Smacking children is the best form of discipline. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Children often misbehave and when they do that many parents smack them to teach them a
lesson. In my opinion, this behaviour is completely unacceptable. Smacking traumatises
children and may even lead to more behavioural problems.

There are many reasons why parents feel that smacking is the best form of discipline. To begin
with, many of them are under the wrong impression that children will get the point if they are
smacked for bad behaviour. This, according to some parents, will discourage them from
repeating the bad behaviour. Some parents also want to have absolute control over their children
and often resort to this barbaric practice to show them who is in charge of the household.

Unfortunately, smacking does not help with the behavioural issues in children. In fact, it makes
their problems worse. Studies have shown that children who grow up in households where they
are regularly subjected to smacking and other forms of physical violence are more likely to grow
into rebellious teenagers. They start to detest their elders and may also develop a hatred for
authority. Of course, when parents spank their children, this is not the end result they are hoping
to achieve.

Having said that, it is important to discipline children. Behavioural problems need to be dealt
with but instead of resorting to physical violence parents should set an example for their
children. Children learn a lot by watching and imitating adults. If parents behave appropriately at
all times, children will consciously or unconsciously copy their behaviour and that will solve the
issue.

To conclude, children are our future and we must raise them with love, patience and tolerance.
Good parenting and physical violence cannot co-exist. Therefore, in my opinion, smacking
children must be forbidden and parents who still resort to this practice must be severely punished
by the law.

Solar energy is becoming more and more popular as a source of household energy in many
countries around the world. Why is this? What are the advantages and disadvantages of solar
energy?

Over the last few years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of homes powered by
solar energy. Many factors contribute to this growing popularity of solar power.

Energy requirements are growing rapidly due to industrialisation and urbanisation. In order to
meet this growing demand it is important to tap into new energy sources. Solar fits the bill
perfectly. It is a renewable source. Unlike other energy sources like coal or petroleum, the source
of solar energy the sunlight is non-perishable. That means as long as the world exists we will
be able to harness the power of the sun. Also, unlike conventional energy sources like coal or
petrol, solar energy is clean and green.
However, solar energy also has some limitations. Although technology has improved, solar
energy is still more expensive than conventional energy. The initial cost of installation of solar
panels is also quite high. Various other factors such as the lack of a support system for repairs
and the difficulty in getting replacements are also hindering large scale adoption of solar power
systems.

Another issue is the limited availability of sunlight in many parts of the world. There are many
countries that do not receive any sunlight during certain periods of the year. They certainly
cannot rely on a volatile power source like the sun.

To conclude, the growing popularity of solar power can be attributed to the fact that it is clean
and renewable. Of course, solar power has its limitations too, but I believe that as the technology
develops solar will become more popular than conventional energy sources.

Many people think that important things in life are mostly free or cant be bought. Do you agree
or disagree with this statement? Give your opinion and examples from your own experience.

Some people think that the things that truly matter in life are free or cannot be bought with
money. I completely agree with this view.

Money can only buy material comforts. While these are also important in life, in my opinion,
they are not the most important things. I have seen many poor people who lead happy and
content lives in spite of their poverty. I have also seen many rich people who lead miserable lives
in spite of having all the money in the world. If money could buy happiness, the rich must be the
happiest in the world. The reality, however, is different.

In my opinion, the most important things in life are love and friendship and neither can be
bought with money. Parents love, for example, is the biggest gift a person receives in their
lifetime and it is free. You may be the poorest person in the world but that will not stop your
parents from loving you.

Relationships with our family and friends are actually the things that keep us going and they are
free. Just because you are poor it does not mean that you cannot be in a meaningful relationship.
In fact, if you have a nice character and a kind personality, you will have no dearth of friends. By
contrast, a rich person with an arrogant personality and a bossy attitude may be lonely in life
because no one wants to be with them.

To conclude, while it is true that money can buy many things, truly important things in life like
love and relationships are actually free and cannot be bought.

Keeping animals in captivity is cruel. There is no reason for zoos to exist in the 21st century.
There are many people who question the existence of zoos in the 21st of century. In their opinion,
keeping animals in captivity is unethical. While I do agree with this view, I do not think that zoos
should be abolished.

In spite of all the arguments against the existence of zoos, the truth is that they still benefit both
humans and animals. Zoos provide education. They give us an opportunity to observe wild
animals from close quarters and learn about their behavior. Another very important benefit of
maintaining zoos is that they save many endangered species from extinction. Zoos provide them
with a safe environment where they can live and reproduce. Without zoos many exotic species of
animals would have disappeared from earth.

The argument against the existence of zoos stems from the fact that they ill-treat animals. That is
true to a certain extent. In many zoos, animals are kept in small enclosures where they cannot
even move about. Such zoos exist with the sole purpose of making money by exploiting animals.
In my opinion, such establishments should be closed down as we have no right to use or exploit
other forms of life for our benefit.

Having said that, there are also zoos that allow animals to live in protected environments that are
closer to the wilderness. Animals living in such zoos do enjoy some amount of freedom. They
might even be able to hunt small animals that the zoo authorities throw into their territories.
Life in such zoos actually benefits these animals because they are safe from poachers who might
otherwise have killed them for them skin, teeth or tusks.

To conclude, when we consider the benefits of zoos, it is not hard to see that the argument
against their existence does not hold water. Zoos do protect animals. Instead of abolishing them,
what we need to do is to make them more animal friendly.

Some people think that politicians have the greatest influence on the world, while others believe
that scientists are more influential.Discuss both side of views and give your opinions.

Some people argue that politicians have the utmost impact on the world; however, others
disagree. In their opinion, scientists are the most influential people on the planet. I agree with
this latter group. In this essay, I will explain why I think scientists are more influential than
politicians.

There is no denying the fact that politicians are influential. After all, they rule the nations of the
world. They make laws. They sign international agreements. They can even decide whether we
need war or peace. Take, for instance, the case of the World Wars. While the wars were fought
by the soldiers, the decision to go to war was taken by politicians. Obviously, the argument that
politicians are influential is understandable.

Yet, in my opinion scientists are more powerful. We wouldnt have reached where we are today
without the advancements in science and technology. Scientists have invented life saving drugs
and vaccines which gave us a chance to stand up to deadly diseases. They invented the light
bulbs, the automobiles, refrigerators and computers. As we can see, it is impossible to imagine a
life without these inventions now. The missiles and bombs that can win a war for politicians
were also invented by scientists. So, if there werent any scientists, we would most probably still
be living in caves. The impact of politicians on our lives is negligible when we consider the
impact of scientists and their inventions.

To conclude, while it is true that politicians are influential, their influence is much less
pronounced than the influence of scientists.

Most people agree that money cannot bring happiness. Why is happiness difficult to define?

How can people achieve happiness?

Money certainly cannot buy happiness. If it could, then the richest people would be the happiest
people on earth. The reality, however, is different. In fact, many of the rich and famous are
totally unhappy with their lives. This clearly shows that money is not the key to happiness. Nor
is fame or power.

Happiness cannot be defined easily for the simple reason that it is relative. The things that make
someone happy need not necessarily make another person happy. For example, kids are happy
when they get toys or toffees. An adult, however, is unlikely to find much happiness in receiving
these objects. Likewise, a poor person will be happy to win a jackpot but a rich person will not
find much happiness in it. For someone diagnosed with a serious illness, regaining health is the
biggest happiness in life. Healthy people, on the other hand, almost never appreciate their health.
They are unhappy in spite of being healthy because they want other things in life. Evidently,
happiness means different things to different people. You can be rich, famous, good looking and
healthy and still you can be unhappy with your life. At the same time, there are lots of people
who lead perfectly happy lives in spite of having very few things going for them. This clearly
indicates that happiness is a byproduct of contentment. The happiest people are those who are
satisfied with their lives.

Some people think governments should take measures to improve the health of its citizens.
Others think it must be managed by individuals. Discuss both sides and give your opinion.

