Some people think that the best way to reduce the time

spent traveling to work is to replace parks and gardens

close to the city center with apartment buildings for
commuters, but others disagree. Discuss both views
and give your own opinion.
A controversy arises when some argue converting parks and gardens in city centers to
residential apartments would be a wise idea to save the time of employees who travel to work.
I would stand with those who oppose this idea.

The reason behind this proposal might be because they feel that parks, gardens and other
historical buildings are locations where vertical buildings can be erected, which can shelter a
sizeable proportion of people. When this can be given as accommodation slots for those who
travel to work, they could save both time as well as money. The employers can also find
employees who can work over-time, if this happens. Finally, it eases the traffic congestion
during peak hours, and cuts down the air pollution rate.

On the contrary, the opponents of such a move point at the risk of making the city center more
crowded and suffocated. To be precise, when these frequently commuting employees are
stationed close to city centers, more facilities are required for them. This is not only an
economic liability for the city authorities, but also a social responsibility. When gardens and
parks, the only available spaces for the city-dwellers to breathe fresh air disappear, they would
be more suffocated, and this might have serious consequences on their mental and physical
health.

In my opinion, with the advancements of technology, more people are working online from
their own homes when compared to the past, and I see this as a better solution than what is
suggested.

To conclude, the idea of replacing gardens and parks in city centers to accommodate
employees who frequently travel in and out of the city appears to be beneficial in multiple
ways. However, when advanced technology is there to tackle the issue, it is better not to
change the present ambience of a city.
Some people believe famous people's support towards
international aid organizations draws attention to
problems, while others think celebrities make the
problems less important. 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 don’t 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 GreenPeace 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.
Human activities have negative effects on plants and
animal species. Some people think that it is too late to
do anything about this problem. Other people believe
that effective measures can be taken to improve this
situation. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
It is true that human development has been detrimental to other species on our planet. While
some people think that there are very few measures that can be taken to save the life of plants
and animals, I believe that there are still many opportunities for humans to correct what they
have done and protect wildlife from devastation.

On the one hand, to meet the increase in population and other human demands, an increase
in the number of forest areas have been cut down to make land available for farming, or the
lives of marine animals are being endangered due to industrial waste. These activities
damage the natural habitats of animals and plants, and lead to the extinction of some species.
It is tough to admit that even with the most modern technologies, people cannot bring back
the life of species that were killed.

However, I believe that humans are now aware of the advantages of the diversity of the
ecosystem, and governments together with scientists are doing their best to save endangered
plants and animals. For instance, non-governmental organizations launch various campaigns
to raise the awareness of people on the importance of protecting wild-animals. Recently,
many celebrities throughout the world have advocated for boycotting products made from
threatened species. Moreover, in our daily life, we are educated to recycle and buy sustainable
products from bamboo or wood to protect species lives in forests. Besides that, the simple
action like placing decals on the windows in order to keep birds from colliding with them is
the simple thing we can do to save our planet.

In conclusion, although it is too late to do anything for extinct species, I strongly believe that
there are many things we can do to create safer habitats for existing species.
Some people think that social networking sites have a
huge negative impact on both individuals and society.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
In recent years, the use of social media sites has become a widespread trend. Many claim
that these sites have a detrimental effect on people and the community. I strongly support
this notion, and I will justify my opinion in the following paragraphs with relevant examples.

To commence with, the significant impact that these sites have on people is that young
individuals who spend excessive amounts of time on web surfing become depressed and
isolated from their family. This is because they keep themselves locked in rooms for hours
and spend most of their time playing online games or chatting with strangers. Initially,
individuals enjoy this habit. However, with the passage of time they become addicted which
leads to isolation. To illustrate further, in India’s metro cities, social-media addiction has
become a severe issue, and thousands of people seek medical advice / psychiatric advice to
overcome this addiction. Therefore, it is evident that social-media addiction has serious
implications for people.

Furthermore, these sites harm our community. The most critical issue is that there is a
significant rise in crime in the society which is due to the misuse of social-media websites.
Many attackers hack public profiles of celebrities, which has personal data and pictures and
then start blackmailing them. Moreover, there are many cases where criminals target teenage
boys and girls by creating fake profiles, and once they fall into their trap, they kidnap them
and ask for extortion money from their family.

