Nowadays We Are Producing More and More Rubbish

Nowadays we are producing more and more rubbish.

Why do you think this is happening?

What can governments do to help reduce the amount of rubbish produced?

In our highly industrialized era there is a growing awareness about the exessive amounts of trash people producing. We are about to be flooded by different types of garbage if certain measures will not be taken. This essay will explore some causes of this and propose ways to solve the problem.

To begin with, different food producers decided that their products will be selling better if they will pack them in small-sized boxes and packets. These colorful and attractive packs go straight to the trashcan, the number of packs is growing along with the consuming groth.

More consuming produces more waste. Government and businesses encourage consuming because it leads to high profits and development of state economy. They are not interested in the situation there a person is going to use something for a long time. Society is being bombarded with commersials, pleading to buy, for instance, a new mobile phone. Buying new things cause throwing away old but good things.

The problem of garbage is very complicated. As we can see, government is not interested of reducing consuming. Thus, the responsibility has to be taken by individuals and non-governmental organizations. Certain laws, regulating the percentage of packaging material per ton of product should be established. Moreover, interesting programs, involving people to participate can be developed. For example, bonuses for not asking for a plastic bag in supermarkets or for buying extra large packs of food.

In addition, everyone should become concerned about the future of human beings and our planet. If we do not wish to be buried in rubbish, we should think twice before buying things we do not need.

Animals should not be used for the benefit of human beings, unless there is evidence that the animals do not suffer in any way.To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

There is a lot of controversy about using animals for human needs. Animal rights activists are trying to stop all modern and traditional activities, which involve killing animals or cause their suffering. Traditionalists are trying to convince the community that using living creatures for men's needs is natural and cannot be avoided in everyday life. In this essay we will explore this subject.Activists, who defend animal rights, are telling the world that people should not use animals in any way. Moreover, they say that animals should have exactly same rights as humans do. The reason is that people and animals are both living creatures and there shouldn't be any difference in treating them. So called extreme vegans are refusing to eat any food of animal

origin, even milk or honey. They are trying to convince people to do the same using as an argument that killing animals and keeping them in captivity cause their suffering and not civilized.Traditionalists disagree with the statement that human should stop killing animals or using them to fulfill their needs. From the very beginning of human civilization there is a tradition and vital need to use animals as a food and their parts in traditional crafts. Without proteins and vitamins of animal origin human body wouldn't receive all nutrients it needs. Moreover, testing some medicals on animals already helped to fight many diseases people suffered from.I think, people have the moral right to use animals to their benefit, to some extent. I am sure, we should not cause them suffer and die for our fun. Although, using animals for food is natural for humans as a predators, but as civilized predators we should make sure to use only humane ways of killing.

Governments around the world are spending billions in support of space programs. This money would be better spent on research into improvements in human health.To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

There is an opinion that countries are spending a lot of their cash assets on space projects while they should rather finance medical science sufficiently. Spaceships are flying all over the Universe at the time people are dying from AIDS or even flu. Is there any point of throwing money into the outer space?

On the one hand, human really have not fought many dangerous and highly contagious diseases. Moreover, industrialization and economical progress brought new diseases as a result of receiving more comfortable life. They are diabetes, cardio-vascular problems, etc. In addition, launching just one space shuttle into the sky requires somany natural resources and brings so many pollution, that it influences ecology a lot. That brings us new health issues, that need additional funding, which could be withdrawn from excessive payments for space research.

On the other hand, scientists already have fundraising from commercial pharmaceutical companies. A lot of diseases have been fought in just last 100 years and there is an increase in mankind life expectancy. Moreover, improved health and elongated life of population leads to a new problem – overpopulation. Space research can help to find a new home for Earth inhabitants. The last, but not the least, who knows, there is a chance we could found on other planets a panacea for all diseases.

As for me, I am not a very healthy person and my parents either. However, if there is a one, very small chance, that something exciting will happen and astronauts will meet alien civilization on other planets, I would not be happy that government is spending money for medicine only. We have overcrowded planet and we should search for ways of expanding our habitat.

