In many countries people working in sport and entertainment earn much more money than professionals like doctors, nurses and teachers. Why do you think this happens in some societies and do you consider it is good or bad?
It is undoubtedly true that there is often a major imbalance between the salaries of the professional classes and celebrities from the worlds of sport and entertainment. At first sight, this seems unjust, but on closer analysis it is easy to understand why it happens and see that it is almost inevitable.
It does often seem wrong that certain people should earn so much money when their only talent is to entertain. While giving pleasure is important, people in the medical and educational professions have far more important roles in society. For example, a surgeon can save your life in the operating theatre and a teacher can prepare you for your career. Indeed, because both doctors and teachers are so vital to any society, it would seem only right that they receive the largest financial rewards.
When, however, we look to see who earns the most, we discover that it is typically sports and entertainment personalities. There are a variety of reasons why this should be. Firstly, we live in the age of mass media: these people earn so much because they are national or even global stars and get rewarded through endorsements and other sources of income. Secondly, these stars are unique in a way doctors and teachers are not, often they can do what no one else can. Finally, sometimes these stars may have short careers in comparison with other professions. For instance, while doctors can work until they are 65, footballers normally retire in their early 30s.
I personally believe that in the ideal world someone’s income would relate to their value to society. However, in the modern world, it is almost unavoidable the famous will have the highest incomes because of their media exposure.
Unemployment is one of the most serious problems facing developed nations today. What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of reducing the working week to thirty five hours?
It is unquestionable that rising unemployment is one of the most pressing issues in the industrial world. One solution that has been put forward is to cut the working week to a maximum of 35 hours. However, in my view this solution is rather controversial and other solutions need to be found.
It is fairly easy to understand the reasons why this proposal has been made. The reasoning is that if workers are not allowed to work for more than 35 hours weekly, then employers will be forced to engage more staff. There would be at least two advantages to this. Not only would unemployment be reduced, but the working conditions of employees on very long shifts would also be significantly improved. For example, a factory employing 300 manual workers doing 10 hours a day might employ 450 workers.
There is also, however, a strong argument not to implement this proposal. This argument is based on economic competitiveness. If a company was forced to employ more workers to produce the same amount of goods, then its wage bill would rise and its products might become more expensive and less competitive compared to companies with longer working weeks. In this case, it is possible that the company either might become insolvent or it would have to make some employees redundant. As a result, the intended benefit to the personnel would not happen.
In summary, we can see that this is clearly a complex issue as there are significant advantages and disadvantages to the proposal. My own personal view is that it would be better not to introduce the shortened working week because it works only in theory and not in practice.
Should museums and art galleries be free of charge for the general public, or should a charge, even a voluntary charge, be levied for admittance? Discuss this issue, and give your opinion.
One very complex issue in today’s world is the funding of museums and art galleries. While there is an argument that they should be free to the general public and funded by governments, I also believe that there is also a case for saying that they should charge an entrance fee like other attractions.
Those who argue that museums should be free typically make one of two arguments. The first argument is that institutions like museums are a public service and therefore there should be free access to the man in the street. If, for example, there was a charge only the wealthy could afford to enjoy works of art. The second, and related, argument is that if they did levy a charge fewer people would go to museums. This would be serious as they are educational institutions and standards would fall.
In contrast, there is only one major argument on the other side of the debate. This is that both museums and art galleries need to charge an entrance fee if they are to survive in the modern world. Governments do not have sufficient funds to subsidise all such institutions and there are other priorities for public money. Therefore these galleries and museums need to charge their customers not only to survive but to update their exhibitions and make new purchases. By way of illustration, the Tate Modern in London could not have been founded without revenue from admissions.
My personal position is that there is no clear answer to this question as there are such strong arguments on both sides. Perhaps it is possible for some museums and galleries to charge fees and for others not to. It will depend on the situation of the individual museum or gallery.