To conclude, it is clear that social-sites have a negative impact on both people and society,
as they lead to isolation among individuals and cause more crimes in the community.
Therefore, I firmly believe that it is a negative phenomenon and individuals should be more
careful while using such websites.
It is not necessary for people to travel to other places to
learn about the culture. We can learn as much as from
books, films, and the Internet. To what extent do you
agree or disagree?
websites without travelling to other host countries. While I accept that there is a wide range
of sources which people can take advantage of to obtain knowledge about different culture, I
also argue that another way to learn more about aspects of a particular culture is to travel to
the host country.

On the one hand, there is no doubt that books, films, and online sources are available now
which give a chance to people to discover several cultures from over the world. To begin with,
you could find many topics related to other nations’ ways of life written by a lot of authors
who could have been travelers or interviewers. For example, if you want to learn more about
the culture in France, you can find some books sharing views about customs and traditions
of French people and you can search for specific information which is free of charge on the
internet. Secondly, those which have a large number of pictures and lively videos which people
can have access to easily and get absorbed in while watching them. In case individuals cannot
afford the trip to this country, it will be the cheapest way for them to achieve their goals and
have a sense of satisfaction.

On the other hand, there are several reasons why it is essential for people to go to other
countries to study others’ culture. The first reason is that the more they travel, the more they
know about the world, particularly cultures. Undoubtedly, books, movies or the internet do not
cover all cultures, hence people should do it in their own way and accumulate knowledge from
their real experience. Even though the journey is high-priced, it is a valuable chance for people
to try new cuisines, take part in festivals and communicate with the local people which they
cannot when getting access to culture through print media as well as online sources. Another
reason is that travelling to another country is a great opportunity to escape the hustle and
bustle of the city in order to refresh their mind and recharge energy to return to their work and
study later. For instance, they undergo the nerve-racking period and want to forget all
hardships, therefore, they should take some days off and enjoy the interesting lives in new
places.

In conclusion, it is clearly true that books, movies, and the internet are some methods to study
other cultures. I believe that people should travel to explore different cultures.
Some people prefer to have temporary jobs, which
means they only work a few months in a year and use
the rest of the time to do what they want. What is your
opinion?
In a time when jobs are few and employers receive hundreds of resumes for one vacancy,
temporary jobs are gaining popularity. Although temporary jobs have both advantages and
disadvantages, the pros definitely outweigh the cons.

To begin with, temporary work is relatively easy to get. If the candidate‘s credentials match
the temporary job requirements he might be called upon to fill the position. Secondly, doing
temporary work will give a job candidate much needed work experience. Most companies
require two to three years experience, which puts recent graduates at a loss. Doing temporary
work will give them that experience.

Another benefit to doing temporary work is that, should a vacancy become available within
the company, the temporary worker will have first hand knowledge of it and can apply before
the job gets posted on-line or handed over to employment agencies. Should a temporary
worker excel in his current job, chances are he might be asked to stay on with the company
on a full-time basis. Furthermore, by going from company to company, a temporary worker
gets a lot of exposure. He doesn‘t just learn one job, in the course of his employment he might
gain experience in different fields.

Moreover, by doing temporary work, a worker will also be exposed to different kinds of
environments. In addition, a temporary worker will get exposure to different kinds of
personalities. By learning to work with different kinds of people, a temporary worker can
sharpen his people skills. Last but not least, if a temporary worker needs some time off, he
can just make himself unavailable for a while until he is ready to take on the next assignment.

On the downside, a temporary job does not have job security and you may be fired any time.
You also do not get the perks and benefits that regular full time employees get. There may be
gaps in your employment from time to time.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that disadvantages of temporary jobs are far less
than the advantages. For some people, a temporary job is just temporary until they find
something full-time, while for others it is a way of life.
Countries with a long average working time are more
economically successful than those countries which do
not have a long working time. To what extent do you
agree or disagree?
Many people believe that a long average working time is directly tied to a nation's economic
prosperity. While I accept that extending average time at workplaces may be beneficial to
some extent, I would argue that countries with proper working time may stand a higher chance
of obtaining a healthier economy.

