1

The best way to teach children to cooperate is through team sports at school.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Teamwork has evolved into a valuable trait in numerous countries, with efforts
directed at instilling this skill in children. An argument posits that engaging in team
sports is the optimal approach for children to cultivate this ability during their
schooling, a notion I predominantly endorse.

On one hand, I perceive that there exist alternative avenues for children to acquire
teamwork skills beyond team sports. They can undertake collaborative tasks such as
collectively tidying their classroom or engaging in group games. For instance,
organizing students into teams led by their teacher and participating in charades
exemplifies the advantages of cooperative thinking. Another approach involves
group examinations, wherein each student responds to a distinct question, yet all
members receive an identical score. Consequently, a collective penalty ensues if even
a single pupil answers inaccurately, motivating joint preparation for subsequent
exams.

On the other hand, I am in substantial agreement that learning collaboration through

team sports potentially represents the optimum path for children. Within this
context, they grasp the ramifications of even the slightest discord leading to defeat.
For instance, should a defender inadvertently pass the ball to an opponent, an
irreversible goal may be conceded, resulting in a loss. Thus, the significance of
teamwork and cohesion is illuminated. Participating in team sports also mirrors a
professional setting, reflecting scenarios where individuals collaborate with
colleagues to attain objectives.

In conclusion, despite the availability of various methods to impart cooperation skills

to children, I am inclined to concur that engagement in team sports at school not
only benefits their formative years but also primes them for the challenges of
adulthood.

Some people think that the large amount of young people in university only
leads to high rates of unemployed graduates. To what extent do you agree or
disagree?

Certain individuals often hold the belief that a nation would benefit from a
substantial portion of its youth pursuing higher education, while others contend that
this would merely augment the ranks of unemployed graduates. In my perspective,
academic studies do not significantly contribute to individual or national progression
in professional careers, and they may not adequately prepare individuals for success
in a competitive world.

On one hand, the presence of graduates could indeed bolster the economy,
contingent upon two key factors. Firstly, the caliber of education offered by the
graduating institution plays a crucial role. Secondly, the availability of job
opportunities aligned with one's field of study is equally pivotal. Consider India,
where annually, a significant number of computer science graduates enter the
workforce. However, due to limited job openings in their specialized fields, a
substantial portion remains unemployed, leading them to opt for positions beneath
their qualifications.

Conversely, a considerable fraction of educational institutions lack the requisite

standards to impart practical skills that can be directly applied in a professional
context. Furthermore, education's correlation with financial prosperity is not always
direct. Graduation programs seldom provide insights into money-earning strategies.
Eminent examples of some of the world's wealthiest billionaires who did not excel in
conventional education underscore this point. Therefore, academic achievement
does not singularly dictate an individual's life accomplishments.

In summation, it is evident that education enhances cognitive abilities and cultivates

skills such as critical thinking, analysis, and logical reasoning. Nonetheless, it does not
wield significant influence in determining employment rates or a nation's overall
advancement.

In some countries, the widespread use of Internet has given people to work or
study at home instead of travelling to work or college. Do the advantages
outweigh the disadvantages?

Education constitutes a fundamental aspect of an individual's upbringing. In

numerous nations, achieving a university degree at an early life stage has become a
prevailing trend. While some argue this yield benefits for a country, others foresee
adverse consequences, particularly a surge in unemployment. This essay delves into
these perspectives and underscores why I find the latter viewpoint more compelling.

Unquestionably, a young graduate's economic contribution through taxes is

noteworthy. Due to extended years in the workforce, their tax input becomes more
substantial. Take Canada, for instance, which has tailored its permanent residency
process to allure younger graduates, thereby reaping prolonged national gains.
Conversely, delayed graduation might lead to reduced contributions, rendering
individuals as government liabilities.
While younger graduates undeniably invigorate economic progress, maintaining a
balance with employment demands is imperative. Domestic employers might face a
surplus of student supply compared to job openings, often due to lacking requisite
skills. A case in point is India, where graduates enter the workforce at 20 without
supplementary skills; coupled with scarce job opportunities, these fuels heightened
unemployment rates. Consequently, governments grapple with predicaments and
mounting liabilities. From my perspective, candidates should consider pursuing skill-
enhancement courses between school and graduation to bolster employability.

