Some people think that instead of preventing climate change, we need

to find a way to live with it. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
In recent decades, global warming has been receiving a great deal of media
attention around the world due to its substantial impacts on human life.
Although the idea of coexistence between climate change and humans
appears reasonable, this cannot be viewed as the ultimate approach for
humankind to combat climate change.
There are a number of reasons why the coexistence can do more harm than
good. First, climate change is largely shaped by human-caused
geoengineering rather than nature itself. For example, in order to produce
the energy that drives the world’s economy, most nations rely on carbonrich fuels like coal, oil and gas, which
directly correlates with the
intensification of global warming. Second, even if citizens agree to keep the
environment the way it is, corporations, especially in the manufacturing and
mining industries, would not as that would affect their profits. Therefore, it
can be implied that if corporations were not held accountable for their
contribution to global warming as in the case of coexistence, the issue of
climate change would inevitably be exacerbated.
It is more economically sound to actively prevent climate change than to
ignore it. In fact, the costs, either financial or non-financial, of dealing with
future consequences of climate change can be overwhelming. For instance,
the increase in intensity and frequency of storms can cause massive
destructions and deaths in many coastal areas, which would take decades
to recover. In addition, rising temperatures have also contributed to the
extinction of species worldwide. It should be noted that the extinction is
irreversible and comes at great cost to the ecosystem and apparently
humans living within it.
In conclusion, actively combating global warming must be regarded as top
priority given the high urgency. Governments and corporations worldwide
should take steps to ensure that climate change remains at bay.

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural

environment, such as the South Pole. Do you agree or disagree with this
development?
In recent decades, there have been a growing trend towards traveling to
remote natural areas for a variety of purposes. Although this trend might be
of great concern to some environmental activists, scientists and thrillseekers should still be encouraged to study
and explore there.
Scientists in different branches need to travel to remote natural environment
like South Pole to study and protect it. This benefits not only those who do
the research themselves but also the society as a whole as there will be
solutions to many global problems such as climate change. Second, most
scientists travel to remote natural areas in efforts to learn how to protect
them from other humans. In fact, if no pertinent data about the interaction of
humans and the environment is collected for research and made known to
the public, even innocent people can inadvertently damage the areas.
There are also a number of benefits for tourists traveling to isolated natural
environment. One of those benefits is that natural areas offer one-of-a-kind
traveling experience to visitors. For example, those who decide to take a
vacation to South Pole will be able to immerse in the wilderness and the
atmosphere that are entirely different from the world they know. In addition,
by staying inside a natural environment, tourists will be able to develop a
higher appreciation for nature. In fact, a large number of tourists and
students have chosen to become environmental advocates or even activists
after a trip to the wilderness, which helps raise the public awareness on the
issue.
In conclusion, traveling to remotes natural areas benefits students, scientists
and the world at large in a variety of ways. As long as there is no disruption
to the original state of nature, everyone should be welcomed.

Some argued that the government should not prioritize funding foreign aid over solving the financial difficulties of their socially
underprivileged groups. With a whole host of problems arising from the burgeoning debt and overpopulation, I agree that the
government should focus on tackling its own challenges first.
On the one hand, there are several reasons why the state budget should be used to ensure the well-being of each individual in the
country. First, it is difficult to help others when your problems have not been resolved. The post-pandemic period has seen an
astronomical increase in the unemployment rate and debt. Instead of donating money to poorer countries, the authorities should use
the government budget to improve free social services such as healthcare, education and shelters for unfortunate individuals.
Second, as underprivileged citizens are ensured the bare minimum living standards, they are motivated to find jobs to reach
financial stability which would indirectly lead to economic growth. Last but not least, offering financial assistance to poor
neighbours can be seen as a political manipulation strategy because the recipient has to obey the regulations set by the donor. For
example, China helped Sri Lanka build a port paid entirely by the Chinese loan. However, the South Asia country failed to pay the
debt so they had to lease the port to China for 99 years.
On the other hand, donating money to underdeveloped countries does strengthen international relations and creates a strong bond
between nations. This would lower the tax barriers which help domestic companies to penetrate new markets easily.
In conclusion, there are benefits for the government while funding international aid. Nonetheless, fully addressing problems in
one’s country is more important than reaching out to help others.

Are famous people treated unfairly by the media? Should they be given
more privacy, or is the price of their fame an invastion into their private
life?