There are both sociological and economical reasons to develop a healthy lifestyle and habits
among individuals. After all, healthy citizens are the biggest asset of a nation. Some people,
therefore, argue that the government should play an active role in ensuring that its citizens lead a
healthy lifestyle. Others feel that it is up to the individual to decide how they should live. In my
opinion, health is mainly a matter of individual responsibility. Even so, there are lots of things
the government can do to promote a healthy lifestyle among its people.

The government can make laws. It can ban things that are detrimental to the health of its people.
For example, drugs are illegal in many countries. There are countries or states that ban alcohol
and cigarettes. In some countries, the government imposes a high tax on junk food with the
objective of discouraging its consumption. All of these are measures that can have a positive
impact on the health of the people. Another very beneficial thing that the government can do for
its peoples health is making vaccinations mandatory. Despite the fact that vaccines are safe and
effective, many communities refuse to administer them to their children citing religious or other
invalid reasons. By enacting laws that make vaccinations mandatory, the government can save
millions of children from the clutches of diseases and death.

Having said that, health is very much an individual matter. The government cannot monitor the
lifestyle of every citizen. Even in countries where drugs are illegal, people still use them. They
smoke and drink. They eat junk food and spend too much time in front of the TV or computer.
They are aware of the consequences of their actions; yet they are too lazy or too dump to change
their lifestyle. The government cannot do much to help these people.

To conclude, there are lots of things that the government can do to improve the health of its
citizens. However, the government alone cannot create a healthy society. Individuals need to
make a conscious effort too.

Few people devote time to hobbies nowadays. Why you think this is the case and what effect this
has on the individual and society in general.

Nowadays, very few people pursue a hobby. In my opinion, this is not a positive trend because
not having a hobby can have a detrimental effect on people. We are now living in a highly
stressful and competitive environment where a hobby can be a stress buster. Hobbies are also
beneficial for the society because people who have a hobby are less likely to get into crime.

Everybody is busy these days and as such they have no time for hobbies. People have demanding
jobs and careers that do not give them any spare time. Not surprisingly very few people pursue
hobbies these days. Another factor that discourages people from having a hobby is the easy
access to other sources of recreation.

We now live in an age where we receive new and exciting information every millisecond.
Thanks to the advent of technologies like the internet and the smart phone people are constantly
glued to their screens. The only pastime they have is checking and updating their social profiles.
Unfortunately, unlike a hobby internet addiction is actually harmful to the individual. Of course,
it helps them to kill their time but most people who spend a lot of time on the internet and social
media websites are actually unhappy about their lives. They feel inadequate and crave for more.

A hobby, on the other hand, is an emotionally fulfilling pursuit. It can even lead to financial
benefits. For example, someone who pursues painting or blogging as a hobby will probably be
able to turn that into a lucrative career. Studies have also shown that hobbies benefit the society
as a whole. They give a purpose to life and keep people occupied. As a result people who have a
hobby are less likely to get into antisocial and criminal activities.

To conclude, easy access to other sources of recreation is the main reason that discourages
people from having a hobby. However, this is a bad development and can have long lasting
negative consequences for the individual and the society.
Restricting air travel is the only way to prevent air pollution. Do you agree?

Some people believe that the only way to reduce air pollution is to limit the number of flights. I
do not agree with this view. In my opinion, restricting air travel is unlikely to have any real
impact on air quality. At the same time, it may adversely affect the economy of the nation.

There is no denying the fact that aeroplanes cause air and noise pollution. They produce too
much noise and emit harmful gases. While it is possible to control this pollution by reducing the
number of flights, it will not fully solve the problem because the majority of pollutants in the air
do not come from aircrafts. It is true that air travel has become more affordable and popular
recently. However, aeroplanes still are not the primary mode of transport for the majority

of people and as such they cannot be considered the number one cause of air pollution. In fact,
cars and buses cause more pollution than flights because there are too many of them on the road.

Whats more, restricting air travel can have disastrous consequences for the economy. The
tourism industry will be the worst hit because limited availability of flights will discourage
tourists from visiting foreign countries. Import and export of goods will also be affected. Since
both of these factors will affect the financial growth of the country, I do not believe that
governments will want to limit air travel.

To conclude, restricting air travel is unlikely to improve air quality much because aeroplanes are
not the biggest polluters on the planet. Whats more, any such move will have serious economic
consequences.

In some schools and universities, girls choose arts subjects (literature), and boys tend to choose
science subjects (physics). Why do you think this is so?

Should this tendency be changed?

Science subjects are for boys and arts subjects are for girls. Gender based stereotypes exist
everywhere. When we hear the word doctor, the first image that comes to our mind is that of a
man wearing a white coat. Women can also become doctors and engineers. There are numerous
of them. Countless women have already proved that they can excel in science subjects. Still,
many girls opt for arts subjects at university. There are many reasons behind this trend.

One of the reasons that encourage many girls to choose arts is that they are not very keen on
getting a job. They just want to earn a degree. As a result they decide to study literature or
humanities. It is also easy to obtain admission to these courses because they are less competitive.
By contrast, girls who really want to find employment after completing their education prefer to
study science or maths. They become successful doctors, engineers and scientists.
Generally speaking subjects like science and technology generate more jobs than arts. This is
exactly the reason that prompts boys to choose these subjects. All of them want to get a job and
hence they choose scientific and technical subjects that improve their employability.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with girls choosing arts and boys choosing science. If a
girl is not interested in working after university, she probably has no reason to obtain a degree in
medicine or engineering. In my country, I know countless girls who prefer to stay at home
looking after their children in spite of having a degree in computer science or physics. They
actually deprived another student of an opportunity to become a scientist or a programmer.

To conclude, if girls prefer arts subjects to science subjects, that is because of the existence of
gender stereotypes and their lack of interest in finding employment. In my opinion, this trend is
neither positive nor negative and as such it does not have to be changed.

Some people think that having a set retirement age (e.g. 65 years) for everybody, regardless of
occupation is unfair. They believe that certain workers deserve to retire and receive a pension at
an early age.

Do you agree or disagree?

Nowadays many people believe that setting a fixed retirement age for all professionals is not fair.
I am in complete agreement with this view as a lot of occupations can use extended services;
however, it is equally beneficial for professionals working physically demanding sectors to
receive early retirement.

On the one hand, there are jobs which require tremendous amount of experience and expertise
which workers gain over a period of time, and putting an end to their employment because of
their age is just unfair to the knowledge and effort they put in. For instance, researchers and
scientists devote their entire life to their work, and asking them to quit just because of age is
cruel, especially since the society will benefit from their work. Similarly, teachers should also be
allowed to impart their knowledge till the time they can, as in my opinion without their service
our progress will be much slower.

On the other hand, I would like to say that professionals working in army and police will
extensively benefit from an early retirement programme, because of the intense physical strength
and demanding schedules required to fulfill their duties. Moreover, an early retirement will give
them a chance to be with their families which otherwise becomes impossible for them, due to the
postings at non family stations.

In the end, I would like to conclude by stating that there must be an option for voluntary early
retirement for those who need it due to the nature of their job profiles, and an opportunity of
extended employment for those who want to work longer as age is just a number for them.
Nowadays celebrities are more known for their glamour and wealth than for their achievement,
and this sets a bad example to young people.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

These days, celebrities are making headlines more for their glamour and their money than their
professional accomplishments. Some argue that by flaunting a luxurious lifestyle, they are setting
a negative example for youngsters. I dont quite agree with this view. While I admit that
celebrities influence their audience, in my opinion, they are not responsible for the behaviour of
young people.

Media gives undue coverage to famous people for the simple reason that their viewers are
interested in the private lives of celebrities. One cannot blame celebrities for this. After all, they
are also human beings and it is quite natural for them to have flaws. In any case, they do not ask
their fans to do what they do. The problem with young people is that many of them blindly
follow film stars or sports personalities. Naturally, when they see their favourite star flaunting a
flashy lifestyle, they want it for themselves. This, unfortunately, leads to many problems.
Famous people are usually rich and have the means to support their extravagant lifestyle. Most of
their fans, however, hail from ordinary backgrounds. In their quest to live like their stars, they
may even get into crimes. Many star-struck teenagers are ready to do just about anything to make
money so that they can live like film stars.