To begin with, there are a variety of reasons given to justify the benefits of long average
working hours towards the economy. Firstly, staff who stay at companies/ workplaces for a
longer time to accomplish their work can accelerate the working process, which allows firms/
enterprises to make greater profits to expand the business as well as reinvest in feasible
projects. This may significantly contribute to the sustainable growth/ development of the
economy. Secondly, not only can this policy encourage workers to make diligent support but
also shape an urgent working style at workplaces. As a result, firms can utilize their
employees’ abilities for the sake of profit.

However, there are more compelling reasons for me to contend that nations which allow more
spare time may boost the stronger economy. First, when employees are encouraged to leave
workplaces earlier, they would have more chances to spend time on recreational activities.
For example, they may play sports or read books after days of working intensively to recharge
the battery. Thus, this policy can cultivate workers’ job satisfaction as well as enhance their
mental health, which enables them to work more effectively and foster creativity. This would
result in better working performances, making it possible for more qualified products to be
manufactured. Additionally, shorter working time means a lower level of salaries and bonus,
which helps employers to save a great amount of business cost. If individuals are forced to
work 15 hours a day, companies would have to allocate a huge amount of money to pay for
their better productivity.

In conclusion, while I suppose higher working intensity might be economically advantageous,

I am strongly of the opinion that shorter working duration would be more beneficial for
economic development.
As countries develop, more and more people buy and
use their own cars. Do you think the advantages of this
trend for individuals outweigh the disadvantages for the
environment?
In the 21st century, revolutionary inventions such as cars have brought about tremendous
changes to people’s modern lives. While I understand that automobiles offer several
advantages for people who possess them, their drawbacks often outweigh the benefits.

On the one hand, cars offer people great flexibility and ready access to a variety of services
and leisure options. The invention of cars has helped (to) increase our convenience by
reducing time spent on transport. Thanks to the development of the automotive industry,
people nowadays are able to travel a long distance with an extremely shorter amount of time
than previously. In addition, the prevalence of cars also boosts the evolution of other
industries such as manufacturing industries, logistics, and distribution, resulting in the
occurrence of the industrial age.

On the other hand, it is undeniable that cars create a number of detrimental effects in the
modern world. Vehicles are the main sources of greenhouse gas emission, resulting in
aggregate air pollution in urban areas. Exhaust fumes from cars contribute to acid rain and
ozone depletion, which cause global warming and damage human health. Another problem is
that the continuing/ growing presence of cars increases the dependence of people on this
technological advance, leading to the exacerbation of a sedentary lifestyle which poses a
potential threat to human’s physical and mental development.

In conclusion, while there are a number of benefits to utilize cars in our daily life, I believe that
this often creates more negative consequences on both people’s lives and the environment.
With the increasing demand for energy sources of oil
and gas, people should look for sources of oil and gas in
remote and untouched natural places. Do the
advantages outweigh disadvantages of damaging such
areas?
As countries around the world continue to modernise and develop, there is more
consumerism, industry, and transport and a corresponding need for more gas and oil. One
option to meet this demand is to find it in otherwise untouched and remote places, such as
the North Pole. However, I believe that doing this is not the right solution.

There are benefits to such a strategy. This is firstly the fact that people wish to improve their
living standards, particularly in developing countries, and fuels such as oil and gas allow this
as they enable the heating of homes, the running of cars and planes, and the production of
goods. All of these result in higher living standards, and thus we need to keep finding new
sources since we will eventually run out.

However, despite this, there are major problems with exploiting untouched and remote
locations. One issue is that we will end up potentially jeopardising what are beautiful
landscapes. For instance, an area which countries would like to drill is the Antarctic, home to
many glaciers and animals such as polar bears and penguins. Drilling here would harm the
habitat, and in particular, any spillages would be disastrous to the environment.

Not only this, due to health issues and global warming we should no longer be seeking to use
such forms of energy. It is evident that the use of these fuels on a wide-scale has led to the
pollution of many cities and the subsequent poor health of its citizens where car use is so
high. Also, carbon dioxide is getting released into the atmosphere, and this may be
endangering our very existence. Therefore, we should be aiming to utilise more eco-friendly
options such as wind and sun for power and electricity for cars.

