects and educational institutions. With numerous businesses, industries, and cultural institutions clustered in urban areas, individuals find it easier to pursue their professional goals and access various cultural experiences. Moreover, the diverse population in cities fosters cultural exchange and creates an environment conducive to personal growth and enrichment.

Furthermore, cities boast superior infrastructure and amenities compared to rural areas. Urban centers are equipped with modern facilities such as reliable public transportation, advanced healthcare services, and recreational facilities. These amenities enhance the quality of life for urban residents, providing convenience and accessibility to essential services. Additionally, the concentration of resources in cities often leads to greater economic prosperity, as urban areas tend to attract more investment and generate higher incomes for residents.

However, despite the numerous advantages of city living, there are also notable drawbacks. One significant issue is the high cost of living associated with urban areas. Housing prices, transportation expenses, and other daily necessities tend to be more expensive in cities, making it challenging for some individuals to afford a comfortable lifestyle. Moreover, the fast-paced lifestyle prevalent in urban centers can lead to heightened stress levels and a lack of work-life balance for residents.

Another drawback of urban living is the prevalence of pollution and congestion. Cities often grapple with air and noise pollution, traffic congestion, and overcrowding, which can have adverse effects on public health and well-being. Additionally, the rapid pace of urban development may result in the destruction of green spaces and natural habitats, exacerbating environmental degradation and reducing overall livability.

In conclusion, while there are compelling reasons why individuals choose to live in cities, such as access to opportunities and amenities, it is essential to acknowledge the drawbacks associated with urban living. Ultimately, whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks depends on individual preferences and priorities. Efforts should be made to address the challenges of urbanization and create sustainable, livable cities that cater to the diverse needs of their inhabitants.

Some people think it is more important to spend money on roads and motorways than on public transport systems. To what extent do you agree? Whether the government budget should be invested in traffic infrastructure or public transport systems is open to debate.

Some people think it is more important to spend money on roads and motorways than on public transport systems. To what extent do you agree? Whether the government budget should be invested in traffic infrastructure or public transport systems is open to debate. 

In my opinion, each has substantial contribution to the society; and therefore should receive equal fundings.

To start with, better road quality would have an instant positive effect on the
daily  commute  of  citizens.  In  developing  countries,  it  is  relatively  more convenient to travel by private vehicles in lieu of waiting for buses and trains with restricted routes and schedules. However, the staggering number of cars, motorbikes and scooters has led to one of most the aching issues in downtown areas which is urban traffic congestion in downtown areas. A feasible measure to this matter is that the authority should spend money on expanding road capacity and implement road improvement scheme. As a result, there will be more space for a larger volume of traffic and safer roads for all inhabitants.

On the other hand, state funding for public transport is another radical resolution to the increasing traffic density. Take the metro systems in Hanoi which are currently under construction and projected to be in operation by 2020. Beside road building and maintenance, major cities like Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh city invested a huge chunk of money in its metro projects to cope with heavy congestion and frequent traffic accidents. Moreover, better public transport system would create a major lifestyle shift, encouraging people to give up their private vehicles. In other words, promoting the use of public transport would dramatically alleviate air pollution particularly in emerging economies.

In short, I believe that similar amount of money should be allocated to road and public transport to ensure smooth traffic flow.

See more: As the number of cars increases, more money has to be spent on road systems. Some people think the government should pay for this. Others, however, think that the users should cover the costs. Discuss and give your opinion.

As the number of cars increases, more money has to be spent on road systems. Some people think the government should pay for this. Others, however, think that the users should cover the costs. Discuss and give your opinion.

As the number of cars increases, more money has to be spent on road systems. Some people think the government should pay for this. Others, however, think that the users should cover the costs. Discuss and give your opinion.

The growing density of cars call for road improvement scheme. While some people argue that it is the government’s responsibility to pay for road construction, I believe that car users should be charged for the service.

To start with, there are some arguments put forth in support of the government’s spending on road building and maintenance. First, an efficient road transport system plays a pivotal role in ensuring smooth traffic flow, giving a boost in trade activities within the country and economic growth at large.

For example, modern road infrastructure has a crucial part to play in the rapid development of major cities in the world such as New York or Paris. Furthermore, the convenience and safety of citizens should be of paramount concern of the authority. Therefore, each level of government is obliged by law to provide and maintain the national road network such as local roads, bridges or foot paths.