However, the root cause of the problem here is not the flashy lifestyle of celebrities. When we
look closer, it is not hard to see that if young people are getting misled by celebrities, the
problem is with them and the parenting they received. It is important for everyone to learn to live
within their means and to have a moral code of conduct. They should learn to separate the wheat
from the chaff. Parents and teachers can help them to distinguish the good from the bad.

To conclude, while it is true that celebrities influence young people, it is wrong to blame them
for the wrongdoings of their followers. Everyone is required to have a set of moral principles to
guide them through life and nobody is supposed to blindly imitate others.

The reason that most individuals are in debt is due to the overuse and irresponsible use of credit
cards. Banks should not issue credit cards unless they are completely sure of an individuals
ability to pay back their debts.

To what extent do you agree with this?

Careless and irresponsible use of credit cards push many people into debt. Some people,
therefore, argue that banks should ensure the customers ability to pay off their debts before
issuing credit cards to them. I agree with this view. While I insist that banks should check the
credit history of a person before offering them credit cards, in my opinion, this may not always
help because the financial stability of a person can change any time. So there is no way banks
can fully verify the repayment capacity of the customer.
Irresponsible use of credit cards can push anyone into the debt trap. Still, the demand for credit
cards continues to increase. People consider credit cards as a means to improve lifestyles. They
borrow more money than they should as the credit cards are easy to use and readily acceptable in
so many places. Unfortunately, some people cannot pay back the debts and get into huge
financial trouble.

Banks usually wont issue credit cards if they are not completely satisfied with the finances of
the customer. They always check the credit history and financial situation of the customer and
also explain the burdensome consequences that can happen to the customer if they use the card
irresponsibly. Still, many people use the card carelessly and get into permanent debt. So it is
unfair to blame the bank alone for the credit card holders mistakes.

Another factor that we need to acknowledge is the unpredictable nature of a persons financial
situation. People can fall ill or lose their job. Both of these are situations that can considerably
affect a persons ability to repay his debt. In most cases such situations cannot be predicted and
are not in the control of either the bank or the customer.

To conclude, it is important for the banks to verify the customers ability to pay back debts
before giving them credit cards. Customers also have a responsibility to control their spending
habits to protect themselves from debt.

Some people think that changing peoples attitudes to other countries, and culture is an
important factor in reducing world poverty. Others, however, feel that the most important
method is trade.

Only a small percent of the worlds population lives in rich countries. Yet, they own more than
80 percent of the global wealth. Some people claim that we need to change our attitude towards
other countries to eradicate poverty from the world. Others feel that increasing trade is the
solution. In my opinion, we need a change in attitude as well as a boost in trade.

Nations are obsessed with their boundaries. They only want to take care of the people living
within their boundaries. If eliminating poverty from the world is the goal, countries and their
people have to think beyond their boundaries. People need to realize that everyone irrespective
of their nationality, religion or ethnicity belong to one family humanity. Rich countries already
have a considerable amount of wealth lying unused in their coffers. The moment they start using
this wealth for the betterment of humanity, poverty will be a thing of past. This, of course,
requires a change in their attitude towards poor countries and their people.

An increase in trade is important too. It is wrong to assume that a nation can progress entirely on
financial aid received from other countries. While foreign aid certainly helps in building
infrastructure and other facilities, it does not arrive in unlimited amounts. Therefore rather than
placing too much reliance on international aid, poor countries should try to boost their domestic
and international trades to create jobs and improve their economies.
To conclude, rather than leaving the poor countries to their fate, rich countries should come
forward to solve the problems plaguing them. People need to realize that irrespective of their
skin colour or nationality, they all belong to one species and as such it is their duty to give help
where it is required. This is not possible without changing our attitude towards other countries
and people.

Art is considered an essential part of all cultures throughout the world. However, these days
fewer and fewer people appreciate art and turn their focus to science, technology and business.

Why do you think that is?

What could be done to encourage more people to take interest in the arts?

Art has always played a vital role in enriching cultures all over the world. However, people are
showing less and less interest in art these days. In this essay, I will analyse the reasons behind
this trend and also suggest possible ways to boost peoples interest in arts.

While it is true that art enriches culture, it plays little or no role in improving our lives. For
example, one does not have to admire great paintings or marvel at brilliant sculptures to live
comfortably. This is not exactly the case with the contributions of science and technology. Take,
for instance, the case of electricity or computers. It is impossible to imagine a life without these
technological innovations. Needless to say, people are showing more interest in science than in
arts. Science and business also create more jobs and sustain economies.

Another reason for the diminishing popularity of art is that it has lost the patronage of
governments. During the monarchy artists enjoyed considerable attention. While governments
still support art and artists no special incentive is given to produce masterpieces of art.

Art and culture co-exist. One cannot survive without the other. That explains the importance of
preserving art. One way of doing this is to make art a viable career option. The government
should create jobs in this sector by opening more and more art galleries and organizing
exhibitions and cultural programmes. This will encourage more students to pursue art at school
and colleges.

To conclude, the most effective way to nurture art is to capitalize on its economic potential. The
government can do this by creating jobs in this sector.

Some people think that they should spend money they earn now enjoying life, while others think
that the money should be put into savings for future.

Discuss both views and give your opinion.

There are people who enjoy spending money. They simply cannot resist the urge to splurge.
There are also people who believe in saving every penny they earn. In my opinion, neither
approach is correct.

It is impossible to get something for nothing. We have to earn money to live comfortably. There
are certain expenses that cannot be done away with. For example, we all need food to eat and
clothes to wear. We also have a responsibility to take care of our dependent children, parents and
spouse. All of these are good reasons to spend money.

However, I am against spending money just for the sake of it. There are people who spend every
penny they earn. They buy things without even bothering to check whether they actually need
them. While spending might give them some momentary pleasures, they will soon find
themselves in deep financial problems. There is no harm in enjoying life by going on a holiday
or buying latest fashion clothes or accessories. However, one must ensure that one is not
spending more than one can afford. Also, emergencies may arise any time. For example, one can
fall ill or lose job. It is impossible to tide over such crises without adequate savings.

Just like some people enjoy spending, there are also some people who enjoy saving. In their
relentless quest to save as much as they can, they deprive themselves of the little pleasures in
life. These people may have huge bank balances but they fail to enjoy life. Life is short and no
one can carry their savings with them to the other world. It is therefore pointless to save all the
money one earns without enjoying the little pleasures of the world. Happiness, after all, is the
biggest wealth.

To conclude, the very purpose of earning money is to lead a comfortable life. This requires one
to save and spend in the right amounts.

Many museums and historical sites are mainly visited by tourists but not local people. Why is
this the case and what can be done to attract local people to visit these places?

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task. Write at least 250 words.

Museums and monuments showcase the rich history and culture of a nation. Most of these places
attract a large number of tourists; however, local people show little interest in them. There are
several reasons behind this trend.

To start with, local people give museums and historical places a miss because they offer nothing
new to them. They are already familiar with their culture and history and perhaps have nothing
new to discover by frequenting the same museums again and again. A tourist, on the other hand,
may enjoy visiting a museum or monument because of the numerous windows they open to the
past. Another reason that dissuades local people from visiting museums is that they are rarely
updated. What they showcase this month is in no way different from what they showcased last
month or last year. Therefore, although they will figure in a tourists itinerary, for natives regular
visits to such places are quite boring. Cost could also be a factor. Most museums and monuments
charge an entry fee which could be an issue for low or middle income families.
The government and local authorities can take several simple steps to rekindle locals interest in
museums. They can, for example, organize regular exhibitions, cultural events and light shows
that provide visitors a new experience every

time they visit these places. Scraping the entry fee may also help.

To conclude, if local people prefer to stay away from museums and monuments, that is because
these institutions fail to offer new experiences to them. Authorities should consider organizing
various cultural programmes and shows at these places to encourage more local people to visit
them.

