It is beneficial for both employers and employees if employees are given longer holidays

away from work.

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

Introduction

For most employees and employers, holidays are a valuable time to rest and charge energy after
a long period of work. So, having longer holidays for employees would be beneficial for both
parts.

In this essay, I will explain it is advantageous when employees are given longer holidays.
Firstly, they would feel less stressed and more relaxed at work, and secondly, their productivity
rate will rise.

Having longer holidays is something that every employee dreams about. The reason is that after
working from Monday to Friday, on an 8.00 to 5.00 schedule, workers will easily feel
exhausted and unmotivated doing the same routine repeatedly. Furthermore, if this situation
continues through time, it is quite likely people will begin feeling sick and start missing at
workplace. However, having longer holidays will prevent workers from getting ill, improving
their mood, relationships, and attitude at work. For example, a person who is feeling relaxed
and unstressed is conscious about doing a high-quality performance at job, as well as being
committed. The better you feel with yourself, the more confident you will feel at work.

When people start feeling tired, bored, and stressed at job is an alert for most companies to
make changes before it is too late. One of the reasons why companies should be concerned
about their employees’ mental and physical health is because the productivity rates and
earnings are directly related. Consequently, someone who is not healthful rarely would like to
do his or her duties the best, and fast way possible. Nonetheless, companies which are giving
regular vacations are not facing productivity issues; Google politics allow workers to have free-
schedule jobs so they can spend more time with their families and resting. The better you feel
the better your work will be.

To conclude, I would argue that having regular and longer holidays is beneficial for both
employers and employees. While workers feel less stressed and more focus at work the
productivity rates for the company will raise.

Some people believe that alcohol should be considered as a drug and made illegal.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Introduction

Like any other drug that is illegal some people believe that alcohol should be considered
equally dangerous.

In this essay, I would argue that alcohol should be called as an illegal drug since can cause
severe diseases and contributes negatively to family coexistence. All of these are negative
factors for societies.

Body paragraph 1

Intoxication and diseases (death)

Any substance that causes severe health issues must be considered illegal like the alcohol. This
is because drinks are so easy to get, even for teenagers, that anybody who’s dealing with
personal issues would see the alcohol as the medium to solve or forget the problems. Therefore,
people dealing with alcoholism begin developing serious health problems, like liver diseases,
anxiety, depression, cancer, and heart attacks. For example, in Chile more than 10% of male
population have suffered from an alcoholism related disease, and less than 2% are capable to
complete a treatment to overcome their addiction while the rest will decease. Hence, simply by
turning alcohol into an illegal drug less population will suffer its negative effects.

Body paragraph 2

Family coexistence (relationships)

Alcoholism is an addiction which creates great damage in family relationships. Many young
children are vulnerable because either father or mother consume alcohol regularly. Someone
who has already become a problem drinker may not care about what is important for the family,
until they are complete alone. Moreover, it is quite common to see separated families due to
drinking issues of a family member. For instance, in Latin America more than a million
children are under the government tuition, as a result of irresponsible parents who can not quit
on drinking.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would argue that alcohol should be considered as a drug and made illegal
because it causes severe health diseases and contributes adversely to family coexistence. These
are just a few negative features that outweigh by far any positive characteristics about the
alcohol.
Keeping livestock, such as cows, has a significant impact on the environment. This has led
some people to argue that eating meat should be illegal.
To what extent do you agree or disagree that eating meat should be illegal?

Disagree
Who’s affected? Population, farming companies
Who might they feel?
Population
 1. Other sectores, industries have more impact on the environment (like transportantion
and electricity).
2. Farming companies must come up with new ways of sustainable farming and
environmentally friendly if not pay high taxes.

Introduction

Nowadays, the earth and the climate change have became increasingly alarming, and keeping
livestock is a popular target. Advocates argue that eating meat should be considered illegal as
will decreased the impact on the environment.

In this essay, I would disagree the idea of considering meat illegal. In spite of, meat production
industry contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, therefore is a small percentage compared to
other sources. Also, farming countries can collaborate to produce sustainable ways to produce
meat and its related products.