In summation, nations necessitate a graduated populace to propel development.

While young graduates undoubtedly foster nation-building, neglecting industry
prerequisites can transform them into potential burdens rather than assets. Properly
aligning education with economic needs emerges as a crucial factor in steering this
balance.

It's better to be unemployed than to be employed in the jobs that people do

not enjoy. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Speaking generally, the satisfaction experienced at work, particularly in terms of

enjoyment, can be a subjective matter. It encompasses a range of emotions tied to
physical and mental well-being. Consequently, there are those who argue in favour
of unemployment over an unsatisfying job. Nevertheless, I hold a contrary view to
this assertion, as I perceive more substantial concerns linked to joblessness. This
essay will elucidate the grounds for my disagreement and offer pertinent examples
as needed.

Firstly, the employment rate stands as a foundational pillar within the contemporary
economy, interweaving with numerous crucial sectors that underpin human support
systems. When the number of individuals departing the labour force increases due to
reasons related to happiness, the overall support structure weakens. Hence, it
becomes imperative for relevant authorities to address such issues rather than
allowing people to disengage from their jobs. A case in point is Finland, where the
government gathers anonymous feedback from its populace to proactively tackle any
such concerns.

Conversely, it is reasonable to advocate for individuals to leave their positions if they

find their roles unsatisfying. After all, the essence of any profession ultimately ties
into overall well-being, extending beyond mere financial gains. That said, attaining
financial independence proves relatively more challenging than securing mental
contentment. Therefore, addressing this matter should encompass a multifaceted
approach beyond mere encouragement to quit. A noteworthy illustration lies in
Singapore, which allocates around ten percent of its GDP to upskilling its citizens,
thereby enabling them to persevere in their areas of interest.

In summation, as delineated above, the prospect of endorsing unemployment

without tackling the root causes leading to such circumstances is fraught with
complexity. Hence, I oppose the provided statement and advocate for a wholly
distinct approach aimed at fostering workplace contentment.

Rich countries often give financial aid to poor countries, but it does not solve
the poverty. So rich countries should give other types of help to the poor
countries rather than the financial aid. To what extent do you agree or
disagree?

Facilitating financial assistance to impoverished countries is a common practice

among developed nations. However, the contention arises that addressing poverty
requires more than just monetary aid. Offering diverse forms of support can prove
more advantageous for developing communities. I partially concur with this notion.

Evidently, providing financial grants to developing nations yields a myriad of

constructive outcomes. Firstly, it fosters long-term prosperity and the establishment
of stable political institutions. Secondly, certain less developed states lack the means
to maximize their abundant natural resources, yet foreign support opens avenues for
potential success. For instance, the UK government allocated £241 million to Nigeria
to acquire advanced sanitation technology. Thirdly, foreign aid contributes to post-
disaster recovery, furnishing livelihoods and housing for victims to rebuild their lives
anew. A recent survey reveals Syria has received over €37 billion in humanitarian
assistance, benefiting both Syrians and vulnerable host communities.

Nevertheless, advanced countries can also undertake affirmative measures to directly

empower underdeveloped societies. Particularly, actions against corrupt leadership,
support for research and development, and the enhancement of global labor
mobility can yield positive outcomes. Similarly, affluent nations possess the financial
stability to sustain their citizens even amidst economic turmoil such as inflation.
Considering debt forgiveness for impoverished individuals could channel funds for
productive purposes in economically evolving countries. Moreover, an additional
approach to assist impoverished global regions is through consumer behavior.
Purchasing goods from websites that donate a portion of proceeds to charity can
contribute to this cause.