To conclude, although there is an advantage of finding new places to get oil and gas, which
is that we can sustain and improve our living standards, the negative impacts outweigh this
as we will damage those environments, as well as continue to harm our health and the planet.
Developments in science and technology have caused
environmental problems. Some people think that a
simpler way of life will protect the environment, while
others believe that science and technology can solve
environmental problems. Discuss both views and give
your own opinion.
Clearly technological development does cause some environmental problems, but is the
solution to reduce our use of technology or to use more technology to try to solve the
problems we have created? In this essay I intend to look at both points of view.

If we look at the idea of making people lead simpler lives, we encounter two problems. The
first is that most people simply do not want to live with a reduced level of technology. Many
people rely on things like computers to ease their personal and working lives and to become
wealthier. If governments around the world tell people not to use these technologies, it is likely
that some people would insist on using them anyway. Of course, this assumes that some
countries would not attempt to gain an edge on others by using the technology they had
agreed not to use.

Secondly, there is the question of whether we would be able to support a fast increasing global
population without using certain technology for food production, for example. This leads us
to one of the biggest causes of environmental problems – the simple fact that there are too
many people. It might be a better solution to stabilise or reduce the human population rather
than leading simpler lifestyles.

Whilst technology, current and future, may be able to provide solutions to our environmental
problems, the main problem we have at the moment is financial. At the moment, during a
period of global economic crisis, spending extra money on developing and using ‘green’ fuels
and other technology to resolve environmental problems may not seem realistic. On the other
hand, can we afford not to fund solutions to environmental problems now, before they
become even larger?

In my opinion, we need to look at new technology simply because making people lead simpler
lives is unrealistic. However, we also need to use existing technology better and look at other
ways in which we are endangering the environment.
Wearing the skins of dead animals is immoral and
should be stopped by the government. To what extent
do you agree or disagree?
I disagree with the suggestion that wearing the skins of dead animals is immoral and should
be prevented by governments – at least when it comes to animals that are not endangered.

Some people believe that we should not kill animals for any reason, including for food or for
clothing of any kind. I disagree. Humans are part of the global food chain and our bodies are
designed for the consumption of both animals and plants. As a result, I can see no reason
why we shouldn’t use the skins of the dead animals that we eat. In fact, it would be wasteful
not to use them in some way.

I remember seeing many advertisements extolling people not to wear fur. For instance, there
were advertisements condemning the clubbing of young seals for their fur. I think that
opponents of using animal skins for clothing have a stronger case where the animals are
killed solely for their skins, as the remainder of the dead animal is not being used.

Very often, people who oppose the wearing of animal skins target those who wear the skins
of rare animals. Again, I think they have a good case for doing so. Although I am in favour of
using animals to feed and clothe people, I do not think that we should do this to the point of
extinction. This where government controls can be helpful, particularly when governments
work together, internationally.

To summarise, I do not think that wearing the skins of dead animals is morally wrong, so long
as the animals are not endangered. In cases where the animals are killed primarily or only for
their skins, I am undecided.
Some people prefer to live in small family units, while
others think it is better to live in large family groups.
Discuss both views and give your opinion?
There is a controversy over whether people should live in nuclear families or individuals
should live in an extended family. This essay discusses both views mentioned above and then
I will give my own opinion.

There are several advantages for some individuals to live in a large family group. Firstly,
parents can be a role model for their children to look up to through several actions such as
taking care of grandparents, which helps their offspring develop a sense of responsibility and
respect for their family. As a result, living with the elderly helps to create a strong family
relationship/ bond. Second, since there are many beloved family members, people can give a
helping hand to do housework. For instance, if parents have to finish all of the work
obligations, grandparents might help to care for/ look after their grandchildren.