Some parents think that childcare centres provide the best services for children of pre-school age.
Other working parents think that family members such as grandparents will provide better care
for their kids.

Discuss both views and give your opinion.

While some parents believe that their children get the best care and support from playschools,
others are of the opinion that grandparents are the best caretakers. I totally agree with the second
view.

Grandparents take good care of their grandchildren because they love them. They are their flesh
and blood and that is a good reason to shower them with love and care. Also, grandparents are
much more than caretakers. Besides taking care of their grandchildren, they help the babies to
develop their social and language skills. Moreover, the blood relationship between them help
better bonding and create an overall healthy atmosphere, which in turn foster better growth and
character formation. For Instance, a recent research found that babies who spend a considerable
amount of time with their parents or grandparents learn things much faster.

As for playschools or day care centres, they are run for monetary benefits. The vast majority of
these institutions are not all that concerned about the well-being of the kids. Many of them
accommodate 20 to 25 kids at a time and that makes it difficult for them to attend to the needs of
all children. The pre-school age is extremely crucial for the intellectual and emotional
development of children. Since babies tend to learn a lot during this period, it is important for
them to receive individual care and attention. Unfortunately, preschools and day care centres
often fail to address these needs.

To conclude, in order to ensure the overall development of children, it is important to understand

and acknowledge their needs like a grandparent or parent does. Since pre-schools are profit-
driven I cannot agree with the argument that they provide the best service for preschool children.
Although abuse of the system is inevitable, social welfare payments are essential to protect the
rights citizens have to a guaranteed minimum income in a democratic society
Discuss.

There are certain needs and expenses that we cannot do away with; therefore, I agree with the
argument that a guaranteed minimum income is essential to protect the rights of all citizens in a
democratic country.

In almost all nations the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The poor and the
marginalized sections of the society also have basic needs. They need food, clothing and shelter.
They want to send their children to school. Since many of these people lack a proper livelihood,
it is essential for the government to disburse welfare payments.

Of course, the welfare schemes are bound to be abused and there is no guarantee that the aid will
always reach the needy. Even so, in my opinion, such schemes are required for the all round
development of a country. Take, for instance, the case of India. Although the country has made
rapid economic advancements over the last few decades, it still has millions of people living
below the poverty line. India has robust welfare schemes for the poor. For example, the countrys
public distribution system provides food grains and other essentials at highly subsidized rates for
the poor. In fact, in many Indian states, poor families can get adequate amounts of rice or wheat
for free. On the flip side, the poor are not the only beneficiaries of these schemes. In fact,
millions of people living above the poverty line also receive the benefits by manipulating the
system with the help of corrupt officials and politicians. As a result of this, the nation ends up
spending a lot more money than it should for welfare schemes. However, abolishing welfare
programmes is not the answer to this problem. If India pulls the plug on its public distribution
system, thousands of people will die of hunger. So, the government continues the system in spite
of knowing its limitations and with the help of new and improved technologies, the country is
steadily removing ineligible people from its social benefit programs.

To conclude, just because welfare programmes are liable to be abused, it does not mean that the
government should abolish them. With political will and the use of new technologies, it is
possible to ensure that governmental aid reaches the right hands.

In some countries an increasing number of people are suffering from health problems as a result
of eating too much fast food. It is therefore necessary for governments to impose a higher tax on
this kind of food. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Health problems caused by the excessive consumption of fast foods have assumed epidemic
proportions all over the world. According to some people, it is important to impose a high tax on
junk food to discourage people from eating such foods. In my opinion, this will deter only the
middle and lower income groups.

To begin with, imposing a higher tax will make fast foods unaffordable to poor people. This will
force them to cook proper meals at home. While this might cause them some inconvenience, it is
actually good for their health. However, the taxes will not discourage affluent consumers from
buying fast food. They will continue to consume it. That means increasing the tax on fast food
will have only a marginal effect on its consumption.

Creating awareness about the ill-effects of fast foods is also unlikely to be of much help. Most
people who consume fast foods are actually aware of its health consequences. For instance, a
survey conducted in Singapore, one of the developed countries in the world, revealed that people
are compelled to buy fast foods because of their busy schedule even though they are aware of the
health problems.
Perhaps a better solution is to make healthy food more affordable and accessible. One of the
main reasons that increase the consumption of fast foods is that they can be cooked in a matter of
minutes. Ready-to-eat foods are also available in supermarkets. Many people are consuming fast
foods because healthier alternatives are not conveniently available.

To conclude, increasing the tax on fast foods will only deter the low income groups from buying
them. If the governments really want to reduce the consumption of fast foods, making healthier
alternatives more affordable and accessible is the best solution.

There seems to be an increasing number of serious crimes being committed each year. While
some think that the best way is to use the death penalty as a deterrent, many people believe that
other measures will be needed.

Discuss both sides of view.

Over the years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of serious crimes being
committed. While some people are of the opinion that capital punishment is the best way to
tackle this problem, others disagree. In other opinion, other measures are required to reduce the
crime rates. This essay will discuss both sides of the argument in detail.

Capital punishment will certainly deter at least some people from committing heinous crimes.
For example, a study in the US found that the rate of serious crimes in states that implement
capital punishment is considerably lower than the crime rate in states that do not have capital
punishment. This is clearly an indication that people are afraid of getting executed and that fear
helps to reduce the crime rate.

However, capital punishment alone will not reduce the crime rates. If that was the case, then
most countries should be free of serious crimes now because death penalty is still given in the
majority of developed and developing countries. Therefore, the argument that other measures are
also required to reduce crime certainly holds water.

One of the main reasons of increasing crime rates is the easy access to firearms. For example,
many countries have liberal laws that allow almost everyone to own firearms. Crime rates are
certainly high in countries like the United States in spite of the fact that they have an efficient
penal system. If the US restricted the possession of guns, perhaps that alone would reduce the
crime rates in that country. The government also needs to investigate the factors that compel
people to commit crimes. In poor and developing nations poverty and unemployment are the
main causes of increasing crime rates. If the government creates more jobs, the crime rate will
automatically reduce.

In conclusion, there are several reasons behind increasing crime rates. Although some people
insist that death penalty is the best way to tackle the problem, I agree with the argument that
other measures are also required.

Some people think that having a set retirement (e.g.65 years) for everybody, regardless of
occupation, is unfair. They believe that certain workers deserve to retire and receive a pension at
an earlier age.

These days, the topic of early retirement is much discussed. Some people believe that setting a
fixed retirement age for all employees is unfair. In their opinion, people working in certain
sectors should be allowed to retire early. I agree with that view.

To begin with, not all jobs are the same in terms of mental or physical demands. Certain jobs are
more mentally or physically strenuous and people performing those jobs should receive early
retirement. It will benefit the society as well as them. A recent study showed that people who
work in physically and mentally demanding occupations might suffer from dementia if they
continue working in the same occupation after turning fifty. If these people are not allowed to
retire early they will become a burden on their company because of their low productivity.

There are also certain jobs that are better suited for youngsters than seniors. For example, driving
a truck or waiting on tables requires greater levels of physical fitness. Such jobs are suited for
young people. Likewise, aeroplane pilots also deserve early retirement because as they age their
vision deteriorates and that could be a flight hazard. There are also certain jobs that no one wants
to do. For example, few people are interested in cleaning sewage or collecting garbage. The
government can encourage more people to take up such jobs by offering them early retirement.
Lastly, firefighters also deserve early retirement because of their sacrifices and readiness to
protect lives and also because their work is very demanding physically and mentally.

To conclude, I strongly agree that some workers should be entitled to an early retirement. While
fixing the age of retirement for each occupation, the government should consider the demands of
the job.

Nowadays we are producing more and more rubbish. Why do you think this is happening? What
can governments do to help reduce the amount of rubbish produced?