It is evident the nature of media has rapidly evolved over the past few years,
reshaping the way media companies do business. However, the fact that
celebrities’ privacy is at stake is just one of many inevitable products of fame
that have been long acknowledged.
First, unlike one single media channel, the pool of media should be
considered reasonably fair as many channels are simultaneously
participating to offer varying or even contradicting opinions. In fact, the
increased availability of media channels has reached the point where
information efficiency is achieved. The implication of this is that famous
people should be expecting even more fairness treatment now and down
the road. Also of importance is the fact that any libel or slander against
famous people are done by the media can be easily brought to trial, resulting
in significant liabilities for the media. This, thereby, acts as a disincentive for
media corporations from failing to meet the industry standards on privacy
issue, especially when it involves celebrities.
It should be acknowledged that fame and media attention are tied to one
another. Celebrities should expect a reasonable level of intrusion upon
seclusion and biases from the media since those are recognized products
of fame. This suggests that the media and celebrities share the responsibility
on privacy issue rather than attributing all the blames to the media. In fact,
with an increase in public exposure, the responsibility held by public figures
should be set even higher than otherwise. Thus, famous ones should not be
infuriated simply because the media is doing its regular job.
In conclusion, famous people are treated fairly by the press since it is getting
increasingly harder for the media to cross the line nowadays. It is safe to say
acknowledging the celebrities’ higher privacy responsibility associated with
fame is key to finding the common ground between the media and
celebrities on this subject matter.
Nowadays, most large companies operate multinationally. To what extent
those companies should have responsibility towards local communities in
which they operate?
In recent decades, there has been growing trend of offshore expansion by
large companies, thanks to globalization. Although multinational
corporations create jobs for local people, their responsibility towards local
communities should be at the highest level.
It is true that responsible corporate behavior contributes to broad-based
benefits for the countries in which the companies are active. First, foreign
companies should be responsible towards the environment of the region.
For example, if these companies take steps to dispose of waste properly,
local people can enjoy new products without any concern for the
environment. Second, multinational companies should be more active in
charitable activities because that would give them an opportunity to save
more lives overseas. In fact, many regions in which these companies operate
do not have access to resources to deal with problems like hunger and
poverty.
Another compelling reason is that foreign companies can substantially
benefit from being socially responsible. Companies, especially in the
manufacturing and mining industries, actively protecting the environment,
can ensure their sustainable long-term growth. In fact, the media has
revealed many instances of companies being taken away social license due
to the imprudence towards the environment. In addition, multinational
corporations should be very conscious of their track records when it comes
to local responsibility as these are directly tied to brand names. If brand
names are properly maintained and enhanced, sales and profits will be
poised to increase as companies will be receiving more support from both
local customers and government.
In conclusion, the bar for corporate responsibilities towards local
communities should always be high. This benefits not only the countries in
which companies operate but the companies themselves.
The use of mobile phone is as antisocial as smoking. Smoking is banned in
certain places so mobile phone should be banned like smoking. To what
extend do you agree or disagree?
It is true the use of cell phones has gained in popularity over the past few
decades, making a paradigm shift in the lifestyle of every human on Earth.
Although some might suggest banning mobile phones like cigarettes due to
their presumably antisocial effects, the suggestion is groundless and should
not be implemented.
There are a number of reasons why mobile phones are not as antisocial as
smoking. First, people, rather than mobile phones, are the factor that
ultimately decide whether or not to engage in antisocial behaviors. In fact,
there are plenty of mobile phone users who are even more prosocial than
non-users, suggesting an insignificant causal relationship between mobile
phones and antisocial behaviors. Second, mobile phones should not be
compared to smoking as they are two distinct products. While cigarettes use
chemical compounds to directly influence smokers’ brain, mobile phones
have nothing to do with these chemicals.
Another compelling reason to not ban mobile phones is that they are
necessary to daily life. First, using mobile phones is one of the most efficient
and inexpensive ways to communicate with others. Before the appearance
of mobile phones, delivering a message from one location to another would
require physical travels, costing unnecessary time, effort and money. In
addition, mobile phones have functions that enable users to keep contacts,
thereby promoting social behaviors and strengthening social connections.
For example, people are more likely to lose important contacts and might
even forget one another if they do not use mobile phones.
In conclusion, since mobile phones have nothing to do with antisocial effects
and smoking, they should not be banned. If any, the net advantage of using
mobile phones is still too high to consider banning.