Children today are too dependent on computers and electronic entertainment. It would be better for them to be outside playing sports and taking part in more traditional pastimes than spending all day indoors.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Together with computerization of our society there is a rising of public awareness about kids, who spend too much time in front of personal computer or playing video games. What it best for children to devote their free time to outdoor activities and conventional games or to be at home and entertain themselves with computer?Some types of PC games can be very intelligent and may contain huge educational potential. They can encourage youngsters to develop researching skills and inspire them to learn new things. However, significant amount of video games is dumb-type, which develops nothing but button-pushing skill. Unfortunately, these games are usually highly addictive. Thus, they can cause the lack of physical activity and even serious mental diseases.Outdoor games often more beneficial for kids’ health. They not only train them in terms if agility and endurance, but teach children to socialize and make friends. Moreover, they make them stronger because of fresh air, physical activity and exposure to the sunlight. Therefore, being on the street not always safe. Unattended child can receive trauma or become a subject of crime.I was not very outgoing and physically active kid and preferred rather to read than to play with others. Getting a computer brought more diversity for my leisure and study. It helped me to experience new emotions, learn new things, study English and meet interesting people online. High information technologies aptitude helped me to get a good job than I grew up. Therefore I think parents should look to their child’s personality in order to decide what is more appropriate. Finding good balance between electronic entertainment and outdoor games depends on parents’ ability to identify what benefits their child best.

Today, the high sales of popular consumer goods reflect the power of advertising and not the real needs of the society in which they are sold.To what extent do you agree or disagree?

This task was taken from the book Cambridge IELTS 6 Student's Book with answers: Examination papers from University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations (IELTS Practice Tests) by Cambridge ESOL.

Nowadays millions of companies produce billions of products and the role of advertising is quite obvious. Ads help consumers to find the goods or services of their needs. However, do our needs grow equally fast as the number of products? Some market analysts insist modern commercials are not merely matchmakers of a product and a consumer, but actively interfere with buyer’s desires, developing artificial needs.

Undoubtedly, advertisement guides people through the market, serves those who do not have time to learn differences between goods. These products are probably the same, but loyalty to a particular brand, formed by a commercial helps make a choice. When a person buys one mobile phone out of 50 models, he thinks he made his choice himself. But that was a commercial who told him about the features of this phone.

Nevertheless, ads not only inform us about new goods, but force people to want them. This can be even useful, for example for someone who suffers from back pains and without commercials

he would never imagine there are new mattresses which could ease their pains.

Unfortunately, promoters now operate our minds more aggressively. Commercials no longer promote products, but lifestyles. They told us to purchase things just because they are fashionable or up to date with the image of successful person. And we buy new cars, gadgets and clothes in order to match this image and not because old ones are no longer usable.

Personally I think that high sales of popular commodities are the result of new promotional technologies. The best illustration of that is that everyone now is concerned mostly about how a new mobile phone will reflect his personality, a new shirt – his image, or will a new car make colleagues feel jealous.

Some people believe that children’s leisure activities must be educational, otherwise they are a complete waste of time.Do you agree or disagree?Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your experience.

Nowadays children spend so much time at school and attend various additional classes and this makes some educational specialists feel pity for them. They suggest giving kids more spare time to play and have fun. Meanwhile, there is an opinion that youngsters should do only those activities that benefit their knowledge and educate them, and I totally agree with this point of view.

Of course, the volume of the information children receive at school and ought to memorize is enormous and they should be given some free time to relax. Playing with others is essential to develop communication skills and this also gives young brains some rest.

Although, we have to admit that in our competitive world the more time a kid devotes to the study process the better life he can achieve. There are ways to make playing with others very educational and parents should encourage their children to play games which make brain work. For example, kids could have a competition combining physical activity and some kind of trivia on geography, like we had in our childhood. Moreover, even computer games can be very intelligent. There are so many electronic entertainments which teach languages, gives information on history, geography, that child addicted to computers could become very smart and educated.

In addition, unattended kid hardly makes proper use of his leisure time. If it happens, children just watch TV or get under peer pressure. They unfortunately do not have skills of analyzing and filtering what is bad or what is good. Education through games instead makes them occupied and in the same time teaches analyzing.