However, I strongly support the latter opinion that car commuters should cover the cost of road infrastructure. Compared to walking or cycling which leave little visual damage on road, cars definitely take up more space on city streets, and high demand for car use in everyday life causes road deterioration at an increasingly fast rate. For this reason, roadbuilding and expansion mostly facilitate drivers so that they can travel safely and smoothly. Besides, car owners normally have significantly higher income than others. Funding for new construction and repair, thus, is a form of lifting the financial burden on less fortunate ones in order that the community as a whole can enjoy a better living standard.

In conclusion, despite the fact that the government is responsible for national affairs in general including road construction, I reckon that it is moral and legal duty of car users to pay for their regular road use and support poor individuals.

See more: Some people think it is more important to spend money on roads and motorways than on public transport systems. To what extent do you agree? Whether the government budget should be invested in traffic infrastructure or public transport systems is open to debate.

Space travel has been possible for some time and some people believe that space tourism could be developed in the future. Do you think it is a positive or negative development.

Space travel has been possible for some time and some people believe that space tourism could be developed in the future. Do you think it is a positive or negative development.

Space tourism industry is officially open for business, and tickets are sold at scarily exorbitant prices. However, the growing trend of paying a visit to outer space is open to debate. From my perspective, this novel form of travel offers more benefits than drawbacks.

To begin with, a holiday beyond the stratosphere is an eye-opening experience for travellers. Since the dawn of time, it has been an intangible desire to explore and challenge the boundaries of what we know and where we have been amidst this vast universe. The possibility of being able to travel to space would not only satisfy one’s curiosity but also enrich their knowledge to a great extent. In addition, such a dramatic shift in perception would make an individual learn to value the life on Earth, raising self-awareness in protecting our Mother Nature. Therefore, space travel should be made equally available to ordinary members of the public.

On the other hand, opponents of space tourism argue that this extravagant service is limited to professional astronauts and top one percent of the population who own the majority of the world’s wealth. This may be true given the small customer base and during the pioneering phase. That being said, growing demand accompanied by the development in orbital facilities will pave the way for mass phase in which tickets to orbit cost less and the number of passengers per year expand quickly.

Eventually, a boom in space tourism would induce job opportunities in every line of business - from construction to interior design and marketing. Once orbital flights are made on a regular basis, scientists and government agencies are motivated to reach new heights in space technology, achieving historic breakthrough such as finding evidence of life forms on other planets.

In conclusion, developing space tourism is a challenging issue and it may take a long time to become an affordable service to all, rather than a pastime for the rich. However, I believe space tourism should be perceived as a positive trend as it can generate employment and provide thorough understanding of the universe.

Parents often give children everything they ask for and do what they like. Is it good for children? What are the consequences when they grow up?

Parents often give children everything they ask for and do what they like. Is it good for children? What are the consequences when they grow up?

Modern parents are giving into children’s demands and buy them all the latest toys and gadgets. I would argue that on no account can this parenting style bring any benefits for kids in the long run. Worse still, this negative education would cause detrimental consequences when they reach adulthood.

First, over-indulgence can be harmful to young children, both socially and developmentally. When kids are provided with the latest must-have items, they are less likely to grasp the notion of sharing or appreciation for their parents’ affection. Eventually, they interpret negative behaviours such as whining or begging as a way to manipulate others. In addition, little do the young ones comprehend the value of hard- earned money if adults keep showering them in spending splurges. Consequently, spoilt kids can become insensitive to the needs of others, are prone to temper tantrum and have trouble deferring gratification.

On the other hand, instant gratification could lead to adverse consequences in the future. Children who are spoiled do not have to learn responsible behaviours. Nor do they understand the concept of boundaries as adults and can develop problems such as gambling, overeating or drinking. Lacking in emotional maturity and having poor problem-solving skills, these adults might flounder and become unhappy with their lives. Furthermore, as over-indulged and over protected kids do not grasp the lesson of giving and taking in a relationship, they can have difficulty in establishing and maintaining meaningful friendships.

In short, sometimes effective parenting skills involve resisting the desire to give kids whatever they want. Indeed, spoilt kids can lack life skills necessary to successfully negotiate the demands of adulthood given that their troubles have always been tackled by parents’ money.

Some people think that good health is very important to every person, so medical service should not be run by profit-making companies. Do the advantages of private health care outweigh the disadvantages.

Some people think that good health is very important to every person, so medical service should not be run by profit-making companies. Do the advantages of private health care outweigh the disadvantages.