In conclusion, eradicating deep-rooted poverty in developing regions is a gradual

process, necessitating sustained efforts rather than instant solutions. Yet, every
endeavor plays a role in alleviating deprivation.
6

Some people think lawbreakers should be sent to prison, while others think
that alternatives to prison are more suitable, especially for minor offences.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

It is heated controversy about whether the prisoner with better talents should be
made to work. From my perspective, lawbreakers must be sentenced to jail, although
some of them are talented in certain aspects of their works.

To begin with, sentencing the lawbreakers to prison, only in this way, can ensure that
the sufferer's rights not be violated again. Moreover, for espionage crimes, isolating
them from the outside can keep the nation in a safer situation. The criminals should
receive adequate punishment and realize their faults of committing a crime before
being released to society. Otherwise, those wrongdoers with a criminal record could
commit another crime habitually. Particularly, talented crimes can upgrade the
modus operandi that increases the difficulty of catching them.

Nevertheless, criminals with professional talents can be granted a specific work under
imprisonment. They deserve penalties because of their misbehaviours and crimes
despite their talents. However, it is reasonable to allow reformed criminals to
contribute to society with their expertise and skills. For instance, the police can
employ reformed frauds to assist them in detecting fraud cases with their experience.
Another example, reformed hackers can work for corporations to protect technology
intelligence from being stolen by competitors. In addition, they can work for the
military to defend national hacking activities. In case these talented expirees are
virtuous, they should be couraged to work and make good use of their profession.

In conclusion, criminals should be under imprisonment because they deserve it. If

someone with gifted expertise could leave the jail, it is unequal to other prisoners
and unfair to the sufferers. Consequently, lawbreakers with professions also need to
be sentenced to prison as others.

Some young people commit serious crimes, such as robbery or violent attacks,
some people think they should be punished in the same way as adults. To what
extent do you agree or disagree?

There is a perspective held by some that individuals below the age of 18 should face
comparable sentences to adults who have committed grave offenses like theft or
causing severe physical harm. Personally, I vehemently oppose this notion. This essay
will dissect the disparities between my stance and the given premise.
Primarily, proponents of this stance contend that transgressions should not be
overlooked even when committed by teenagers. However, it is noteworthy that
children often emulate others and lack awareness regarding the repercussions of
their actions. To illustrate, consider a scenario where a 16-year-old driver engages in
a hit-and-run incident, striking a mother and her infant child. Consequently, pre-
emptive measures should be taken to prevent the proliferation of guilt.

Conversely, some citizens hold an opposing perspective, as they recognize the

profound implications of such a determination. Everyone merits a chance to
demonstrate their potential. Therefore, punitive measures might not only shatter
present innocence but also jeopardize future prospects. The majority of mistakes
stem from impulsive moments. For instance, based on a study, it is postulated that
the human soul begins in innocence, yet over time, it may become susceptible to
negative influences. This progression is tied to individual aspirations. Employing
harsh treatment can lead to the transformation of a pure soul into a corrupted one.
Consequently, the youth of a nation should be afforded at least one opportunity to
embark on a journey of self-improvement.

In conclusion, while offenses should not go unchecked, it is imperative to establish

distinct penalties for adults and underage individuals.

In some countries, the criminal trials are shown on the TV and the general
public can watch them. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

A contentious issue sparking debate revolves around the participation of offenders in

televised programs aired for public consumption in certain nations. While every trend
possesses its merits and demerits, this case is no exception. In my view, the
drawbacks hold greater significance than the advantages.

Undoubtedly, showcasing wrongdoers on media platforms yields several benefits.

Generally, society tends to view convicts as perpetual threats and societal misfits,
often overlooking their potential for profound transformation. Presenting criminals in
a different light can aid the public in comprehending their journey towards
redemption. For instance, numerous individuals featured in American crime-related
television shows have attested that such programs played a pivotal role in their
reintegration into the workforce and acceptance within society. Therefore, these
portrayals can indeed work wonders for those seeking forgiveness and a fresh start.