Space exploration requires vast sums of money. Is the amount of money spent on space research justifiable? Could the money be better spent?
There has always been considerable discussion about whether governments should spend tax payers’ money on space research. In my view it is impossible to justify the amount of money spent on such projects. Generally speaking, the main reason for this position is that there are several areas in which the money could be invested better.
The first point to make is that politicians have a responsibility to spend public money on projects that bring a benefit to the general public. This has not been the case with space research as most developments have been limited to helping astronauts in space or have been very specialised. For example, it is not of great value to the general public that we now have pens and biros that can write upside down. This does not merit the huge amount of money spent.
The second point to make is that there are many much more urgent projects on Earth that require investment. If governments spent less money on space research, then they would be able to help solve some of these problems such as population control, elimination of diseases like cholera, global warming and food shortages. It seems to me that all of these issues are more important because they affect the lives of millions of ordinary people. An illustration of this is that the US government could provide food for all the starving people in the world if they did not spend so much on NASA.
My conclusion is that politicians should not fund space research. The grounds for saying this are that it is very costly and provides few real benefits. Furthermore, there are several more urgent issues that need to be funded.
Television has had a significant influence on the culture of many societies. To what extent would you say that television has positively or negatively affected the cultural development of your society?
It is unarguable that television has had a considerable impact and changed the world in which we live. However, there is debate whether that change has been for the better or the worse, when we consider cultural development. While there are certainly strong feelings on both sides of the argument in western Europe, my own view is that television has had a largely positive influence on our society.
There are, however, several reasons why it can be argued that television has a negative effect on cultural development. Perhaps the principle argument is the lowbrow nature of many programmes, particularly sitcoms and soap operas. People who watch these programmes do not learn anything, they are simply entertained. The other major argument is that because people watch so much television, they no longer take part in more traditional forms of cultural entertainment. An example here is how traditional dancing and music is becoming much less popular because people are staying at home to watch the television.
On the other hand, there are a variety of ways in which cultural development has been assisted by television. Here the major argument is that television has allowed the whole of society access to cultural entertainment. For example, in the nineteenth century only a small proportion of people could go to the ballet or the theatre. However, it is now possible for everyone to enjoy these on television. A second positive effect is that on television we can learn more about other cultures and societies because there are so many interesting documentaries about other countries.
My personal conclusion is that television is a largely positive influence. However, it is important that we do not watch it too much and that we watch the right sort of programme. If we watch the wrong sort of programme and watch too much television, we may become couch potatoes.
Subjects such as Art, Sport and Music are being dropped from the school curriculum for subjects such as Information Technology. Many people children suffer as a result of these changes. To what extent would you support or reject the idea of moving these subjects from school curriculum?
In recent times there has been much debate about which subjects should be included on the school curriculum. One particular issue is whether the introduction of more modern subjects such as IT for more traditional subjects such as art and music disadvantages the pupils. I believe that this is a difficult question and different solutions need to be found for primary and secondary schools.
There is one major argument in favour of replacing art, music and sport on the curriculum with subjects like IT. This is that the purpose of school is to prepare children for their working life after school, so the subjects on the curriculum should be relevant to their potential careers. From this point of view, IT is much relevant to schoolchildren as they need to be computer literate if they want to survive in the workplace. For example, it is easy to see that word processing and programming skills will impress employers more than the ability to run fast or draw well.
There are also, however, strong arguments for retaining the more traditional subjects as part of the curriculum. One significant counter-argument is that the purpose of education is not just to prepare children for later careers, but also to develop their all round “culture”. It is important that children leave school with some knowledge of art, music and sport as all these are all help develop aspects of young people’s personalities.
My own personal point of view is that there is merit in both sides of the debate and that all children should study some IT, art music and sport at least at primary school. At secondary school, however, children should be offered a choice between these subjects so that they can continue to study them if they wish.
Some people prefer to live in a house, while others think that there are more advantages living in an apartment.