In the hectic modern-day life, staying physically and mentally healthy is of paramount importance. While some people argue that medical care should be provided by private entities, I believe that the dominance of private hospitals and clinics pose more threats than benefits.

To begin with, private sector is supposedly more efficient and responsive to patients’ needs because of market competition. In order to gain widespread popularity, private practices would employ well-qualified personnel and top- notch treatment facilities, attracting and retaining patients with competitive services. Consequently, by virtue of high-quality medical care and favorable staff’s attitude, patients often choose to bypass free public clinic and opt for private doctors. Another argument in support of private services is the relatively substantial funding compared to public ones. Bountiful financial resources would eventually result in research findings on medicine and treatment for acute health problems, from which patients are intended beneficiaries.

On the other hand, advocates of public sectors have highlighted inequities in access to health care resulting from the inability of the poor to pay for private services. There have been cases of private healthcare institutions charging exorbitant fees for medical treatments. Sadly though, the government has little control over the quality and the amount private hospitals and clinics charge the patients. In this situation, citizens are left at the whim of healthcare providers who are mostly driven by profit motives, rather than serving the ailing mankind. Furthermore, there are also moral and ethical issues regarding doctors and nursing staff in private sector. Some physicians would prescribe brand-name medications based on the commissions from pharmaceutical companies.

In short, even though they offer better service and more cutting-edge medical equipment than their public-sector counterparts, negative aspects of the private providers such as overcharge and unethical staff overshadow the advantages.

People should look after their health for personal benefits, rather than a duty for a society. What extent do you agree or disagree?

People should look after their health for personal benefits, rather than a duty for a society. What extent do you agree or disagree?

In the hectic modern-day life, people are increasingly leaning towards a healthier lifestyle. However, whether being health-conscious is for the sake of one individual or for the benefit of society at large is open to debate. In my opinion, I reckon that not only staying healthy would do good to oneself but it also indicates the duty of every citizen.

To begin with, one’s mental and physical condition is inextricably linked to their life quality. In essence, those who maintain a good overall health are capable of performing their tasks more effectively than physically weaker counterparts. In other words, a person’s well-being at the grass-roots level provides the foundation for building wealth and reaching desirable financial status. Additionally, a disease- free body allows people to live life to the fullest, experiencing what life has to offer around you. To illustrate this, one can not participate in extreme sports such as bungee jumping or skydiving if their fitness level is not qualified.

On the other hand, each citizen should consider taking care of their health a responsibility to sustain communal health. Take the outbreak of EBOLA and SARS as a vivid illustration of a single patient infecting a disproportionate number of contact. This is an important wake-up call for ignorant members in every community. In order to prevent and control the super spreading of emerging viruses, concerted effort of the authority and each inhabitant of great importance. Furthermore, a strong and healthy labour force plays a pivotal role in the economic growth of a nation. Consequently, a thriving country with a steadily rising budget would allocate necessary resources to improve the welfare system, ensuring equal access quality health care to all.

In short, human resource is the most valuable asset of a country. Therefore, a healthy community calls for collective actions, in which all the sectors - the local government, individual citizens as well as other groups work together for a common purpose. Staying healthy both physically and mentally can do good to each person and the community as a whole.

Some people think that people who choose a job early and keep doing it are more likely to get a satisfying career life than those who frequently change jobs. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people think that people who choose a job early and keep doing it are more likely to get a satisfying career life than those who frequently change jobs. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is argued that those who make early career choice and stick to it would probably experience greater job satisfaction than job-hoppers. I strongly disagree with this statements for the following reasons.
First, the pursuit of a career path for an extended period of time would ensure financial stability, resulting in greater satisfaction. The interval between the last interview and a job offer or rejection can be intensely frustrating for every candidate. Job search fatigue can wear anyone down with the endless rounds of leads and interviews that never seem to go anywhere. In addition to a steady paycheck, holding down a job for years is a manifestation of loyalty and commitment. From an employer’s perspective, these are significant indicators of promotion among current staff. To a certain extent, the length of employment is closely linked to the opportunity to successfully move up/ climb the corporate ladder.
However, advocates of jop jumpers would argue that those who stay with a job for a long time have less diverse skill sets and a relatively narrow range of knowledge. In
contrast, one of the greatest advantages of regular job switch is that it allows one individual to gain valuable skills and knowledge in different environments and cultures. In today’s economy, this is equivalent to remain current and constantly updated in a highly competitive market. Furthermore, changing jobs can certainly be a path to higher salary. If one hops once in a while, their number of contacts expand following a bigger potential professional network and more career choice in the future. Thus, job hoppers could actually be in a much better negotiating positions when it comes to dealing a new job offer on account of their diverse experience and contacts across different industries.
In conclusion, frequent job changers might have higher level of job satisfaction and brighter career prospectswhereas staying with a single job does not guarantee the same sense of fulfillment later in life.