There are a number of factors that some people prefer living in small family units. Firstly, by
having more quality/ valuable time to do what people really want to do such as traveling for
long distance trips or learning something special, these individuals living in small families
could be much freer. For example, children living in an elementary family would be more
independent, which plays an important role in their adulthood. In addition, retired people
should live far away from their adult children, which reduces the financial burden on young
generations/ youngsters. In fact, if the young adults live together with their parents, they will
have to shoulder the responsibility to take care of the elderly and their pressure will become
heavier.

In conclusion, while living in a large family group can be positive to some extent, I believe that
living in a nuclear family can have more benefits.
The spread of multinational companies and the increase
of globalization produces positive effects for everyone.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
There has been a heated controversy over whether the expansion of international
corporations and globalization generate more benefits or drawbacks. While I agree that this
prevalent trend can be beneficial in some ways, I believe that it could exert adverse influences
on local traditions and cultures.

On the one hand, the increasing presence of international brands in many parts of the world
is strongly advocated by some people for several reasons. One of the significant advantages
of this phenomenon is that it helps to promote economic and business integration among
countries. Foreign investment and international trade also enable developing countries to
grow, which means that a considerable number of people could be lifted out of poverty.
Furthermore, globalization enhances mutual understanding and cultural interaction among
people all over the world as well as improves their quality of life. People are given the chance
to grasp deeper knowledge about other cultures across the globe, owing to the fact that the
world is getting flatter and smaller.

On the other hand, globalization and the domination of global companies could produce
detrimental effects on regional cultures. Globalization is often considered to be a two-sided
sword, boosting modernization while eroding cultural traditions. Being submerged by the
influences of multinational companies, traditional customs are at the risk of going extinct.
The invasion of redundant products and services, the encouragement of consumption culture
and the fast pace in modern society could result in the loss of historical conventions. These
long cherished conventions and traditional values should be passed down to later
generations. However, the increase of globalization is posing a threat to those cultural
heritages.

In conclusion, it seems to me that the negative impacts brought by globalization and the
spread of multinational business so far outweigh the advantages they can offer.
Some people think that success in life comes from hard
work and determination, while others think that there are
more important factors such as money and appearance.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Today, success is considered the ultimate objective of human existence, as it helps people to
boost their image in the community. Many experts have been trying to find ways to achieve
and define this elusive word. Some have reached a conclusion that hard labor and resolve
pave the way to success, but there are some, who firmly advocate financial status and
presentable personality as being the main elements of secret to success.

People vouching for hard work as being a key to success, feel that only labor and relentless
pursuit of objectives can guarantee victory. The hard work coupled with hard resolve has
always guided humans through ages and they have excelled even in the face of mass criticism
for e.g. when Galileo had discovered the secrets of the solar system, he was termed as an
anti Christ, but he continued putting his efforts with great enthusiasm. He was finally able to
convince and enlighten the society on this issue.

Besides this, the people who profess hard labor as the only way to success, feel those carrying
on with their never die attitude are able to confirm their way to the top on a long term basis,
because on their way to progress they gather enough expertise to face the challenges that
may be posed in future. This, in turn, guarantees unparalleled success.

On the other hand, some people feel that success cannot be achieved by those who do not
have money and who cannot afford to look presentable. Today, in the material world,
remaining approachable and being in the limelight spells success, and these factors can only
be guaranteed, if people have money in their pockets and can afford to spend on clothing and
improving their appearance.

In conclusion, I feel nothing can supersede hard work and dedication.

Universities and colleges are now offering qualifications
through distance learning from the Internet rather than
teachers in the classroom. Do you think the advantages
of this development outweigh the disadvantages?
Digital development nowadays has some impacts on education in many countries. One of
these effects is the approach/pathway people adopt/take/are offered towards higher/further
education at the ultimate academic institutions of universities and colleges. These days,
some universities have started to open courses online so that students can study from their
home. In my opinion, this is an innovation of education; however, we also need to consider
their drawbacks to the university system.

Nobody can deny the convenience of online courses at the university. The first reason to be
discussed is that taking online courses is time-saving. Travelling to school does not seem to
be an issue to students living nearby but it is a huge deterrent to those who have to spend
hours commuting to school. By applying for online courses, students are encouraged to learn
the suitable course without worrying about the distance from their house to university.
Secondly, online courses provide learners with more flexible time to study. Students can
arrange their schedule to make full use of their time and obtain/acquire extensive knowledge
in their specialized field while they still have time to relax after studying.