Are there more advantages than disadvantages to living in a house rather than in an apartment?
Many people nowadays face a difficult decision when they buy their own home. The question is whether they should buy a house or an apartment. There would seem to be clear benefits and drawbacks to both options.
Perhaps the major advantage of living in a house is the issue of privacy. Typically, there is more opportunity for peace and quiet, if you live in a house. This is particularly the case if it is a detached house. Other significant advantages are that houses are generally more spacious and on the whole have gardens. This is especially important if there is a family so that the children can have a safe environment to play in. If, however, you live in a tower block, then the children may have to play outside on the pavement.
There are, of course, negative aspects to living in houses. The greatest of these is that they tend to be more expensive to purchase and to maintain. Indeed, a large majority of people choose to live in apartments because they cannot afford the mortgage to buy a house. Another possible problem is that there are fewer houses in cities than the countryside. So if you like urban life, it may be preferable to live in an apartment. A second reason to avoid living in a house is that there is a greater sense of community to life in an apartment.
My conclusion would be that this is a well-balanced issue. There are probably an equal number of pros and cons to making either choice. Ultimately, whether you decide to live in a cottage in the countryside or a duplex in the city depends on your own personality, family and financial circumstances.
Advances in science and technology have made great changes to lives of ordinary people, but artists such as musicians, painters and writers are still highly valued. What can the arts tell us about life that science and technology cannot?
There is no doubt that the quality of our lives in the 21st century has been greatly improved by various scientific and technological advances. Despite this, the arts and humanities too still have much to teach us about ourselves and life in general.
One area in which we can learn from the arts is that concepts such as beauty matter in and of themselves, whereas in the world of science and technology the only true measure is whether something works or not. This is a limited view of the world and the arts differ in that they offer us an alternative and more spiritual outlook. For example, if we listen to Mozart we can learn about harmony and joy through the medium of music or if even we read an author like PG Wodehouse we learn about the value of humour. These essential aspects of life are absent from the clinical world of science and technology.
The other way in which artists can teach us more about life is that enjoying art encourages the habit of self-reflection. If you walk into an art gallery, attend a concert or even just stay in to read a book, you will almost certainly begin to think about your inner values. For me, this is a invaluable lesson in life because if we begin to reflect about ourselves, we begin not just to become more human, but also consider the lives of others too.
So while science and technology may have made our physical lives more comfortable in the 21st century. It remains true that the arts and humanities are still absolutely necessary for ordinary people as they promote a more spiritual and reflective view of life that is essential to our humanity.
One of the most pressing problems facing the world today is overpopulation. What policies do you believe governments should adopt to address the causes and effects of this problem?
There is no doubt that the massive increase in the worldʼs population in the last 100 years has created a crisis. In order to find a solution to this crisis, politicians need to deal with not only the immediate problems, but also the long-term causes if they want to rescue humanity. Finding the right policies is not an easy task as it is a complex problem.
The first step is to recognise what the consequences of overpopulation are. Only by doing this can we find an appropriate solution. Perhaps its most important effect is the increased rate at which we are consuming the Earthʼs resources such as oil. To combat this, governments need to do more research on alternative and renewable energy supplies so that we do not use up all the oil reserves. Another negative effect of overpopulation is how some countries suffer from a lack of basic necessities such as food. Here, an answer could be greater international co-operation so that countries with a food surplus donate what they do not need to the less fortunate countries.
It is not quite so easy to decide how governments should deal with the causes of overpopulation. The Chinese have adopted legislation that requires parents to pay a special tax if they have more than one child. I doubt, however, whether this solution is realistic in other countries. Another option would be to improve levels of sex education by explaining the difficulties caused by having too many children.Promoting contraception though may be problematic in many regions on cultural and religious grounds.
In conclusion, while it may be possible to find ways to address some of the consequences of overpopulation by international co-operation, it is harder to find policies to deal with its causes. It might be that the only way forward is for different countries to adopt policies that work within their particular culture.