Nowadays, more and more people decide to have children later in their
life. What are the the reasons? Do advantages of this outweigh
disadvantages?
In recent decades, having children later in life has become a growing trend
for many reasons. Although the trend is not without disadvantages, the
upsides can justify these.
There are a number of reasons leading to that trend. First, in order to
compete in the job market, many couples choose to focus time, effort and
money on their careers. It is clear that delaying parenthood enables couples
to work longer hours and with higher commitment, which results in better
salary and wages. Second, many young people nowadays understand the
magnitude of child rearing responsibility. For example, feeding babies and
teaching them require a great deal of patience and hard work, which
discourages many would-be parents.
There are also advantages and disadvantages of that trend. As for the
upside, those who delay starting a family can have time to get more done,
either at work or in life, making them happier overall. In fact, studies have
shown that people who have the time to do and travel more when they are
young have a higher level of happiness than those who do not. Nevertheless,
giving birth later in life does pose certain risks that might affect a woman’s
health as well as her baby’s health. That said, although older women have
an increased risk of having a child with birth defect, the probability is still
slim.
In conclusion, the sacrifices of starting a family at young age are too
overwhelming compared to they are otherwise. Young couples should also
consider their own situation to make the best decision.
In many countries, people now wear Western clothes (suits, jeans) rather
than traditional clothing. Why? Is this a positive or negative
development?
In recent decades, Western clothes have gained in popularity in many
countries, especially developing ones. Although the trend appears to
challenge the preservation of traditional fashion of those countries, it brings
more positive changes overall.
There are a number of reasons leading to that trend. First, thanks to
globalization, citizens of faraway countries are now able to purchase
Western clothes without leaving the country. In fact, they can even get better
deals purchasing those imported clothes because of increased competition
in the apparel industry. Second, the increase in freedom of choice in lessdeveloped countries over time has allowed
citizens to choose what to wear
based more on personal preferences. For example, a citizen nowadays can
wear what he or she wants without having to take into account social
approval on clothing, thereby increasing the demand for Western apparels.
Even though the trend has received some criticisms over the years, it has
positively affected those countries at the other end. First, Western clothing
brings more variety to the existing market, giving customers more options to
weigh their decisions. It is clear that not all people wish to limit themselves
to traditional costumes on all occasions. In addition, by injecting Western
fashion into the market, traditional clothing can, in fact, stand out on special
occasions such as New Year or Independent Day. If traditional clothes were
worn on a daily basis, their value will be diluted, making Western fashion
appear more special in the eyes of not only the citizens but also tourists.
In conclusion, the development should be embraced because of its
overwhelming advantages. It not only benefits the citizens in different ways
but helps preserve the traditional fashion as well.
Some people think that it is good for a country’s culture to broadcast
foreign films and TV shows. Others, however, think it is best to produce
local films and shows. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
In recent decades, movies and TV series have been imported at an
increasing rate, causing some public controversy. Although, some
traditionalists believe that this development comes at the expense of a
country’s culture, plenty of evidence suggests that the opposite is true
There are a number of reasons why local films and shows benefit a culture.
First, motion pictures are an effective way to crystallize and project the
intangible element of a culture. Therefore, if local films and shows are the
primary focus, viewers would find it easier to assimilate the beliefs, values
and assumptions of a culture, which can be difficult to achieve by using
written form. Second, producing more local films will enrich the cultural
library. For example, since local programs are abundant in India, the Indian
culture appears more vivid and unique than other cultures with fewer local
films produced.
On the other hand, imported movies and TV series bring a lot of advantages
to a local culture. First, thanks to foreign programs, local ones become more
distinguishable and thus appreciable, especially in the eyes of local
residents. In fact, if one never watched other countries’ programs, he or she
would be susceptible to taking his or her culture for granted. Second, by
getting new ideas from overseas, a local culture will obtain the opportunity
to fix its existing flaws and therefore get perfected. For intance, the South
Korean culture has fewer flaws than North Korean one because it is more
open to new ideas in the form of foreign films.
In conclusion, only focusing on producing local films and shows will do more
harm than good. Local officials should also recognize the benefits of
purchasing foreign movies on preserving their culture.
It is impossible to help all people in the world, so governments should
only focus on people in their own countries. To what extent do you agree
or disagree?
It is true that some governments of developed nations choose to engage
in foreign affairs in different areas. Although some believe that people
inside the country are the ones who need the most help from the
governments, governments still cannot ignore people from the rest of the
world.