On the other hand, there are negative sides of online courses that also need to be considered.
Firstly, this kind of course limits the direct interaction between the students and the
classmates. There are other things besides the knowledge that the learners will take after the
course, such as communication skill or team-working skill. These soft skills can only be
practiced when people actually talk to each other in person. Secondly, everyone is not
supposed to have the same ability of self-study, which makes the results can differ among
the students. Online courses are a considerable alternative for a well-organized person while
it can cause failure for lazy students.

In conclusion, online courses are a huge step in the development of education, which can take
all the advantages of students. However, those who have no motivation to learn by
themselves had better apply for courses at the campus because they can receive
encouragement from friends and lecturers there.
Research says more and more business training and
business meetings are taking place online. Do the
advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
Studies show that many companies tend to convene conferences and do training on online
platforms. This essay believes that the benefits of this trend outweigh the disadvantages
because although lack of personal interaction and technical difficulties can spoil virtual
meetings and training, the trend saves time and money while deepening understanding of
learning content.

The main disadvantage of virtual official meetings is the lack of personal interaction. Humans
are social beings, and face-to-face communication allows a more nuanced discussion in any
business conference. Consequently, it is not always easy to understand the magnitude when
conversing online. The same goes for technology as technical issues – be it audio, visual, or
internet speed- are the insidious problem when it comes down to online conferencing and
training as well. They may cause waste of time, diminish the importance of content, and
decrease engagement as a result.

On the contrary, the first benefit of online meetings is that they cut a substantial amount of
costs. There may be some initial technological investment and service subscription costs so
as to arrange virtual meetings, but after that, both travel and conference venue rent costs can
be cut, thus saving a huge amount of money. Besides, it saves time as no commuting on the
congested roads are required by the participants. Apart from that, information retention is
another evident advantage of online training. In simple words, online courses are conducive
to retain and remember information as legible fonts, attractive images, animated descriptions,
and videos are provided to clarify concepts better. This means that displaying information in
well-crafted fashions translates into better comprehension of learning content more than
taking notes with pen and paper.

In conclusion, although online meetings and training programmes lack face-to-face

communication and bring about technical difficulties, cheaper arrangement costs coupled
with an interesting display of information make it far more beneficial.
In some countries, the difference in age between
parents and children is generally greater than it was in
the past. Do you think the advantages outweigh the
disadvantages?
Social theorists are today, intrigued by the new trend that is seeing people having children
much later than they had in the past. Nevertheless, this has both strengths and shortfalls
though I find this phenomenon to be laden with more shortfalls than strengths.

It is not too hard to enumerate failings of this trend: kids tend to miss golden opportunities to
get involved in various activities with their parents – which tends to make them less and less
confident and more and more lonely. As mothers and fathers grow old, they lose the ability to
cope up with the demands of their sons and daughters, of participating in activities, especially
that require physical efforts such as playing some kind of sports, or activities, like helping with
home-works. This creates a void in the mental and physical growth of the young ones.

Moreover, this is leading to frictions due to generation gap: the bigger the age-difference,
wider the wedge of aspirations and expectations between the generations, and greater the
likelihood of clashes. With the things changing fast, the technology, the social set-up and even
the working-methods are witnessing radical transformations, and by the time the kids turn
into adults, parents are already a thing of by-gone era, as some may suggest. This creates
differences in almost everything, thus making them incompatible to each other.

However, this phenomena does have a brighter side too, the parents who have kids later in
life tend to offer financial stability to their families, as most of them have already established
themselves in their careers and are near the pinnacle, which helps them earn handsome
money; thus a promising future to the kids.

To cap it, it is quite clear that drawbacks of this trend eclipse its benefits; hence it may prove
to be detrimental in the long run.
More and more people are using computers and
electronic devices to access information, therefore
there is no need to print books, magazines and
newspapers on paper. To what extent do you agree or
disagree?
It is irrefutable that the Internet and the other forms of e-media have come as a threat to the
physical book. My view, however, is that despite the many threats, the book will remain as
strong in the future as it was in the past.