In the past, lectures were the traditional method of teaching large numbers of students. Nowadays new technology is increasingly being used to teach students. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this new approach?
As we move into the twenty-first century, technology is affecting many different areas of life and education is no exception. Indeed, in some institutions traditional forms of education have been revolutionised by new technology to the extent that the lecture is no longer the main method of delivery. While there are a variety of benefits to this new approach, there are also significant drawbacks.
Perhaps the greatest bonus of the introduction of technology is the flexibility it offers. This is evident in two different ways. Firstly, it is now no longer essential for students to be present in the lecture theatre for their courses. This means that part-time courses for adults who are in employment and distance learning courses for people in other countries are now much more practical. Another area of flexibility is of course that the lecturer and tutor are able to use Moodles, interactive whiteboards and other tools to deliver their courses in a more stimulating way to large numbers of students.
Not everything, however, about the introduction of this new technology into education is positive. One major problem is that not all students are comfortable with using technology, even if they are part of the digital native generation. This is a serious issue as they may suffer from their lack of technological skills. Another related issue is that education is a human activity and it works best with as much human interaction as possible. Impersonal technology cannot replace the human contact found in traditional face-to-face tutorials and seminars.
As we have seen, there are major benefits to the introduction of technology into education, not least because it enables modern forms of education such as distance learning courses. This is balanced, however, by the fact that it can be too impersonal for some and disadvantages others for their lack of technological skills.
Recent research shows that the consumption of junk food is a major factor in poor diet and this is detrimental to health. Some people believe that better health education is the answer to this problem but others disagree. What is your opinion?
A serious concern nowadays is how our eating habits can affect our health. In particular, it has been demonstrated that eating too much junk food can lead to health issues later in life. One sensible suggestion for dealing with this is to improve the level of health education so that we eat better and live longer. My belief though is that this would not completely solve the problem.
One reason why focussing on health education is an appropriate measure is that it addresses one underlying cause of the problem. It is clear that there is a connection between what people know about nutrition and their eating habits. For example, children who have learned in school about the need to have a varied diet with plenty of vitamins tend to eat more healthily. In contrast, people who have not had this education still eat too much junk food and as a result suffer from diabetes and other diseases.
Better health education, however, is not a complete answer as it ignores the wider social factors that cause people to eat unhealthily. For instance, many people eat fast food because they have a lifestyle that means they do not have time to sit down to a proper meal. Again, other people might eat burgers and pizzas because they are seen to be cool and they want to impress their peers.
There would not appear to be any simple way to deal with these social factors. A difficulty is that it is very hard for governments to make a difference to the individual choices people make. It might help, however, to ban advertisements for unhealthy foods on television and to require companies to provide proper meal facilities for their employees.
My conclusion is that the government certainly ought to introduce measures to improve the level of health education. However, this probably would not be a perfect solution as it would also be necessary to deal with the other social factors that cause unhealthy eating.
Many historic buildings are being destroyed or replaced. What are the reasons for this? What should be done to preserve these buildings?
We live in an age of progress and one result of that is that the urban landscape of many cities is changing. An unfortunate consequence of this is that some historic buildings are being lost for future generations. Something needs to be done to preserve these buildings and, to ensure that, we first need to understand why they are being destroyed.
There are a variety of reasons why these buildings are being replaced and this mainly depends on their original purpose. Many of these historic buildings were residential and typically the problem is that they no longer have the appropriate facilities for modern-day living. For example, they might have been built in an era when central heating was not a priority, or even when bathrooms and toilets were outside. Unfortunately, it is often cheaper to pull these buildings down rather than renovate them.
Other historic buildings that are now under threat originally had a civic function and were built in city centres. Examples of these buildings are theatres and cinemas. As often as not, these buildings are being replaced through economic necessity as they are no longer financially viable. They are being replaced by supermarkets or modern cinema complexes that cater for the demands of the twenty-first century.
