The best way to reduce the amount of traffic in cities today is by reducing the need for people to

travel from home for work, education, or shopping. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Incessant traffic jams and other traffic-related problems have heightened public interest in the
topic of how to curb traffic volume. Although some believe that reducing the need for daily
commuting is the most effective way to do this, I believe that this measure would be unworkable
and there are more acceptable methods.

Firstly, reducing the need for residents to travel for work, study, or shopping purposes is
impractical. No matter how effectively modern technologies allow us to work, study or carry
out online transactions, most of us prefer face-to-face interactions, perpetuating the need to
travel. This can be seen in the way businesspeople choose to meet up halfway at a café to
discuss a deal, how students prefer discussing an idea or a lesson at their school campus, and
how we enjoy going to shopping malls. With our society still putting a significant amount of
importance on real-life day-to-day conversations and interactions, the proposed scheme
would not work.

Facilitating public transport appears to be a superior alternative solution. Since means of

public transport that are not road-based, such as sky trains or subways, are largely
underdeveloped in most cities, developing these can help people commute without causing
congestion. For example, by investing significantly in building elevated and underground
railways, Japan has managed to reduce traffic volume considerably, easing congestion on
roads. Granted, using these means of transport could be more expensive, but government
subsidies would lower the prices of tickets, which will likely incentivize the public to abandon
their personal vehicles and subsequently reduce pressure on roads.

In conclusion, it is futile trying to get people to stay at home more for the sake of traffic, and
investing in public transit systems would be a better remedy when it comes to alleviating traffic.

The best way to solve world’s environmental problem is to increase the cost of fuel. Do you
agree or disagree? – the best – NO
Some people believe that increasing the cost of gasoline is the best way to address environmental
problems. In this essay, however, I challenge this school of thought.

Granted, one might argue that increasing the prices of fuel could help solve environmental
issues. This is predicated on the assumption that such a measure would force some people,
especially money-conscious ones, to give up their private vehicles for public transport. This,
according to this theory, ultimately results in less fuel being consumed and lower levels of
exhaust fumes being emitted into the air. However, this line of reasoning is not sound because
the amount of greenhouse gases by personal vehicles is negligible, compared to that of industrial
plants or even cow farts. This very fact renders the effects of increasing the price of petrol on the
environment insignificant.

To add further credence to my assertion, I note that the root cause of more serious
environmental issues: our energy-hungry lifestyles. For example, the accelerated depletion of
natural resources that are used to produce electricity and power machines can be attributed to the
insatiable thirst for energy of mankind. By the very same token, global warming and pollution,
arguably the two most severe environmental problems, are the dreadful knock-on effects
stemming from humans excessively consuming energy. Thus, the key to solving the world’s
environmental problems is to find alternative sources of energy. This could be done by
exploiting solar, wind and tidal power, all of which are unlimited and clean sources of energy
that are largely underdeveloped

In conclusion, it is a mistake to assume that increasing the price of fuel is the best way to
alleviate problems posed to the environment because the key to solving these issues is to develop
renewable energy.

Some people who have been in prison become good citizens later, and it is often argued that
these are the best people to talk to teenagers about the dangers of committing a crime. To what
extent do you agree or disagree? The best – YES
It is true that ex-prisoners can become normal, productive members of society. I agree that
allowing such people to speak to teenagers about their experiences is the best way to discourage
them from breaking the law.

Firstly, teenagers are more likely to accept advice from someone who can speak from
experience. Reformed offenders can tell young people about how they became involved in crime,
the dangers of a criminal lifestyle, and what life in prison is really like. The vivid and perhaps
shocking nature of these stories is like to have a powerful impact on the younger generation.
Granted, one might argue that adolescents, who are still very impressionable, might idolize ex-
criminals and try to imitate their crimes. However, after hearing how much suffering they and
their loved ones experienced when they were serving a prison term, as we see, for example, in
cases where convicts are not allowed to visit their dying family members. I doubt that anyone
would choose go down the criminal path.