The amount of rubbish produced by an average household has increased dramatically over the
last few decades. There are several reasons behind this alarming development.
The first one, of course, is the improvement in living standards. Actually there is a significant
increase in the number of households with disposable income. This increases consumption and
unfortunately this also increases the production of rubbish. Earlier people used to cook food with
the ingredients they sourced from their backyard. Now they buy packaged food from
supermarkets. After the consumption of the food, this packaging will land in the trash bin and
from there it will be transferred to landfills. Now when people feel thirsty, they just buy a bottle
of water without worrying about the future of the empty bottle.

Another reason behind the excessive production of rubbish is the cheap availability of plastic.
Using this versatile material it is now possible to produce almost any kind of wrappers and
containers. Unfortunately, plastic is not biodegradable. Once it reaches the soil, it remains there
for millions of years. Rubbish causes several health problems. It pollutes the air, water and soil.
It affects the productivity of the soil.

The government and the public can take several measures to reduce the amount of rubbish they
produce. People need to be aware that by producing more and more rubbish, they are hurting
their health and the planet. The government needs to restrict the production of plastic. Hefty
fines should be imposed on shops that offer plastic carry bags. It is also important to sensitise
people about responsible consumption and the importance of reducing the production of rubbish.

To conclude, higher levels of income encourage people to consume more and as a consequence
produce more waste. However, the government and the public can still save the planet from the
frightening amount of rubbish by acting more responsibly.

Children do not respect their parents as much as they did in the past. This behaviour is now
having a negative impact on society.

The relationship between parents and children has undergone a drastic transformation over the
last few decades. Parents are no longer the sole authority in a family. This change has certainly
affected the way children interact with their parents. In fact, many of them have become
disrespectful. Since they repeat the same behaviour outside of their home, it is having a negative
effect on the society as well. There are several reasons behind this disturbing trend.

Todays children receive much better education than what their parents received. They have also
become smarter and more intelligent thanks to the accessibility of new age technologies. For
example, I know many young children who can use their parents smart phones much better than
them. They can drive vehicles faster. This creates a false sense of superiority and they often look
down upon their parents and treat them with disrespect. This was not exactly the case thirty or
forty years ago when the skill gap between parents and children were negligible.

Another factor that contributed to the growth of disrespectful children is the rise of the nuclear
family. Most families now consist of just the parents and one or two kids. These families
certainly revolve around these children and it is not uncommon for parents to cater to every
whim and fancy of their kids. This makes children more demanding.
In my opinion, if children have become disrespectful, it is a problem with their upbringing.
Parents who satisfy every need of their children are not doing them a service. Rather they are
spoiling them. Parents are required to not only provide their children with food and clothing but
also instill values in them. Todays children may possess higher technical skills and more
academic qualifications than their parents. This, however, does not mean that they are wiser.

To conclude, there is no denying the fact that children are becoming more disrespectful and this
is having a negative impact on the society. However, in my opinion, this is actually a reflection
of the poor parenting skills of their parents and the rise of the nuclear family.

Some people think that the teenage years are the happiest of our lives, while others believe that
adult life brings more happiness. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or
experience.

People often wonder whether adolescence is better than adulthood. Some think so while others
disagree. In my opinion, each stage in life has its pros and cons.

Adolescence is certainly an enjoyable period of time. Teens have few things to worry about.
They are not required to earn money or support a family. As a result, many of them have plenty
of free time that they can use to engage in activities they enjoy. Even the criminal law is kind to
teenagers. Offences committed by teens attract less severe punishments than offences committed
by adults. On the flip side, teenage is also a period of great emotional turmoil. Teens are neither
kids nor adults and have a strong need for freedom. They do not like it when their parents or
teachers attempt to make them behave.

By contrast, adults are more mature and responsible. Many of them have a job to meet their
expenses. They have less free time than teens, but most of them simply do not care. They are
more focused on their careers and want to achieve something in life. Since their family and the
law treat them as mature individuals, they enjoy a greater level of freedom. For example, they
can decide what they want to do with their life. They can choose a job of their liking or they can
choose not to work at all. While teens are minors adults are majors capable of entering into
contracts enforceable by the law.

After looking at both sides of the situation, it is not hard to see that adolescence and adulthood
have their upsides and downsides. In my opinion, it is therefore wrong to claim that one stage of
life is better or happier than another stage.
Some people think that they should spend money they earn now enjoying life, while others think
that the money should be put into savings for future. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

People have different opinions on how they should spend their money. While some people
believe that we should spend our money to enjoy life, others argue that we should save it for
future. I agree with the latter point of view.

There are people who believe that life is supposed to be enjoyable and full of happiness. In their
opinion, if you just work hard to save more money for your future, you will not be able to enjoy
your life. No one, after all, gets a second life to enjoy the goodies they give up in their quest to
save more and more. This argument certainly sounds convincing; however, there is another side
to it.

I have absolutely no issues with people who believe that life should be enjoyed to the fullest. But
in order to enjoy life, we also need to be prepared to handle its ups and downs. It is almost
impossible to predict what will happen in the future. For example, a critical illness, an accident
or a loss of job can land us in serious trouble and derail the course of our life. If we spend all our
money to enjoy our current life, we will not be able to deal with these situations.

To conclude, life is full of surprises and it is impossible to predict what will happen tomorrow.
Therefore, we need to be prepared and the most practical way of doing this is to save money for
the future. This does not mean that we should not spend money at all. What we need to do is to
strike a balance between our need for enjoyment and the need to secure our future.

Today more and more tourists are visiting places where conditions are difficult, such as the
Sahara desert or the Antarctic?

What are the benefits and disadvantages for tourists who visit such places?

Over the last few years, there has been a significant increase in the number of people travelling
to inhabitable or hostile places. Most of them are driven by a passion to achieve something that
few others have been able to achieve. They want to experience the adrenalin rush that such
expeditions bring on.

Travelling to difficult places has both advantages and disadvantages. One of the biggest benefits
of undertaking difficult journeys is that they improve ones confidence in ones abilities. While
the journey can be physically and mentally exhausting, the exhilaration that one experiences
upon its successful completion is not something that can be described in mere words. It is this
need to test ones limits that propelled sailors like Magellan and Columbus to sail around the
world and discover unknown lands. It is this need to conquer the unknown that encourages
people to climb mountains. And there are many takers for this trend. Adventure tourism is
growing by leaps and bounds. People are aware of the risks, yet they want to experience the
thrill. So, they set out on difficult journeys.
On the flip side, difficult journeys can be extremely dangerous. Things can go against our plans.
Lots of travellers have died while trekking difficult mountains or rafting in turbulent rivers.
There are also many adventure travellers who sustain serious injuries that leave them immobile
for the rest of their lives. Another drawback of such journeys is that if the travellers go missing
or find themselves in trouble, the governments may have to launch costly rescue operations.

To conclude, difficult journeys are extremely thrilling. They are equally dangerous; yet many
people undertake them because they want to test their limits and conquer the unknown.

Some people believe famous peoples support for international aid organizations draw public
attention. Others think celebrities reduce the importance of the problems. Discuss both views and
give your opinion.

Celebrities such as film stars and sportspersons support several charitable organizations. Some
people argue that they are doing this to gain more publicity. I dont quite agree with this view.
Celebrities are certainly interested in hogging the limelight and that may be the reason they get
involved in charitable work. Even so, by openly supporting various humanitarian causes, they are
also creating awareness and encouraging other people to get involved.

In my opinion, the argument that celebrities reduce the importance of problems does not hold
water. They bring issues to public attention by lending their support to them. For example,
countless celebrities endorse Green Peace and PETA. By doing so, they have created awareness
about the need to protect the planet and wildlife. I doubt that PETA would have gained so much
attention without the active support of celebrities.

Of course, celebrities do not do much other than just lending their support. But because of their
popularity, the media follow them wherever they go and when they get involved in a cause, that
makes headlines. This encourages the fans of these celebrities to also support those causes. This
is how celebrities make a difference to the world. Because of their huge fan following they can
encourage people to act by simply voicing their support for an organization or a cause. It does
not really matter whether they are doing this for their own benefits or for the benefit of the
charity.