There is probably no one solution to ensure that these buildings are preserved. One possible step though would be for the civic planning authorities to list certain builidngs that they consider historic and prevent any alterations being made to them. Another possibility would be to ensure that at least the facades of these buildings were preserved for posterity.
Clearly, this is a complex problem and we have seen that there are a number of social and financial factors that have led to the destruction of historic buildings. If we are to preserve them, we will need legislation to prevent or limit the activities of developers.
Some argue younger people are not suitable for important positions in the government, while others think this is a good idea. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Government jobs carry with them serious responsibilities. It is therefore no surprise that a person’s age and experience come under scrutiny when positions in government need to be filled. Many feel influential government jobs should be reserved for those who are older and have more experience, while others feel the criterion for these positions should be capability, namely whomever is most able to carry out the job. This essay will look at both sides before drawing a logical conclusion.
On the one hand, many argue that younger people should be made ineligible for important government positions, and the implications of this opinion are clear. Those operating at senior levels within a country’s military, for example, require field experience to prevent disastrous decisions that could cause the needless loss of life. Were younger people allowed to fast track their ascension within a country’s military, they could find themselves having to make critical choices based more on theoretical study than practical experience, and this could have catastrophic results. Thus, is it understandable why many feel younger government workers should be incubated before given promotion to important positions.
However, there are several plausible counters to this argument. For one, younger workers bring creativity and fresh ideas to government. For example, young government workers in Canada successfully pushed to increase HIV understanding and dispel stigmas attached to the disease in the 1980s, a development that encouraged tolerance and reduced irrational fear. In addition to fresh ideas, it should be remembered that to get a government job, one has to successfully engage a rigorous screening process. If a younger person engages this process as well or better than an older person, it is hard to argue that age should be a decisive factor when offering employment. It is clear from these reasons that there is merit to awarding important government career options to younger people.
Although the above look reveals solid evidence for both sides of the argument, it is felt that the healthiest approach to designating government positions is to ensure candidates fulfil rigorous training programs. Thus, a person’s age should not be considered a universal precursor to the awarding of government jobs.
Should young children be encouraged to follow a strict set of rules based on cultural tradition or should they be allowed to behave freely? Discuss both and share your opinion.
The level of freedom children are allotted varies from one culture to another. Among some, regimenting the behaviour of young children through strict traditional practice is thought to help them develop into skilled members of society. Others argue the removal of strict household regulations allows young people to develop a free, inquisitive and creative mind. Both points of view will be analyzed in this essay.
In one camp, raising children using a strict set of rules based on tradition is felt best. For instance, in Japanese society often young children are taught how to properly conduct themselves in all social situations, including the manner in which they address elders, give and receive gifts and ask for favours. As a result, Japanese society and the Japanese people are world renowned for their protocol, courtesy, attention to detail and charm. As these are very positive qualities, it is clear that many benefits arise from the employment of a rigid parenting style.
On the other hand, however, many feel providing young people with freedom fuels their appetite for creativity. American society, for example, is often mocked for its somewhat lax parenting structure. Yet despite this, the United States was and continues to be home to the creation of some of the world’s most revolutionary products. Thus, it is clear that freer parenting models pose numerous benefits.
After looking at both sides of this debate, it is felt that a balance between protocol and free parenting structures should be sought after by guardians in the twenty-first century. This recipe is expected to become more prevalent in the years to come.
In the past lecturers could teach a certain number of students in one lecture hall. With the development of new technology it’s hard to justify the reason to participate in the lecture physically and not via the Internet. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Traditionally, lectures were given in large rooms to accommodate equally large audiences. With the advent of modern technology, this arrangement is being challenged by the option for students to attend class online. However, it is felt traditional lecture hall talks are beneficial to students and will never completely be replaced by the Internet. This will be shown by looking at how both the theatrical nature and possibility for face-to-face debate during an in-person lesson cater to the learning experience of an individual in a way that technology simply cannot.