Improvements in health, education and trade are essential for the development of poorer nations. However, the governments of richer nations should take more responsibility for helping the poorer nations in such areas. Discuss these views and give your own opinion.

Improvements in health, education and trade are essential for the development of poorer nations. However, the governments of richer nations should take more responsibility for helping the poorer nations in such areas. Discuss these views and give your own opinion.

Today’s world has been divided into developing and industrialized countries where the main difference between them is the amount of money that governments apply in important sectors such as education, health and commerce. Most of the poorer nations are buried in debts as a result of their unbalanced finances which are reflected in a poor health care, an unstructured education system and a weak international trade. This vicious cycle will continue indefinitely unless wealthier nations show interest in minimizing the worldwide economic differences, as well as taking more responsibility for assisting unfortunate countries.

Most of the African countries live in inhuman conditions because of the extreme poverty, upheaval, hunger, disease, unemployment, lack of education and both inexperienced and corrupt administrations. The devastating consequences of the AIDS epidemic in those countries could improve if the infected populations receive free drugs to control the disease, have access to health professionals and get information on how to prevent its spread. But this can only be achieved through international help programs in which leaders of the world's richest countries donate medicine and also send doctors and nurses to treat and educate those in need.

Moreover, most of the poor countries rely on selling agricultural products and raw material to rich nations and buying industrialized products from them which results in a huge financial deficit. Consequently, they borrow a significant amount of money from the World Bank to try to improve their broken economies, but sometimes the money disappears with no significant changes and they cannot even pay the interest to the bank. Regarding this issue, last year the G8, which is comprised of leaders of the eight richest nations, decided to forgive billions of dollars worth of debt owed by the world's poorest nations. In addition, they developed adequate loan programs to financially assist those countries.

In conclusion, leaders of the industrialized countries play an indispensable role in assisting developing nations deal with essential areas such as health, education and trade. Also, their aid is the key to breaking the vicious cycle, which results in poverty and death.

Even though globalization affects the world's economies in a positive way, its negative side should not be forgotten. Discuss both view and give your opinion.

Even though globalization affects the world's economies in a positive way, its negative side should not be forgotten. Discuss both view and give your opinion.

In the present age, globalization is playing increasingly important role in our lives. But in the meantime whether it is a blessing or a curse has sparked much debate. Some people argue the globalization has fundamentally beneficial influence on our lives while many others contend that it has detrimental effect as well.
Convincing argument can be made that globalization not only plays a pivotal role in the development of technology and economy, but also promotes the exchange of cultures between different countries. To start with, it is the globalization that impelled many corporations to become an international group, thereby making contribution to local technology and employment. Specifically, when a multinational group establishes a factory in a developing country, the new equipment, the new management skill and the job vacancies are all in the best interest of local society. Moreover, people worldwide can know each other better through globalization.
Admittedly, profit-driven globalization severely affected the young people. Today, in the metropolises in different countries, it is very common sight that teenagers are wearing NIKE T-shirt and Adidas footwear, playing Hi-pop music with Apple I pod and having KFC. The culture that took thousand years to form is just seems similar in these cities; it is looks like you can only distinguish them by their language. Meanwhile, in some developing countries, the existence of sweatshops is always the issue that concerned by WHOM. For instance, some reports show that some teenagers who are employed by Nike's contractor always stay in the factories that are filled with toxic gases over 14 hours a day, but they only work for fifty cents per hour.
In summary, I would concede that globalization do come with some adverse effects. Despite that the benefits created by it far outweigh the disadvantages. Overall, I convinced that we should further promote globalization and meanwhile the local government should take some measures to combat culture assimilation and sweatshops.

The users of social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, are replacing face-to-face contact in this century. Do you think the advantages of this way outweigh the disadvantages?

The users of social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, are replacing face-to-face contact in this century. Do you think the advantages of this way outweigh the disadvantages? 

In the era of information technology, the advent of social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter has gradually become a substitute for face-to-face communication. From my perspective, this growing trend offers more drawbacks than benefits in long term.