In conclusion, I do not agree with the argument that celebrities belittle the importance of various
humanitarian causes. They may be supporting charities for their own benefits, but by doing so
they are also bringing these causes to the fore and getting the support of others.

Many people believe that formal pen and paper examinations are not the best method of
assessing educational achievement.
Discuss this view and give your own opinion.
While it is true that there has been some path-breaking research in education, academic
achievements are still assessed using the old fashioned pen and paper exams. Many people
believe that this is a flawed method. I dont fully agree with them.

Paper based written examinations have their flaws. The biggest problem with the traditional
examinations is that they only assess the performance of the student on the day of the exam. As a
result a bright student who couldnt prepare well for the exam due to reasons that were beyond
their control will get a poor grade. This is unfair. If the student performed well throughout the
year in class tests and other informal assessments, there is no justification for giving them a poor
grade just because they failed to perform well in one examination. Written examinations also
encourage mugging. Parents and teachers force students to learn answers by heart with the sole
objective of getting a good score. Many of these students dont understand the concepts and yet
they get good marks. They wont be able to answer the same questions if you ask them a few
days later. This kind of learning will benefit neither the student nor the society.

An alternative solution is to use a method of continuous evaluation. Schools should monitor the
performance of students from day one. They should also use a variety of parameters to determine
the merit of each student. Unfortunately, this method also has its flaws. In most cases, teachers
and schools try to manipulate the results with the objective of getting great results for their
school. Education is a highly competitive sector and every school wants to get better results than
other schools. So in this scenario if schools are entrusted with the task of grading their students,
we cannot expect the results to be impartial.

Perhaps a better solution is to use written examinations in tandem with continuous evaluation.
This will ensure that good students will get the grades they deserve even if they fail to perform
well on exam day.

To conclude, the traditional written examination has its flaws. Other methods have their flaws
too. In my opinion, the government and the schools should use a variety of methods and
parameters to assess the calibre of their students.

Nowadays, many families have both parents working. Some working parents believe that other
family members can take care of their children, while others think childcare centers are better.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.

The cost of living has increased and hence in many families now both parents work. One of the
biggest problems that working parents face is finding an appropriate support system for their
children. Some get the help of their parents or other close relatives. Others send their children to
daycare centres. In my opinion, both options have their pros and cons. Even so, I am in favour of
leaving the children in the care of other family members if that is possible.

In countries like India most people prefer to leave their children in the care of their grandparents.
The biggest advantage of this arrangement is that the children will get lots of love and care from
their grandparents. They will also learn family values and moral principles. This will ensure their
proper emotional and physical development. Whats more, grandparents have previous
experience in parenting. So they know how children should be taken care of. On the flip side,
grandparents are also known to be overindulgent. They often turn a blind eye to the faults of their
grandchildren. As a result children can grow into spoilt brats but parental intervention at the right
stages can prevent this from happening.

Sending the kids to daycare centres has its ups and downs too. In a daycare centre the child will
have the company of several other children. This opportunity to interact with others will improve
their communication skills. Some daycare centres also act as playschools that teach kids numbers
and alphabets. On the flip side, the caretakers at these childcare centres have no emotional
attachment to the children. They may have degrees in child psychology but they cannot give the
love or attention that parents or grandparents can give. Whats more, many of these centres are
actually profit driven and often fail to take good care of children.

To conclude, after looking at the pros and cons of both arrangements it is not hard to see that
leaving children in the care of their grandparents is a better option than sending them to childcare
centres. However, if that is not possible parents should not hesitate to choose the other option.

Some people believe that eventually all jobs will be done by artificially intelligent robots.
What is your opinion?

Some jobs are already done by robots. However, I do not believe that all jobs will eventually be
performed by such devices for several reasons. Robots are expensive and incapable of doing
certain jobs that require special skills. Government regulations will also prevent their large scale
deployment.

If a man can do a job as well as a robot, I see no justification for replacing the man with a robot.
Robots are suitable for certain jobs, but they have plenty of limitations too. To begin with, the
cost of operating and maintaining robots is extremely high. This is a great reason for employers
to continue to prefer humans over robots. For example, the cost of installing a robot in a
Khartoum-based supermarket was around one million U.S. dollars. The robot will require
decades to deliver services worth its cost. Furthermore, in order to keep these devices working
continuously, companies will have to employ skilled operators. This will further increase their
cost of operation and make human workers indispensable in the labour market.

There are also certain jobs that require the human touch. For instance, robots cannot do a good
job in sectors like medicine, engineering or social service because of their inability to understand
human feelings, needs and wants. Unemployment is another factor that discourages the
deployment of robots on a large scale. If robots are deployed in all sectors people will lose their
jobs. As we already know, unemployment has an adverse effect on the society. To prevent this
situation, the government may also bring about legislation that requires companies to employ
humans instead of robots.
To sum up, robots may be getting smarter; however, in my opinion, they will never completely
replace humans in the workplace. Of course, there are sectors where only robots can be
employed. In other sectors, humans will continue to be employed.

Some people think that the increasing use of computers and mobile phones nowadays has
unwanted effects on young peoples reading and writing skills. To what extent do you agree or
disagree?

Electronic gadgets like mobile phones or computers have become an integral part of our lives
and it is now impossible to imagine a life without them. Some people, however, argue that the
overuse of these devices has an adverse effect on the language skills of young people. I partially
agree with this view.

Nowadays most students spend a great deal of time on their tablets and smart phones. They have
become addicted to these devices. Since these devices are small, they only have a small keypad
to type in messages. So most youngsters now only use acronyms when they send messages to
their friends. Worse, they find the SMS lingo quite cool. As a result, many of them dont know
the spelling of even common words. In addition, they use smileys and stickers to express their
emotions. While this might look harmless, it can actually affect their ability to communicate
feelings in words. Whats more, most word processors now have spell-checkers. Since these
programs automatically correct the spelling of misspelled words, students dont even have to
learn spelling to get good marks in their exams.

On the flip side, digital equipments can also improve the reading and writing skills of
youngsters. There are numerous websites and mobile applications that allow students to learn
and improve their language skills. Dictionary apps are particularly helpful for finding the origin
and pronunciation of words. Devices like e-book readers actually develop reading habits
amongst youngsters. Thanks to their compact size we can carry them around and read whenever
we want to.

To conclude, modern devices like mobile phones or tablets have positive and negative aspects in
equal measures. It is up to us to decide whether we want to benefit from them or allow them to
destroy our language and cognitive skills.

Some people think that schools should reward students who have the best academic results,
while others believe that it is more important to reward students who show progress. Discuss
both views and give your own opinion.

Most schools reward students who perform well in their examinations. Some people, however,
feel that instead of giving prizes to academic toppers, schools should appreciate the hard work of
students who show great progress by rewarding them. In my opinion, toppers as well as those
who show progress need to be rewarded.
Rewards motivate students to work harder and achieve better results. Everybody loves to get
prizes. Toppers are no different. When the school appreciates their hard work with prizes, they
will be motivated to work even harder. Whats more, their performance will also inspire other
students to study harder and improve their grades. If the school does not reward them, at least,
some of them will lose the motivation and that may reflect in their grades.

At the same time, toppers are not the only students who need to be appreciated. Students who
show great progress should also be rewarded for their hard work. Just knowing that the school
appreciates their efforts will be a motivation for them and they will want to improve their
performance by working harder.

Rewards are given for a reason. As human beings, we all crave appreciation. When others
recognize our efforts, we will want to work even harder and achieve greater results. If schools
only reward academic toppers, others may assume that prizes are not meant for them. In that
case, they will give up even without making an effort to get better grades. If, on the other hand,
the schools also reward students showing improvement, more and more students will want to
improve their grades.

To conclude, rewards encourage all students to work harder. Therefore, in my opinion, not only
the toppers, but students showing improvement also need to be rewarded.

Many people believe that international tourism is a bad thing for their own countries. What are
the reasons? What are the solutions to change negative attitudes?

Some people are not in favour of foreigners visiting their country. They feel that international
tourists do more harm than good to their culture. In my opinion, this negative attitude is the
outcome of various misconceptions about foreigners. The government and the media can do a lot
to bust these myths.