Firstly, lectures provide students with an element of theatre, which can be positive for their education. For example, while studying at university in Canada, I was once involved in a course that was televised in my city. During the first semester, I engaged in the classes solely by watching this broadcast from home and found myself to become quite lethargic and unenthusiastic regarding the content. However, during the second semester I was informed that as a registered student I could attend the classroom sessions of the same course and discovered this change revitalized my interest in the topics being discussed. As my experience shows, being present for a lecture physically can have positive effects on students.
In addition to this, classroom lectures allow students to strengthen their wit and abilities as orators and this is not possible on the Internet. For example, although university classes usually have an online forum to provide a context for debate, this medium does not completely replicate the challenge faced when presenting and defending ideas in front of a live audience. Thus, the idea that traditional lecture-styled learning is less effective for students than more modern methods can be debunked.
After analyzing how traditional in-class lessons benefit the academic process, it is felt that this style of learning will never be replaced entirely by technology.
Some people believe that universities are producing more graduates than needed, and that less emphasis should be placed on university education. Others are of a different opinion. Discuss both views and include your own opinion.
As the world develops, the opportunity to achieve a tertiary education is becoming more widespread. This has led many to question whether larger numbers of university graduates is a positive trend. However, others counter than university does more than simply provide employment opportunities. Both of these arguments will be analysed before a reasoned conclusion is reached.
On the one hand, many feel the rising number of university graduates today causes more harm than good. For example, graduates from Canadian universities are having to wait for employment simply because there are no working opportunities for them to engage in. Despite this, Canadian labour-related job openings are booming. This example shows a disparity that is common in many parts of the world and makes clear that achieving a higher education can actually be the precursor to unemployment. Thus, it is understandable why many support the argument that less emphasis should be put on garnering a university education.
However, in contrast to this stance, there are those who believe higher education provides more to people than simply job related skill sets. For instance, the analytical skills honed by university graduates in the United States give them a heightened perception and deeper understanding of the world. Although this benefit does little by way of professional development, it gives people the chance to develop and challenge themselves personally. This makes it is clear why many do not agree with reducing the enthusiasm for higher education.
After analysing these stances on university, it is felt the argument to lessen educational emphasis holds little water. It is hoped the world continues to push its young people towards the challenges offered through higher learning.
Today, the quality of life in large cities is decreasing. Discuss the causes and solutions.
The global phenomenon of urbanisation from the beginning of industrialisation to the present day has brought opportunity and prosperity, albeit at a cost in the quality of life. With an increasing city population, the complexity of the challenges also increases, the causes and solutions for this are outlined below.
The causes for the decrease in the quality of life are paradoxically the prosperity endowed on such metropolitan centres. Their growth is largely due to the increase of opportunities on offer, which in turn increases their attractiveness, essentially they are trapped in a positive self enforcing cycle. However, this eventually leads to a decrease in the quality of life as the city can experience overcrowding, exorbitant property prices, and increased vulnerability to terrorist attacks. For example the density of London makes it a more efficient place to attack, when compared to a smaller city such as Bradford. Therefore, due to continuous growth and prosperity, urban citizens, especially the less well off, often experience a lower standard of living.
Considering the solutions, greater investment in public transport would ease traffic congestion, as would bike lanes. In theory this would reduce air pollution, and possibly improve the well-being of the population if they did adopt a more active lifestyle and cycle to work. To counter violent terrorist attacks, cities could embark on CCTV installations, so as to closely monitor for threats. For example, it is said, the CCTV in London has foiled many potential attacks, and therefore greatly increased the security of its citizens.
To conclude, a wealthy city attracts large population inflows, which then cause pressure on existing infrastructure and security. Various solutions exist to mitigate such drawbacks, nevertheless an indefinite solution has yet to be found.