First, advocates of online communication would argue that it expands the available time and place in which a meeting can occur. For example, one can stay in constant touch with their loved ones via online messenger or video calls regardless of geographical barriers. In business context, rather than having to travel to specific location, people can plan to meet at times that work for all of their schedules. In addition, for professionals and academics, social networking sites allow users to create networks of like-minded people, expanding the horizons of what sort of contacts they can make in their professional lives.

While it is impossible to deny the importance of these platforms, and the way that they have revolutionized communication, it is essential to realize their detrimental effects on our life. One issue with these digital forms of communication is that they are counter-intuitive, they have led to fewer interactions rather than encouraging frequent contacts of one person to another. Another negative impact of social networking technology is on interpersonal skills. It is a common sense to handle tough conversations such as breakup or getting fired in person. That being said, many opt for delivering the message online, avoiding the nerve-wracking feeling of telling someone bad news. In fact, the quality of decreasing conversations are suffering as well due to the prevalence of social networking.

In conclusion, I believe that the negative influences of social media to people’s relationships overshadow the advantages it might bring. Therefore, moderate use of this modern communication tool is advisable.
 

People think that children nowadays have more freedom. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

People think that children nowadays have more freedom. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 
Freedom is an abstract concept that cannot be adequately measured on any physical scales. However, many people incline to the view that children these days enjoy a more liberal life than previous generations. My opinion is utterly opposed on this issue for the following reasons.
One of the arguments put forth in support of the former statement is that the digital age presents an unparalleled opportunity for kids to gain access to a tremendous amount of information without geographical barriers. Ironically, the advent of the Internet is more of a mixed blessing. Indeed, the obvious merits of the world wide web cannot overshadow a worrying tendency of that growing addiction to electrical gadgets such as laptops, tablets or smartphones. Therefore, early exposure to the virtual world ended up erecting invisible boundaries, inducing kids’ estrangement from actual human interactions.
On the other hand, amidst a modern-day hectic world, there is an inordinate amount of pressure on young people to become successful artists, entrepreneurs or startup CEOs before the age of 30. Consequently, parents would compel their offspring to enroll in highest-paying college majors, oblivious to their utmost passion. In addition, adult supervision seems to be extending into every aspect of children’s lives. Take the recent arrest and jailing in US of a mother for abandoning her nine- year-old daughter to play alone in the park while she worked. In the current climate of obsession with children’s safety, parents who let their youngsters out of sight court the accusation of irresponsibility, if not gross negligence. However, this school of thought may accidentally cause the erosion of children’s freedom to engage with the world at will.
In conclusion, while the proliferation of the electronic devices could hamper children’s direct contact with the real world, parents may unintentionally impede a child from acquiring their innate dreams and fundamental life skills for being overprotective. Thus, I believe millennials feel confined rather than free during a hightech era.

The increase in people's life expectancy means that they have to work older to pay for their retirement. One alternative is that people start to work at younger age. Is this alternative a positive or negative development?

The increase in people's life expectancy means that they have to work older to pay for their retirement. One alternative is that people start to work at younger age. Is this alternative a positive or negative development?

Human in general are experiencing a longer life expectancy, which lead to an overwhelming number of people continue to work after the legal retirement age. Whereas, others opt for entering the workforce at an earlier age, and from my perspective, this is a negative development.
First, choosing a career path - and the appropriate university courses for that profession - is a decision of paramount importance. Contrary to popular belief, landing on a job while studying - be it a part-time job or an apprenticeship, could easily distract youngsters from fulfilling their duties at school. In essence, in the current climate of obsession with early success, one is put under intense pressure to become successful artists, entrepreneurs and startup CEOs before the age 25, enjoying retirement with a generous income. That being said, that chilling reality could be a pipe dream for most. In fact, many well-paid jobs, such as doctors or lawyers, require a multi-year commitment to a long training course which can take up to 6 years or more, and thus, are not suitable for those who start working too early, yet lack formal education.
On the other hand, there is mounting evidence that many elderly people are physically and mentally fit to stay in work until their 70s. I believe that people who remain in paid employment past retirement age or involved in community or voluntary work improve their chances of staying healthier for longer. Continuing to have a routine and going into a place of work each day can prevent the sense of loneliness that could come with retirement. Furthermore, by engaging in active employment, two problems are solved: the pension and the retirement savings crisis. Financial independence is the ultimate goal that everyone would pursue in order to live comfortably in older age.
In short, the youth-obsessed culture has caused young people to take career decisions earlier than previous generations. However, working past retirement age could result in lengthening life spans, improved health and financial secure retirement.