Cultural differences exist between nations and that is the reason behind this animosity towards
foreign tourists. People, especially those living in conservative societies, believe that the influx
of foreign tourists to their country can damage their ethnic culture and values. India, for example,
is a conservative country that expects both men and women to dress modestly and behave
conservatively in public. When western tourists, especially women, wear skimpy outfits while
touring the country, they invite a lot of unwanted stares. The same thing happens in Arabian
countries where public display of affection is strictly forbidden. Obviously, Arabians do not like
it when foreigners kiss or engage in other acts of affection in public.

While it is true that no culture is better or worse than others, countries should still advise their
people to dress and behave appropriately when they are abroad. Foreigners need to realize that
when they disrespect local customs and traditions, they are putting their safety at risk. Host
nations should also convince their people that tourism is actually good for their country and
economy. It creates jobs and boosts local economy.
To conclude, misconceptions about foreigners are the reason many people dislike them.
International tourists can do a lot to dispel these myths by behaving appropriately and respecting
foreign cultures and customs when they are abroad. The governments of host nations should also
convince their people of the importance of tourism.

Everyone should follow a vegetarian diet because it is not necessary to eat meat to be healthy.

Do you agree or disagree?

When it is perfectly possible to lead a healthy life by eating plant based foods, I see no
justification for killing birds or animals for our food. Therefore, I completely agree with the
argument that everyone should adopt a vegetarian diet.

There are several benefits to following a vegetarian diet. To start with, plant based foods are rich
in vitamins, minerals, anti-oxidants and other nutrients required for good health. Whats more,
most fruits and vegetables contain little or no cholesterol or calories. Research has shown that
vegetarians are less likely to develop health problems like obesity, cancer or heart trouble. Health
benefits are not the only reason to follow a vegetarian diet. When we obtain our food from
plants, we can also stop cruelty to animals.

By contrast, non-vegetarian foods such as fish and meat are high in cholesterol, fat and calories.
Regular consumption of red meat is known to increase a persons risk of cancer and heart
disease. In addition, unlike fruits or vegetables, fish and meat cannot be eaten raw. The
slaughtered animal may have some illness. If half-cooked meat is eaten, it can cause deadly
infections in human beings. In fact many cases of food poisoning are caused by the consumption
of contaminated meat.

The quality of non-vegetarian food has also deteriorated over the years. Seafood has become
contaminated due to the pollution of ocean water. It is a well-known fact that farm animals are
given steroids to grow rapidly. When we eat their meat, the steroid also enters our body. This
leads to several problems like precocious puberty in children.

To conclude, vegetarian foods are healthy and do not constitute cruelty to animals. Therefore, I
believe that everyone should adopt vegetarianism.

Studies show that many criminals do not receive enough education. For this reason, people
believe that the best ways to reduce crime is to educate them so they can find a job after being
released. Do you agree or disagree?

Lack of education and employment opportunities are the main causes of the rising crime rate.
Some people, therefore, feel that by simply educating prisoners, we can discourage them from
committing crimes again after they get released from prison. I totally agree with this view.
Almost nobody is born a criminal. Most criminals are victims of circumstances. In fact most of
them come from the poor strata of the society and lack education. As a result they dont have
many employment opportunities. Many of them eventually become thieves or gangsters. By
contrast, criminal tendencies are comparatively low among educated people.

Educating convicted criminals in prison will certainly not erase their shoddy past. However, it
improves their chances of finding employment once they get released. One of the biggest
problems that ex-prisoners face is the lack of rehabilitation opportunities. The society prefers to
keep them at an arms length and as such they have fewer opportunities for making a living once
they complete their sentence. Unfortunately, this increases their chances of getting into crime
again.

Education may change the situation for good. If prisoners receive an opportunity to learn and
acquire vocational or academic degrees from prison, they are more likely to find employment
upon their release. When they have a secure job and a means of living, most people will not want
to get into crime again.

To conclude, education improves a persons employability. Just because someone is a prisoner, it

does not mean that they cannot learn or acquire degrees. In fact, educating prisoners is one of the
best things we can do for their rehabilitation and successful induction into the society.

Some people think that in order to prevent illness and disease, governments should try to reduce
environmental pollution and housing problems.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Pollution and poverty are important causes of illnesses. Some people, therefore, feel that the
governments should take measures to tackle these evils. I completely agree with this view.

Many governments already earmark a considerable percentage of their annual budget to

healthcare. If a fraction of that is spent on providing housing and improving air quality, the
governments can prevent people from falling ill in the first place.

Millions of people still live in unhygienic surroundings. They cannot afford a home because of
poverty. Unhealthy surroundings are the breeding ground of bacteria, mosquitoes and flies. Since
these are the carriers of illnesses people living in slums and poor surroundings fall ill quite often.
If the government provides affordable housing to all, the living standards of millions of people in
the developing countries will improve substantially. As a result, their health will also improve.

Pollution is another silent killer. Due to environmental pollution the quality of air, water and soil
has decreased causing various illnesses in people. For example, respiratory illnesses are quite
common among people living in cities because of the poor quality of air in urban areas. Water
pollution causes illnesses like typhoid, jaundice and dysentery. While these diseases can affect
anyone, people living in dirty surroundings are more likely to be affected by them.
To conclude, if the governments are really keen on improving the health of their citizens, they
must address the real cause of diseases. In other words by simply making housing affordable for
all and controlling air pollution, the government can protect its people from illnesses. Prevention,
after all, is better than cure.

Scientists agree that people are harming their health by eating too much fat food. Some people
think that the solution to this problem is to make people aware of the problems. Others think
education will not work. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Excessive consumption of fatty foods leads to a lot of health problems. Some people believe that
creating awareness about the health consequences of junk food is the solution to this problem.
Others, however, feel that other measures are required to tackle this issue. In my opinion,
creating awareness is important but that alone will not work.

Most people lead a hectic life these days. They do not have the time or energy to cook proper
meals. As a result, they subsist on fast food. Many of them are actually aware of the ill effects of
fast food; yet they consume it because they prefer convenience to health. Such people will not
stop eating junk foods even if the government launches awareness campaigns against such foods.
There are also some people who consume fast food because they are ignorant of the
consequences of fast food consumption. Awareness campaigns will work best amongst them.

As we have seen, in many cases lack of awareness is not the factor that encourages the
consumption of fast foods. Therefore other actions are also required to deal with this problem.
People who eat fast food in spite of knowing that it is unhealthy may stop eating it if the
government makes it unaffordable by increasing taxes on it. Even this measure will not deter
wealthy people from consuming fast foods. Perhaps a better solution is to make healthy food
more affordable and accessible. The government can perhaps open eateries that serve healthy
food at reasonable prices. In Tamil Nadu, for example, there are state funded canteens that serve
healthy foods for a nominal price. When healthy options are available conveniently at least some
people will give up fast food.

To conclude, creating awareness about the harmful effects of fast foods is certainly important but
it will not solve the problem. In addition to creating awareness, the government has to take
measures that make fast foods unaffordable and healthy foods more accessible.

Whether someone achieves their goal or not is a question of luck. To what extent do you
agree or disagree?

When someone succeeds, people often attribute that to luck. While I admit that luck may have a
role to play here, I dont know anyone who achieved success only because of luck. Therefore, I
disagree with the argument that success or failure is a matter of good or bad luck.

If we look around it is not hard to see that most people who achieved success in life had faced
many hardships in their early life. Apple INCs Steve Jobs, for example, was given up for
adoption immediately after he was born. He faced hardships in his early life but went on to found
one of the most enduring businesses in the world. Steve Jobs never attributed his success to luck.
Neither did Bill Gates, the richest man in the world. They were visionaries who toiled hard to
win their goals.

Helen Keller, whose story continues to inspire millions of people even today, didnt even have
many faculties that we take for granted. She could neither hear nor speak but none of these
disabilities prevented her from achieving what she wanted in life. There are several such
examples of people who fought against all odds to achieve their goals. Many of them came from
backgrounds that we consider unlucky. Still through determination, dedication and hard work
they were able to achieve success, fame and money.