Some people think that a person improves their intellectual skills more when doing group activities. To what extent do you agree? Use specific details and examples to explain your view
In recent decades, many researchers have studied the importance of group-level cognition. Indeed, to my mind, there is now convincing evidence that group activities improve the intelligence of individuals. In this essay, I shall examine how research in team-games and study-groups supports this view.
To begin with, team-games clearly require individuals to perform a diverse range of rapid mental calculations. This is because, in a sporting context, players must predict and anticipate possible actions within tight time constraints. For example, a recent Cambridge study showed that soccer players can – within the span of seconds – calculate over a dozen different permutations that could result from a single soccer related action. Such predictive powers clearly improve players’ mental abilities and result from activities performed in a group context.
Secondly, study-groups enable individuals to obtain information that they could not acquire in isolation. This is because peer feedback allows individuals to refine their understanding of concepts and to also learn new information from other members in the study-group. For example, a study by The British Institute for Learning found that, if individuals participated in study-groups, they had a far more objective and sophisticated understanding of a topic than learners who were not part of study-groups. Therefore, it is certainly the case that learning in a group improves an individual’s mental abilities.
In conclusion, I strongly agree with the notion that group activities improve intellectual abilities. In the future, we will certainly see schools take greater measures to ensure that more group-level cognition occurs in the classroom.
Some people think that keeping pets is good for children while others think it is dangerous and unhealthy. Which opinion do you agree with? Discuss both options and give examples
In recent times, pet related injuries and fatalities have sparked heated debates about whether it is healthy for children to be around pets. In this essay I shall argue that such dangers are overemphasised and that children receive substantive psychological benefits through having pets.
To begin with, although exotic pets (e.g. snakes, spiders, apes, etc.) have been known to occasionally hurt and even kill children, such incidents are so statistically rare as to be negligible. This is because the overwhelming majority of children have non-lethal cats, dogs, fish, rodents and rabbits for pets. For example The Child Safety Institute found that over 90% of children owned the aforementioned pets, and professed that they had never felt in the least bit endangered by them. Seen in this light, it is clearly unfounded to claim that pets present any physical danger to children.
Secondly, pets can impact positively upon child psychology. This is because young pet owners frequently empathise with their pets and perform a diverse range of actions to maintain their wellbeing (e.g. feeding, grooming, administering medicine, etc). For example, the Cambridge Developmental Psychology Unit found that children who had grown up with pets were 30% less likely to bully others and to resolve conflicts through aggression. Consequently, it is undeniable that a child’s pro-sociality and mental health can be improved through exposure to pets.
In conclusion, the cited evidence provides strong support for the view that children owning pets is a good thing. In the future, as more laws are introduced to ban the ownership of illegally acquired exotic pets, this viewpoint will no doubt surge in popularity.
Is it good for children to start using computers from an early age and spend long hours on them? Discuss the advantages and disadvantages.
In recent years, children, like adults, have become increasingly exposed to computers. While some child psychologists have claimed that this is a good thing, others have claimed that it has an overwhelmingly detrimental impact on children. In this essay, I shall draw upon a number of studies in cognitive science and industrial psychology that reveal the positive and negative aspects of this phenomenon.
To begin with, clearly there are reasons why computers do not allow children to develop long attention spans. This is because computers are packed with many supposedly child-friendly games that require minimal levels of concentration in order to be enjoyed. For example, a study by the New York Child Learning Association found that children who read from picture books were 50% less likely to get distracted than children who played educational computer games. Therefore computers almost certainly have a negative impact on young children.
However, since the world has become heavily reliant on computers, there are also clear advantages to exposing children to computers. This is because children with such exposure will stand a better chance of finding employment. For example, after being interviewed by Yale psychologists, over 70% of young office workers admitted that they had spent long hours on computers in their middle and late childhood years. Therefore it is clear that computer exposure can be beneficial to children.
In conclusion, there are advantages and disadvantages to early computer exposure. However, if, in the future, the quality of educational gaming is increased, there is good reason to believe that these negative consequences will fall entirely away.