It is clear that many countries in the world still have not recognized
fundamental human rights. First, citizens of those countries are deprived of
their freedom and are oppressed in many inhumane ways. Many
Vietnamese dissidents, for example, were sentenced to death by the
Vietnamese authority, which could have been saved if the US government
had tried to prevent that from happening. Second, since citizens of those
countries are not armed and lack of negotiating power, they are unable to
claim their democracy back. By using diplomatic pressure to negotiate the
terms, the governments from developed nations allows citizens from
overseas to influence their own governments in the policy-making process.
It has been true in many cases that prolonged poverty cannot be solved
without the assistance from foreign governments. One product of poverty
is hunger, causing millions of deaths every year all around the world. If
outside governments had stepped in and provided financial assistance,
those lives would have been saved. In addition to financial support,
governmental organizations can help provide the education and skills for
those citizens. Plenty of evidence have suggested that the most effective
way to overcome poverty is education.
In conclusion, governments cannot ignore people living in distress from the
rest of the world. By providing education and financial support, citizens
around the world would be able to live a better life.
Many people say the gap between rich and poor people is wider, as rich
people become richer and poor people grow poorer. What problems could
this situation cause and what measures can be done to address those
problem?
Wealth inequality has been receiving endless public attention and criticisms
from academia, in both developed and developing nations. Although
problems associated with this situation can be pronounced, they are not
without solutions.
There are a number of problems caused by wealth inequality. First, wealth
inequality widens the gaps among different social classes, meaning different
treatments for different social classes will likely ensue. For example, youthful
upper-class members can attend prominent preparatory schools, which
open doors not only to such elite universities but also to the universities’
highly exclusive clubs whereas lower-class ones do not possess the same
opportunities. Second, since the rich possess most of the wealth, they have
the power to manipulate politicians to enact policies in favor of them at the
expense of other social classes. For instance, recent evidence suggests that
Wall Street banks have gotten even richer with policies made by the US
government.
Nevertheless, there have been many good solutions for wealth inequality.
First, since the rich cannot spend all their money, imposing higher taxes on
the rich would not disrupt their lifestyles much and still substantially increase
the tax revenue to assist the less fortunate. The revenue collected can be
spent to build and improve educational institutions and grant scholarships
or bursaries to poorer students, giving them equal opportunities to succeed.
Second, wealth inequality can be caused by tax loopholes that the rich are
taking advantage of. Therefore, the key to solving this issue is to close as
many loopholes as possible so that it is more fair for the poor and middle
class.
In conclusion, although wealth inequality can cause a whole host of social
issues, there are still many practical solutions. By adjusting tax policies
alone, governments can be a decent contributor to a fairer society.
Some people think it is more important for government to spend public
money on promoting healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illness than to
spend it on the treatment of people who are already ill. To what extent
do you agree or disagree?
It is true governments around the world have been working hard
determining the best budget allocation mix between preventing future and
treating current illnesses. Although millions of ill people need medical
treatments now, governments should still prioritize the preventive avenue
over curative one.
The first reason is that this is a more effective way to spend money on
healthcare. First, by focusing on promoting healthier lifestyle, the public will
be able to take care of themselves instead of relying on their governments.
For example, by building more parks and sport facilities, people will have
the places and tools to improve their own health by exercising. Second,
spending money on preventive approach ensures that current and future
citizens will be able to live longer and happier than did previous
generations. If preventive approach was not focused enough, future
generations would have the same or even worse living conditions and
lifestyles, which deteriorates their health.
It is also more efficient to spend money enhancing lifestyle. First, as dieting
and active lifestyles come into play, there would be fewer needs for medical
treatments in the future. Therefore, governments would in turn save the
efforts that could have been put on curing illnesses. In addition, money
would also be saved as there would be fewer cases requiring medical
treatments. The money saved would be spent on improving the quality of
hospitals and clinics, enhancing public health even more.
In conclusion, it is more effective and efficient in the long run to focus on
preventive approach. This benefits not only the governments but also the
citizens’ health.
Doctors should be responsible for educating their patients about how to
improve their health. Do you agree with this?
In recent years, the question of who should take the responsibility in
educating the public on healthcare has become a topic of discussion.
Although patients can educate themselves on this subject, doctors should
still be ones who hold the most responsibility.