Of course, there are a few people who achieved success because of good luck. Children born to
rich and famous parents, for example, do not have to struggle to become famous or rich. We can
perhaps attribute their success to luck but in reality such success does not last long.

To conclude, if a person is determined to succeed nothing, not even bad luck, can prevent them
from achieving what they want. Fortune, after all, favours the brave.

Some believe that school children should not be given homework by their teachers, whereas
others argue that homework plays an important role in the education of children. Discuss both of
these views and give your own opinion.

There are arguments both in favour of and against giving homework to students. While some
people believe that homework is beneficial to children, others argue that it is an unwanted burden
on them. In my opinion, a small amount of homework will help students to improve their grades;
however, I am against giving too much homework.

The biggest advantage of homework is that it encourages students to open their books and revise
their lessons after reaching home. And if they do their homework with concentration, they will
also learn the lessons. This will definitely improve their grades. If teachers do not give
homework, most students will simply waste their time after reaching home playing video games
or chatting with their friends. They will have to work doubly hard when exams draw closer. By
encouraging students to learn the lessons the day they are taught, homework helps them improve
their grades.

On the other hand, homework can also be an unwanted burden. Most students spend a lot of time
in the classroom. They are already tired by the time they reach home and lack the motivation to
complete their homework. If they do homework it is for fear of punishment. When children are
forced to do homework, they are less likely to focus on what they are doing. They may just copy
answers from their notebook. This practice will not benefit them in any way.

This, however, does not mean that teachers should stop giving homework. They can make
homework less of a burden by giving only a small amount of it. This way they can ensure that
students have time for play as well. Studies have shown that physical activity also helps brain
development and boosts grades indirectly.
To conclude, the practice of giving too much homework should definitely be discouraged as it is
unhealthy and useless. However, abolishing homework is not the solution. Instead of taking such
drastic measures, in my opinion, teachers should just reduce the amount of homework they give.

Most employers do job interviews before offering a position to a person. Do you think this is the
best way to do it, or are there better alternatives? What is the best method of choosing employees
in your opinion?

It is a common practice all over the world for employers to interview potential candidates. While
I dont think that this is the best way to assess the job worthiness of a particular candidate, I
cannot suggest any better alternatives. In my opinion, combining the interview with mock
practical tests and written examinations is the best way of finding suitable candidates.

Interviews certainly are useful in many ways. The fact that they are used all over the world is a
clear sign that a lot of employers find them useful. During an interview, the employer can assess
the personality of a candidate to a great extent. Also there are various techniques that the
interviewers can use to find out how a particular person will behave in various situations.
Interviews are particularly helpful for selecting employees whose jobs require them to interact a
lot with potential clients and customers. For example, people working in sales, marketing, PR or
HR need good people skills that can be measured during an interview.

Perhaps the biggest downside of interviews is that the candidates can come prepared and turn the
interview to their advantage. It is possible to give learned answers to questions asked during an
interview. In addition, it is foolish to believe that all candidates will demonstrate their true nature
or work ethics during an interview.

Another disadvantage of interviews is that by interviewing someone, an employer can only

assess their personality and general knowledge. An interview, for example, is not a good way of
measuring a persons technical skills. By simply interviewing someone who has a degree in
engineering, an employer cannot find out whether they have the skills required to deliver a good
performance at the workplace. In such situations putting the candidate through tasks they would
have to typically do before offering them a job is a better solution.

To conclude, while it is true that an interview is not the best method of choosing a candidate,
there arent many better alternatives. In my opinion, employers should combine the interview
with written tests and mock practical tests to find the most suitable employees.

Most high-level positions in companies are filled by men even though the workforce in many
developed countries is more than 50 percent female. Companies should be required to allocate a
certain percent of these positions to women.

In many companies most of the senior level positions are occupied by men. Since many of these
companies have an equal number of male and female employees, some people feel that this is
unfair. In their opinion, companies should reserve a certain number of managerial positions for
women. I both agree and disagree with this view.

There are many reasons why I believe that companies should reserve jobs for women. First of all,
women should have the same opportunities as men. Ensuring gender equality in the workplace is
the easiest way to avoid gender based discrimination. Also when an equal number of men and
women work at senior levels, it will make the work environment pleasant for both genders.
Whats more, sometimes just knowing that a certain percent of higher positions are reserved for
women can actually be an inspiration for female employees to work hard. Women also have
certain qualities that make them good managers. For example, they are better at communicating
and solving problems.

On the flip side, reserving positions can have its fair share of disadvantages too. Companies are
driven by profits and they need employees who have the skills, expertise and knowledge to take
their business forward. If a certain number of senior positions are reserved for women, then
companies will be required to appoint only women in those positions. This can actually pose a
problem if there arent suitable female candidates. If companies are forced to appoint less
qualified candidates, it will have a negative impact on their bottom line.

To conclude, companies should strive to achieve gender equality at the workplace. However, I
feel that reserving senior management positions for women is not very practical.

In order to reduce crime, some argue that attacking its cause like poverty is the best solution,
while others believe that putting more people in prisons and having more policemen are more
convenient way in tackling crime. Discuss both sides and give your opinion.

Reducing the crime rate is crucial to ensuring the safety and security of people living in a
particular society. While some people are in favour of building more prisons and increasing the
number of policemen, others feel that achieving economic welfare is the key to tackling crime. In
my opinion, all of these measures are required to fight crime effectively.

There are several benefits to increasing the number of policemen patrolling the streets. They will
act as a deterrent and force offenders to think twice before engaging in robbery or shoplifting.
They will also increase the sense of safety among law-abiding citizens. It is equally important to
punish those engaging in criminal activities. They are a threat to the life and property of people
and hence they should be kept in confinement. The hardships that they face in the prison and the
subsequent social alienation may reform at least some of them.

Perhaps a better solution to reduce the crime rates is to ensure financial security for everyone.
Studies have shown that most criminals have poor financial backgrounds. In most cases, it is
their poverty that compels them to commit criminal deeds. If the government can create more
jobs and provide economic security for all the people, the crime rates will automatically drop. Of
course, this will require the government to invest more in education and vocational training.
Educated and trained people will be able to create jobs themselves. They are also less likely to
get into crime.

To conclude, tackling crime is a tough task and the government has to employ all possible means
to achieve this. This will involve deploying more policemen on the streets, putting criminals
behind the bars and ensuring economic security for all the people.

Information technology enables many people to do their work outside their workplace. Do the
benefits of this mobility outweigh the disadvantages? Give reasons for your answer and include
any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Technology has significantly changed the way we live and work. For instance it has allowed
many of us to have flexible work hours. When we can have our data available in a cloud, we can
work pretty much from anywhere in the world. Some people believe that this flexibility improves
the quality of our life and work. However, in my opinion, working from home has both benefits
and drawbacks.

One of the most important benefits of working from home is the ability to spend more time with
our loved ones. Some people argue that this will boost the morale of employees and encourage
them to give their best. Remote working also benefits parents of very young children. A lot of
women quit their jobs to take care of their children. If companies allow them to work from their
home, they can join the workforce again. Companies also benefit when employees work from
their home. They can save money on office rentals and utility bills.

On the flip side, remote working has its drawbacks too. Some people believe that having a nice
workplace where people can work together as a team and communicate closely is more
beneficial than working from outside. I have a personal example on how distance can interfere
with work outcomes. My boss travels a lot and sometimes I have a hard time meeting him. Once
he asked me to prepare a presentation for a meeting we were going to have. As I started to work
on it, I found out that I had some questions and I couldnt reach him to clarify my doubts. I
finished my work and then weeks later, when he got back, I showed him my presentation and it
was not what he wanted. As a result, I had to do it again, which was a waste of time.

To conclude, there are both benefits and drawbacks to working from home. Flexible hours or
freelancing is not for everyone; however, there are lots of employees who benefit from it.