Some people think that there are things individuals can do to help prevent global climate change. Others believe that action by individuals is useless and irrelevant and that it is only governments and large businesses which can make a difference.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Climate change is a phenomenon affecting all people in all walks of life, from individual citizens to whole countries and huge multinational companies. The question of what we can do to prevent global climate change and whether individual action is effective or not is a hotly debated issue.
There are those who say that the majority of the damages is wrought by big businesses. By imposing restrictions on emissions and by strictly monitoring waste disposal from factories, plants and businesses, governments would go a long way towards preventing climate change. It is thought that governments around the world should come up with solutions to help prevent imminent environment disaster. Proponents of this view claim that individual action is irrelevant in the face of massive, wide-scale prevention policies set and controlled by governments.
On the other hand, there are a growing number of people who believe that individual action combined with governmental and business action will do a lot more to prevent climate change than if individual citizens were not involved. In a world of six billion people, if everyone thought about the number of water they use, how they dispose of their rubbish, whether or not something needs to be thrown away or if they can, in fact, re-use certain items then we would be giving the problem of climate change and its prevention a massive boost.
Taking both points into consideration, I firmly believe that individual citizens cannot sit back and say it is someone else’s responsibility to protect the environments; we must all play our part-individual citizens, governments and big businesses alike.
Governments should make more effort to promote alternative sources of energy.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
It has been known for some time now that a move towards sources of energy which are not carbon-based is urgently required to stop the effects of global warming. In my view, there are too few governments who seem to be promoting the use of other types of energy such as wind, wave, solar and nuclear sources of energy.
Governments at present are too reliant on coil, oil and gas. Although some governments are doing research into the use of alternative energy sources, many are not. Energy from the wind, the sea and the sun does not pollute the environment and is an everlasting source of power. Nuclear power is clean, and although it is not totally unproblematic, it would provide a large amount of energy and dramatically improve the environment. Countries such as France have made good use of nuclear power.
My feeling is that more use could be made of wind power. In some countries, there has been a reluctance to use wind turbines, even in areas which are not densely populated, as some people believe they are eyesores. Personally, I believe they are not only useful, but beautiful as well. Governments should spend more time and effort promoting the benefits of this source of energy and trying to make the public understand the reason for change.
In conclusion, I believe that, if governments forced everyone to have a wind turbine and solar panels on the building they live in, made more use of wave power and built more nuclear power stations, then they would manage to avert the dangers that are seriously threatening the Earth.
Some parents buy their children a large number of toys to play with. What are the advantages and disadvantages for the child of having a large number of toys?
It is true that many parents purchase a multitude of playthings for their offspring. Whether or not this is a good thing for the child, is a moot point. On the face of it the advantages seem most apparent, but could there be a downside to this phenomenon of devoted parenting as well?
Most people would consider children who have many toys to be the fortunate ones. Interesting things to play with stimulate many positives in the young boy or girl, such as optimum brain development, hand-eye coordination and colour recognition, apart from the simple joy of playing. Modern toys are designed to be educational as well as fun, and concerned parents carefully select products which might speed their child's acquisition of numbers or the alphabet.
Is it possible that owning multiple toys could be in any way detrimental to a child? This is an unusual question, but there are some hidden pitfalls. For one, wealthy parents might spoil their son or daughter by showering him/her with toys, resulting in a negative effect on the child's character. For another, a growing child's concentration span may suffer if they are constantly surrounded by too many tempting objects, so that they become unable to focus on any one game for a decent length of time before being distracted. On the social side, older children may become targets of envy from classmates, if they are perceived as having far more possessions than their peers. Finally, the majority of toys today are made of plastic which commonly contains the chemical BPA, proven to be dangerous for infants to suck on or ingest.
It is clear then that this situation is not as straightforward as it first appears. It would seem that one of the many duties of parents is to make an informed choice about how many toys they buy for their young ones.