Body paragraph 1

Meat industry worldwide contributes negatively to the environment yet is not as critical as
many people believe. Eating meat is not the main cause for climate change, even though this
industry is relevant to feed a great number of population, has less impact compared to other
industries. Furthermore, meat is a primary source of protein for many societies and cutting off
its consumption might have more drawbacks than benefits, especially for children and elderly
people. For instance, a 2015 scientific article published by the U.S Environmental Protection
Agency stated that the largest sources of GGE were the transportation (35%) and electricity
production (32%); while farming industry represent less than the half of this amount,
representing only 3%. Hence, eating meat should not be illegal as other industries make greater
consequences to the environment.

Body paragraph 2

A wide range of industries have applied sustainable processes in order to decrease their carbon
footprint, so farming industries must not be exempt. If keeping livestock has a large impact on
the environment, farming industries will have to take into account more advanced and
sustainable technologies to produce meat and its related products, forcing them to implement
such changes if they want to be part of the solution and impress those who disagree with this
industry due to its negative effects on the earth. Otherwise, high taxes and public investment
must be paid by those who denied to implement positive arrangements. As seen in Holland, a
great meat producer, farmers have changed the traditional and non-environmental way of
rearing and producing livestock, and came up with the idea of rotational farms, where animals
spend a few days in different eco-friendly farm environments rather than just one simple
building, creating less organic and industrial waste.

Conclusion

To conclude, I completely disagree that meat should be considered illegal, due to other
industries and sources have way beyond more relevance in the environmental impact than
farming, as this industry still can make the necessary sustainable changes to contribute to the
earth health.
Some people believe that individuals should be allowed to own a gun as a means to protect
themselves and their families.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Whos affected
Families sense of safety
Police officers number not enough to help multiple crimes

How might they feel?

Families_sense of secure; only for protection; misuse will be penalized
Police need more recruits to cover more crimes and home assaults
Introduction

Nowadays, owning a gun is for many people the most confident way to ensure their family
safety and their own. I believe individuals should be allowed to own a gun, as this will provide
a sense of safety and protection. What’s more, owning firearms is trending because police
departments are coping with critical staffing shortages, so people must defend themselves one
way or another.

Body paragraph 1

I truly agree with the fact that adults need to decide whether to own a gun or not if they feel
necessary to attack any threat they might have inside their property. Nevertheless, the handling
of any weapon requires professional training and must only be used under critical judgment
otherwise any misused must be hardly legalized.

Body paragraph 2

Crime rates and robberies have increased in the last years despite the police and national
security efforts to diminish its effects. Staff shortening in security forces is a national problem,
while more offences are committed daily less officials can dealt with or even get on time to the
emergencies.

Conclusion

To conclude, while I acknowledge firearms are extremely dangerous in hands of untrained and
unexperienced people, I would argue that arms should be given to responsible adults as it
provides a sense of safety and welfare, and because police officers are struggling to defeat
criminals as staff shortening increases every day.

Some people believe that government grants should be offered to people to encourage them
to buy electric vehicles.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Whos affected
Environment
To expensive / make it affordable

Introduction

Electric cars are trending around the globe, everyone would like to have one, but its prices are
way to expensive for most people. So, having government grants will make it possible.

I totally agree the fact that government grants should be offered to people to support their
choice for electric cars, firstly due to the high cost this type of transportation has, and secondly
because they are environmentally friendly.
Body paragraph 1

Still many people are using petrol and diesel vehicles to move around the city, to travel, to
commute, etc. yet many would prefer to use an electric car as its “fuel” is cheaper and
greenhouse gasses free. Unfortunately, electric mobility is quite expensive especially in
automobiles technology. Governments need to consider that their citizens are using
transportation daily and they will not stop, so offering grants to people who want to buy an
electric vehicle is such a great idea as they will reduce pollution. For example, Governments
should make deals with electric vehicles manufacturers, such as Tesla, and create specific
grants for ordinary people seeking to own a car. It might not be necessary to make luxurious
versions, that will depend on the costumer and how much money they can pay. The higher they
can pay the lower the grants should be.

Body paragraph 2

Conclusion

In the future, fewer people will start bands or produce music because they will worry about
their music being downloaded from the internet for free.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Introduction

Body paragraph 1

Body paragraph 2

Conclusion