One of the most compelling reasons is that doctors are the only ones who
are qualified to provide knowledge to patients. First, since every doctor has
to go through rigorous education and training, his or her advice is more
trustful than other sources of information. In fact, if patients educate
themselves using the Internet or books, there will be a good chance that they
encounter misinformation or bad advice, which can be detrimental to their
health. Second, not two patients’ health situations are the same, therefore
only doctors can tailor their advice to their patients individually. Since
specialized equipment is needed for diagnosis, the Internet, books and other
sources of information can never be close substitutes to doctors when it
comes to education.
Doctors should hold the responsibility also because they receive money
from their patients, either directly or indirectly. Since this is a business
transaction, doctors inherently have to fulfil their services, which also involve
education to patients. If doctors did not educate patients to improve their
health, money would be channeled into other entities that can fulfil the same
responsibility. Furthermore, as a highly respected profession, doctors need
to transcend their regular duties. For instance, doctors should teach not only
their patients, but also the general public, especially those who cannot afford
medical services.
In conclusion, educating patients about how to improve their health should
be one of many responsibilities of doctors. This practice will benefit not only
patients but also doctors themselves.
Crime rate, in most countries, is often higher in urban areas than in
rural areas.
Why do you think that is?
What can be done to reduce the crime rate?
Crime rates in most countries markedly vary among different areas, which
suggests different approaches in dealing with crime. Given that crime rate is
higher in metropolitan areas than it is in rural ones, identifying the reasons
behind this pattern is key to finding the solutions.
There are a number of reasons why this pattern exists. First, since urban
areas are more ethnically diverse than rural ones, the likelihood of conflict
leading to crime among people with different values and belief systems is
higher. For example, the greater lack of familiarity and mutual understanding
among individuals in urban areas can feasibly get people into unnecessary
fights, which potentially leads to crime. Second, since metropolitan areas
are more densely populated, citizens have to compete for limited
opportunities and scarce resources, leaving other individuals’ life at stake.
This means that those who cannot compete with the other few successful
would have a higher tendency to commit crimes, even petty ones, just to
make a living.
However, there are a great deal of solutions to diminish crime, in either big
cities or rural areas. First, enforcing stricter punishments would act as a
deterrent against the motivation to commit crime. Realizing that the costs of
breaking a law were higher, every potential criminal would think twice.
Second, since many offences can be traced back to the lack of
understanding among people from different backgrounds, local officials
should organize more sociocultural activities and gatherings to improve
mutual relationships and resolve conflicts. For example, although Toronto is
the most multicultural city in the world, crime rate is among the lowest thanks
to such activities and cultural events.
In conclusion, the fact that urban areas are more populous and diverse can
explain the pattern. By focusing on the differences among people and the
law, crime rates in either cities or rural areas would decline
Some believe that more academic subjects such as chemistry, physics
and history should be taught in schools, while others believe that
students will derive more benefit from studying practical subjects, such
as motor mechanics and cooking. Discuss both views and provide your
own opinion with relevant examples.
Educational institutions around the world have been trying to find the best
mix between academic and practical courses. Although academic subjects
have been the primary focus for a good number of years, practical ones are
gaining more attention recently.
On the one hand, academic courses, such as chemistry and history, are of
vital importance for students. First, by studying those courses at high school,
students are equipped with the fundamental knowledge to continue their
higher education, especially in science fields. For example, in order to be an
environmental scientist whose job is to preserve the environment, a student
certainly needs to acquire complex knowledge and be fluent in academic
theories. Second, academic courses are necessary because they help
graduates land higher-paying jobs. In fact, most high-salaried workers are
required to have complex understandings of their disciplines, which can only
be achieved if they have taken academic subjects.
On the other hand, practical courses, such as mechanics and cooking, are
necessary for the majority of people. First, since many people do not want
to commit years of their lives to a college education, practical subjects allow
the majority to make a living much earlier. This would have a variety of
positive impacts on the society as there would be fewer unemployed
workers, which also means fewer crime cases. Second, companies
nowadays tend to place more emphasis on workers who have solid practical
experience. For instance, in order to be a hotel manager, one is required to
finish his or her training courses, which are usually non-academic.
In conclusion, although academic courses are important to some, practical
ones are crucial for most. Depending on the job market and career path,
students should be able to find their best mix.