Nowadays young people spend too much of their free time in shopping malls. Some people fear that this may have negative effects on young people and the society they live in. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Nowadays young people spend too much of their free time in shopping malls. Some people fear that this may have negative effects on young people and the society they live in. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 
The young today spend a large amount of leisure time in shopping centers. It is fear that this trend can bring about negative influences on the youths and the society. Personally, I strongly disagree with this view.
On the one hand, for the young generation spending too much time at the shopping malls can make them waste a great deal of money. As there are dozens of brands with various prices and design for them to choose from, they are easily tempted to buy things impulsively and misspend money on unnecessary stuff. For example, when some big brand names slash the prices, a shopaholic may purchase 10 shirts and jeans in a row and this cost her somewhere $100; however, such items often end up being left in the wardrobe. For the society, because youngsters are unlikely to participate in other activities such as their work or studying, economy may suffer due to less work being done and the youths could slack off their knowledge acquisition, making the national education standard drop significantly.
On the other hand, there are also some advantages of this trend. First, in terms of the young, spending time at the malls is considered a method of relaxation. In modern life these days, young people have to deal with lots of pressure from school or workplace, so this trend helps them enjoy their life and effectively release their stress. Second, the society also benefits from this phenomenon. The increase in the amount of consumption will promote manufacture and commerce in the fashion industry, which afterward will create more jobs and boost the economic growth.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that devoting a huge amount of time in shopping malls could lead to both negative and positive consequences to the young as well as the society.

Nowadays in many countries more and more people are spending their time away from their families. Why is this? What are the effects on themselves and on their families?

Nowadays in many countries more and more people are spending their time away from their families. Why is this? What are the effects on themselves and on their families?

 
In the modern life, there are more and more people spending less time with their family. This essay will examine the major causes and possible influences of this phenomenon.
To begin with, there are several explanations that are worth mentioning about this issue. The first reason is that due to the fast pace of modern life, people are now living a busier one and devoting an increasing amount of time to work. It is increasingly common that people tend to lose the balance between family and clerical work since they usually spend more time at work and do not come home until late at night. For example, due to the heavy workload many workers have to work more than 10 hours a day, and sometimes they are required to work during weekend or overnight to meet the deadline. The rapid development of social media is the second reason for this trend. That parents and children stay together but hold their own mobile phones or laptops to communicate with online friends on Facebook instead of talking with each other is easily seen these days.
This rising issue is having considerable impacts on both individuals themselves and family. First, it is believed that family is where people can share their feelings and problems, which help them to release their stress. However, an individual may experience emotional distress if they do not receive proper support from his/ her immediate family. Second, the bonds between parents and children may be weakened. For instance, when parents do not spend much time with their children, their children will lack of appropriate parental care and attention and are likely to follow a path towards criminal behaviors.
In conclusion, there are two main factors leading to the fact that people hardly make time for their family and not only individuals but also the family may suffer from this trend in both physical and emotional ways.

Solving environment problems should be the responsibility of an international organization rather than each national government. Do you agree or disagree?

Solving environment problems should be the responsibility of an international organization rather than each national government. Do you agree or disagree? 

People hold different views about how to cope with environment problems. While some people argue that it is the duty of international organization, rather than a single country, to solve environment-related issues, I believe that both parties/ sides should join hands in solving this problem.
On the one hand, many countries may share the same environmental concerns; however, they would stem from various causes. Therefore, each nation should implement different policies and measures to address the problem. For example, over-exploitation of natural resources and deforestation are identified as the biggest culprit for desertification in the USA; whereas, the growing rate of desertified land in China has been mainly caused by rapid urbanization. In addition, the priority regarding environmental issue is also varied in each country, calling for different approach and strategies to tackle the problem. To illustrate, in emerging economies such as Vietnam, reducing the worrying level of air pollution from industrial activities is of highest priority.
On the other hand, the problems that each government is experiencing are indeed interconnected, hence, concerted efforts by all nations are necessary. Thus, international organizations such as the United Nations play a vital role in promoting and coordinate global action to reduce carbon footprint and curb the global warming threat. Furthermore, wealthy countries should provide financial and technological support for poor nations in the fight against green issues, since the detrimental effects of environmental problems could spread beyond national borders. In other words, an international effort is needed to yield an efficient environment protection scheme.
In conclusion, while international organizations could exert huge impact on a global scale, the combination of international and governmental efforts would have even more profound influences on the environment.