Secondly, the alternatives to using reformed criminals to educate teenagers about crime would
much less effective. One option would be for police officers to visit schools and talk to young
people. This could be useful in terms of informing teens about what happens to lawbreakers
when they are caught but young people are often reluctant to take advice from figures of
authority. A second option would be for school teachers to speak to their students about crime,
but I doubt that students would see teachers as credible sources of information about this topic.
Finally, although educational films might be informative, there would be no opportunity for
young people to interact and ask questions.

In conclusion, those who have turned their lives around after serving a prison sentence are the
best people to talk to teenagers about why they should not commit crime.

Some people champion the idea that the most effective way to create a more contented society is
to narrow the gap between the haves and the have-nots. While this proposal could bring about
certain positive effects, it is not the best way. 
Admittedly, it has to be acknowledged that bridging the gap between the wealthy and the less
well-off could, in theory, enable the disadvantaged to avoid negative feelings and in turn increase
the overall happiness of a society. This is because income inequality usually renders the poor
insecure, helpless and even enraged, potentially causing problems such as social unrest and even
more violent crimes. Furthermore, by having a higher basic income level, individuals could
have access to better education and health care, allowing them to ensure economic stability and
by extension social mobility. Finally, it can be said that individuals could avoid working
excessively just to be able to afford such necessities. This would allow them to have more time
to spend with their family and friends, which could boost their life contentment. 

However, this proposal would likely backfire in reality. The reason for this is that the risk would
not be incentivized to work harder since this does not reward them adequately given small
income disparities between them and the poor. A foreseeable outcome would be that there would
be less economic activity, which would lead to countless problems such as lesser tax revenue for
the state to spend on public services and fewer jobs for workers. Therefore, it is likely that there
would be a decline in the overall quality of life for everyone. 

A better way would be to make education and health services more accessible to everyone. This
would still help people to gain skills and get adequate treatments when they are sick, allowing
them to reap the aforementioned benefits without causing economic issues.

In conclusion, although reducing earnings inequality could be theoretically advantageous, it

would likely do more harm than good in practice. The provision of free health and education
would yield the same desired results without undermining people’s motivation to work hard.

The pictures show how a gallery has changed since 2005. Overall, the gallery has undergone a
number of changes, all of which have taken place on the left and middle of the building to
provide more services and greater convenience [facilities]/ accessibility[transport], with the area
on the right remaining completely unchanged. 

Regarding the left of the building, the most noticeable change is that exhibition room 4 has
been transformed into two separate rooms. One is now used to display temporary exhibitions
and the other is a children’s area with interactive activities. North of exhibition room 4 in 2005
was a gallery office, which has been removed to make way for vending machines. On the top
left corner, a gallery shop has been constructed, replacing the cafe and shop there. 

As for the middle of the room, the reception area was moved closer to the entrance in the south,
with an oval reception desk being used now instead of the rectangular one previously used in
2005. Half of the area for the steps leading to the entrance in the south has been used to build a
ramp for wheelchairs for disabled people. Meanwhile, in the north, a lift has been added at the
expense of half of the area of the stairs there. 

Finally, no changes have been made to the entire area on the right, with exhibition rooms 1, 2
and 5 remaining the same. 

The pictures illustrate how a small theater changed from 2010 to 2012. Overall, the theater
underwent a number of changes, the most striking of which are the expansion of the northern and
southern parts of the building and the repurposing of some facilities.

Regarding changes in the north of the building, the stage was expanded northwards,
occupying half of the space for media in 2010, which was turned into a hall in 2012. The media
was in turn relocated to the area flanking the stage on the left, replacing the storage there.
There was an extension next to the stage on the right, which was used for storage.
As for the middle and south of the theater, while the auditorium remained unchanged, an area
for showers was added and was adjacent to the auditorium and the media. By contrast, the
southern part was expanded westward, with a restaurant complex being built in the south-
western corner at the expense of the admin office and ticket office. The former office was then
rebuilt to the north the restaurants, while the latter was moved to the south-eastern corner with
the replacement of the café there.