Many people fear that the book may not survive because of the many threats it has been
facing. Films were an early threat because they were very effective in telling stories in a visual
way. Next, there was the radio followed by the TV and finally the internet. Surely, there are
enough reasons why the book ought to be dead. But, it is not just alive, it is hale and hearty.

To further strengthen my point of view, I would like to segment books in three categories. In
the first category are books that deal with academic curricula of schools and colleges.
Students will always need to buy these books and carry them in their bags to schools and
colleges for learning.

In the second category there are all the types of general education books like dictionaries,
thesauruses and the like. The use of these books may be affected slightly because of
uploading some of their content on the net. Other books dealing with diverse subjects like
history, geography, cookery and hobbies will hardly be affected in any way. This is evident
from their robust sales at the book counters.

In the third category we have books dealing with fiction. These are companions for the traveler
as well as the home bird. Their position can hardly be affected. Added to this the book is such
a practical tool; it doesn‘t cost too much; it is usually small enough to carry around and it can
be easily revisited.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, despite the threat of the internet, the book has
maintained its place. So I feel we‘ll never go without books because they have served us so
well for so long
Developing countries require help offered by
international organizations to ensure healthy and
sustainable development. Some people think that
financial aid is important. Others believe that practical
aid and advice is more important. Discuss both these
views and give your own opinion.
I think that financial aid from rich countries needs to be combined with other kinds of aid to
poor countries to help solve poverty and other problems resulting from it. In this essay I will
provide some suggestions regarding how this could be achieved.

First, I think that financial help is required. Almost everything has a financial cost and helping
poor countries resolve issues such as poverty are impossible without spending money.
However, in the past the main method of providing financial aid has been to simply give money
to the governments of poor countries and this has been an almost total waste, largely due to
corruption and the government using the money to serve itself rather than the people as a
whole. For example, it is well known that many leaders have used foreign aid money (as well
as revenues raised domestically) to enrich those whose support they need to stay in power,
e.g. the army leaders.

Therefore, in my opinion, any further money that is provided to poor countries needs to have
strings attached. The most important string is for the donor countries to have a greater say
in how the money is used. This can be done by using experts. Many charities have such
experts and their use can help to mitigate any accusations that rich countries are trying to
control poor countries’ governments. In this situation, outsiders are more likely to see that the
aid is distributed fairly rather than used to further the interests of a particular group within the
poor country.

Whilst money is clearly needed, there are other things that are holding back poor countries.
Very often, poor countries do not encourage wealth development. This may be through
government policies opposed to private wealth or through bureaucratic systems that
encourage corruption. In these situations, richer countries can help by providing experts,
perhaps retired civil servants, to advise the poor countries’ governments on reforms that will
lead to wealth stimulation.

To conclude, I think that help other than just financial aid is essential to helping poor countries
develop and become richer.
The family has a great influence on children's
development, but the influence from outside the home
plays a bigger part in children's life. Do you agree or
disagree?
In this essay, I shall explain why I think that influences outside the home are greater than the
influence of the family on children’s development.

I think that the first major influence on children outside the home is friends. Friends are likely
to have a great influence on what children do in their free time, what they like and dislike and
how they behave. Children often copy what their friends do, perhaps to fit in with the group.
For example, some parents might discover that their children have picked up bad language
from their friends. Of course, not all the influences are negative. Some children might take up
playing a team sport to join in with their friends.

Another key influence on children is teachers. Since children spend much of their time at
school, it is inevitable that teachers will have a great influence on them. I think that the
influence is likely to be positive. Many students that I have met mention at least one teacher
who has inspired them to do something or who has helped them in some way. This could lead
children to help or inspire others in turn.

Of course, families have a great influence on children too, but I think that many parents
overrate how large this influence is. Parents are generally the greatest source of discipline for
children. For example, if children are caught misbehaving by teachers or neighbours, those
people will usually inform the parents rather than disciplining the children themselves.

In conclusion, I think that it is hard to judge exactly how much influence different people have
on children – and the amount will vary according to different circumstances – but I think that
influences from outside the home are greater than those of family life.