In the future, it seems more difficult to live on the Earth. Some people think
more money should be spent on researching other planet to live, such as
Mars. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
It is true that the Earth would not be able to survive eternally, potentially
pushing all species including mankind to the brink of extinction. Although
focusing on finding other Earth-like planets seems plausible, the benefits still
do not justify the costs.
Space exploration has been and will always be extortionately expensive, in
terms of both labor and resources. First, if space exploration were to be the
main focus, recruiting more scientists and administrative staff would be
inevitable. In fact, the salaries and wages paid to astronomers and research
teams are the highest among industries, which would add to current deficit.
Second, in order to conduct various required experiments and bring objects
into space for the purpose of finding other planets, space-exploration
projects usually consume a great deal of natural resources from the Earth,
such as oil and metals. This means that there would be less input to develop
other industries and grow the economy.
In addition, the chance of finding other planets is very slim and even if
humans succeeded, it would still be virtually impossible to bring humans
there. First, distances between stars and planets are vast, given human
longevity. For example, it would take millions of years for the fastest manmade space craft to reach the nearest
star, by which time all humans would
no longer exist. Second, what appears more realistic is solving current
environmental problems on Earth, which requires more attention from
scientists, the media and the public alike. Climate change, for example,
should top the list since it does and will directly impact all species living on
Earth in the near future.
In conclusion, finding other planets needs a great amount of resources but
offers little returns for humans. By focusing more on existing issues, humans
can make the Earth friendlier to live in.
Studies suggested that nowadays children watch much more television
than they did in the past and spend less time on active or creative
things. What are the reasons? And what measures should be taken to
encourage children to spend more time on active or creative things?
It has been suggested that children nowadays lean towards reactive
activities, like watching television, and away from proactive ones. Given that
this trend leads to a whole host of issues for children, identifying the reasons
behind it is key to finding the solutions.
There are a number of reasons why children spend more time watching
television. First, since there are thousands of entertaining shows, movies
and music at disposal, which are conducive to relaxation and instant mental
rewards, children are highly engaged most of the time. In fact, most of the
objects and motions they see on television are new to them, which tends to
trigger their curiosity and evoke their feelings, either negative or positive,
conditioning them to watch more. Second, shrinking playgrounds and parks
deprive children of outdoor activities. For example, recent housing projects
in Hanoi are set to close some of the playgrounds, making children resort to
reactive activities such as watching television.
Nevertheless, there are also a variety of solutions, mostly parental, to reverse
this trend. First, parents can help their children refrain from watching
television excessively by setting a daily limit. By encouraging children to
consistently adhere to the limit, they will be less reliant on amusing contents,
especially ones that are addictive. Second, even if there are no playgrounds,
modern cities usually offer indoor activities and sports, which are also
considered proactive. Municipality, corporations and parents should
cooperate to create, maintain and promote these activities and indoor
playgrounds to the new generation, perhaps offering free entrance for
children under a certain age or supporting low-income families.
In conclusion, although the trend might be difficult to reverse, there are ways
to get around it. The coordination among city officials, corporations and
parents can certainly make a difference in children’s lifestyle.
Every day, millions of tons of food are wasted all over the world. Why do
you think this is happening? And how can we solve this problem?
Food waste has been highlighted as an emerging issue that maybe escaping
broader public attention. Given that the issue has the potential for significant
environmental impacts, identifying the reasons is key to finding the solutions.
There are a number of reasons why a large amount of food is wasted every
year. First, since most fresh foods, such as meat and vegetables, are
perishable, they usually have expiry or best before dates. This means that if
people do not consume them quickly enough, foods will be expired and no
longer edible or free of hazards, which results in food waste. Second, the
way humans prepare foods also contributes to food waste. For example, if
foods are badly prepared, either at home or in the restaurant, people will
refuse to eat and food waste will often occur as a result.
Nevertheless, there are also a variety of solutions to mitigate this trend. First,
even if some foods are inedible for humans, they can be composted or used
to feed livestock. This would not only benefit the agriculture industry but also
help reduce land filled organic matter that can be damaging to the
environment. Second, even if the food waste is not inedible for livestock, it
can still be used as a material to produce renewable energy. For example,
some nations have taken steps to turn organic matter from food waste into
biogas, generating electrical power at very low costs.
In conclusion, even though food waste seems inevitable in today’s world,
there are various ways to recycle it. Feeding livestock and generating energy
can be two of the most useful ways to tackle food waste.
In many countries, government spent a large amount of money on
improving internet access. Why is it happening and do you think it is the
most appropriate use of government money?