However, the realm of television broadcasting occupies a ubiquitous position in daily

life, necessitating stringent content control to avert a range of pressing issues. Firstly,
youngsters may inadvertently watch programs featuring criminals, potentially
normalizing illegal behaviour due to its prevalence. Illustratively, several young
offenders in the USA have acknowledged exposure to crime-related shows as a
factor in their actions. Secondly, the narratives surrounding an offender's life may
occasionally incorporate violent elements, thereby engendering adverse effects on
the public psyche. Lastly, this trend could inadvertently provide criminals with an
opportunity to manipulate public sentiment, potentially leading to recidivism.
Consequently, permitting the televised display of perpetrators lacks prudence.

To conclude, notwithstanding its positive facets, I contend that showcasing criminals

on television platforms ultimately undermines societal morale.

Some people think that if a police force carries a gun, it can lead to higher level
of crime in that society. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The debate surrounding whether police officers should be armed with pistols is a
subject of contention. A segment of individuals contends that arming officers may
exacerbate violence. I vehemently disagree with this notion and will elucidate my
perspective in the ensuing paragraphs.

To initiate, a pivotal rationale for equipping officers with firearms lies in their
professional training, which ensures responsible and judicious gun usage, thereby
precluding the escalation of violence. To expound, officers’ resort to drawing their
pistols solely in dire circumstances endangering citizens' lives. A case in point
emerged in recent coverage by the Times of India, wherein a vigilant police officer
averted harm to bank employees during a robbery by promptly employing his
revolver to disorient and neutralize the robbers. Consequently, the possession of a
defensive weapon is imperative for ensuring public safety.

Furthermore, a weapon serves as a tool for upholding societal order. In essence,

certain criminals possess considerable combat prowess, potentially overpowering an
officer. Thus, a firearm can serve as a deterrent, instilling fear within wrongdoers. For
instance, a report from BBC news recounted an episode where a skirmish among a
group of combatants was diffused by a police officer brandishing his pistol, leading
to their apprehension. Ergo, a firearm can empower an officer to manage situations
astutely, averting violence.

In summation, based on the aforementioned arguments, it can be inferred that

arming police officers with handguns is essential for maintaining civility within
society, while also safeguarding citizens' lives during perilous circumstances such as
armed robberies and gun-related threats posed by lawbreakers.

10
Some people think that most crimes are the result of circumstances e.g. poverty
and other social problems. Others believe that most crimes are caused by
people who are bad by nature. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Numerous individuals hold the belief that inherent traits are accountable for
individuals opting for a criminal career. Nevertheless, I contend that crime
predominantly stems from societal challenges and poverty.

The notion that an individual's disposition shapes their inclination towards criminality
is one standpoint. Initially, proponents argue that a cruel nature predisposes
someone to criminality more readily than a compassionate demeanor. For instance, a
child who bullies peers at school might evolve into a violent criminal later on.
Furthermore, undesirable traits like indolence or self-centeredness could spawn
future offenders, enticed by easy ill-gotten gains as opposed to honest toil. Many
youngsters’ resort to theft instead of diligent work to sustain themselves. These
rationales underline the notion that those harboring innate malevolence are more
prone to transgress the law.

Nonetheless, I am persuaded that societal issues and impoverishment exert greater

influence on criminal behavior. Various societal maladies can precipitate a surge in
crime rates. For instance, unemployment propels individuals towards criminal
activities due to their inability to secure employment. Consequently, the incidence of
offenders has surged in numerous nations in recent decades. Moreover, poverty, in a
broader context, acts as a catalyst for crime. In cases where individuals lack adequate
means to meet their basic needs, the allure of unlawful pursuits becomes irresistible,
driven by the necessity to support themselves and their families.

In conclusion, although some contend that personal predispositions are the chief
catalysts for criminal acts, I assert that crime primarily germinates from societal
quandaries and destitution.