Government spending on improving Internet access often constitutes a large
chunk of national budget, causing some public controversy in recent years.
Although some might oppose this idea due to its seemingly high costs, this
is among most beneficial ways to spend government money.
There are a number of reasons why governments choose to improve Internet
access. First, the Internet has been proven to be the most effective and
efficient way to connect people, even if they are in different countries. In fact,
since the cost of Internet communication is very low, even zero in some
areas, both governments and citizens can start to give up landlines, which
in turn saves a great deal of money. Second, many countries have
recognized the significance of a knowledge economy, which entails constant
communication and exchange of ideas. Plenty of evidence suggests that by
streamlining the flows of knowledge, a country’s economy can grow faster
as there is a causal relationship between the two indicators.
Considering all relevant factors involving costs and benefits, improving
Internet access is the most appropriate use of government money. Aside
from connecting people and the knowledge economy, faster Internet access
can also ensure government and corporation transparency and integrity. For
instance, since almost every behavior, either good or bad, can be
videotaped and disseminated via the Internet, government and corporations
would be very mindful of their actions. Not only that, the Internet equalizes
access to information for everyone, which enhances social fairness. It is
clear that nowadays anyone with a computer and an Internet connection can
have the same opportunities as others because he or she can acquire the
knowledge that had long been considered a secret to the majority.
In conclusion, improving Internet access is the best way to spend
government money these days. It not only connects people at the lowest
cost but also fosters economic growth in a variety of ways.
It is often thought that the increase in juvenile crime can be attributed to
violence in the media. What do you think is the reason for a growth in the
rate of juvenile crime? What solutions can you offer to deal with this
situation?
It is true that juvenile delinquency has been rampant, especially in
metropolitan areas, in recent decades, leading to a whole host of other
issues. Although some believe that violence in the media is what causes the
increase in juvenile crime, some other causes should be taken into account
as well.
There are a number of reasons why juvenile crime is growing. First, since
most teenagers nowadays have access to the Internet, juvenile crime
becomes more organized, well-planned and secure than it was in the past.
For example, most of the recruitment or crime planning work can be done
seamlessly through a social network channel that vows to protect user’s
privacy, making it a challenge for the police to prevent real crime in advance.
Second, some large cities, like Chicago, are rife with drug trafficking
targeting young adults. Plenty of evidence suggests that human’s brains are
susceptible to the negative influence of drugs, which often triggers the desire
to commit juvenile crime.
Nevertheless, there are also a variety of solutions to alleviate this issue. First,
Internet police can disguise themselves as normal young adults who wish to
join those illegal groups for investigation and evidence gathering purposes.
The police would have the opportunity to not only prevent the particular
crime beforehand but also understand the underlying structure behind any
contemporary juvenile delinquency. Second, law enforcement should take
step to tighten drug control to ensure little to no drug supply in the market.
For instance, increasing fines and penalties for drug-related activities would
act as a deterrent for drug traffickers and buyers.
In conclusion, the Internet and the drug industry are two contributing factors
to juvenile crime. Internet police and law enforcement should cooperate to
minimize the issue to a manageable level.
Some people think that the best way to run a business is within the family.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of a family run business?
It is true that family-run businesses have never stopped gaining in popularity
around the world. Although this model is applauded by many experts, there
still exists many limitations.
On the one hand, there are a number of advantages of a family-run business.
First, since the business is operated and overseen by family members, such
as children and wife, or relatives, it is difficult for any outside parties to steal
away the control of the business. This means that the family has an absolute
power and control over strategic decisions, staffing, or payroll, which will
certainly be of great benefit to all family members. Second, since family-run
businesses are private corporations, they are not subject to complex
financial reporting requirements. As a result, the business can save a great
deal of money on hiring a team of professional accountants to prepare
external reports and deal with government stakeholders.
On the other hand, family-run businesses are not without downsides. First,
business-related conflicts among family members have the potential to
sabotage any family relationships. For example, a dispute over either
business ownership or salaries might lead to a quarrel or even an avoidable
family estrangement. Second, non-family employees working for a familyrun business might view this business
practice as unfair towards them. For
instance, even if they perform exceptionally well and make enormous
contributions to the company, chances are they will not be recognized
enough compared to those who are family members.
In conclusion, given the clear advantages a family-run business have, there
are still limitations. By acknowledging these limitations, the business owner
can find ways to dodge them.