To conclude with, education through fun is not very exhausting for kids but its usefulness can be great. It would be a shame to devote this time to the TV or other entertainment.

It has been proved that smoking kills. In some countries it has been made illegal for people to smoke in all public places except in certain areas. All countries should make these rules.Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

The idea of banning smoking from public places always was a very controversial one. Those who defend smoking on streets and in offices refer to human rights and the fact that tobacco is legal. Others hold an opinion that since there are undeniable proofs that cigarettes cause lethal diseases not only to smokers but to surrounding people, smoking should be allowed only in special places. I totally agree with the idea of making smoking legal in certain places only.

On the one hand, it is the society who makes smokers to smoke and it would be not fair just to put them into exile and consider the problem solved. Since we sell them tobacco they should have right to use it wherever they want.

On the other hand, those who do not smoke should have the right to breathe clean air. When somebody is smoking cigarette, health of non-smokers is under attack. Personally I am a former smoker, but even for me breathing tobacco smell is unbearable. It is not only makes people to temporarily feel bad but also causes long term effect. There are researches showing that so called ‘passive smoking’ could be even worse for health than smoking itself. Causing damage to anyone’s health is illegal, that is why there is no excuse for smoking in public places.

Another reason for this is the fact that not every legal action is allowed on public. Moral, cultural and juridical limitations are exist. For example, there are toilets for people’s bladder and nobody is allowed to urinate on streets. Tobacco is much more dangerous than that so there is no doubt every country should consider moving smokers to special places.

To conclude with, every country must think of the wellbeing of its citizens and make steps to protect them from dangerous effects of tobacco by banning smoking from public places.

The Art should be better funded by the government but there must be more control over where the money goes. Discuss.

Since prehistoric ages The Art highlights our lives, adds beauty and happiness and cultivates the taste among the people. However, nowadays creative projects became very pricey and can not bring pay-off to its authors. Some people think that the government should pay for those projects and, of course, observe precisely how those funds are being spent.

This is quite obvious that no structure except government knows nations cultural needs best. It can evaluate which sphere of cultural life have the necessity of development and achieve its goals of public loyalty by funding a specific field of The Art, controlling budget by giving maintenance only to projects they are interested in.

However, funding The Art selectively can lead artists to the lack of freedom in expressing themselves. In other words, then those who have power use money to regulate cultural life, it

can limit the imagination and put artists into borders they would be scared to cross. Thus, here comes the censorship, which has nothing in common with the main democracy principles. For example, similar situation was in the Soviet Union, there solely the government controlled The Art and therefore the only career an artist could pursue is praising the Communist Party by his creations.

As an alternative of letting a government to control spending money on The Art, a non-governmental independent organization could be established. It must consist of the best cultural activists from a country. This would add a certain level of budget control and would guarantee there are no limits for The Art.

To conclude with, I believe that funding The Art is one of the main tasks of a state, but the purpose of it should be development, not making it to serve government political needs.

All education, primary, secondary and further education, should be free to all people and paid for by the government.Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

The opinion that every citizen should have the right to study at school or university for free is very controversial one. Those, who disagree, refer to enormous expenditures of government in case of establishing such laws. Although, I hold the viewpoint that not charging people for education could become very beneficial for country and its economy.

First, young people from poor families could be very smart. Looking back to history and biographies of distinguished people, raised in poverty can illustrate this best. Making schooling available only for fortunate is not fair. Moreover, the state well-being could also be affected, because there would be a lack of talented specialists, whose skills was not discovered and developed by proper training.

Another advantage of making education free of charge is happiness of the nation. Inability of individual to collect amount of money needed to pay school or university fees cause stress and anxiety of the middle-class society, which can even keep them from having children. Nowadays we can see that the lowest birthrate is in countries where prices of enrollment to highest education institutions are very high. This clearly indicates the fact that citizens of rich countries do not feel able to provide their future offspring proper education.

Finally, nothing seems to be more beneficial to economy than intelligent nation. Free courses and study programs can prepare excellent specialists, who would work to bring profit themselves and hence their country. That would surely compensate most expenses of state budget caused by education of no charge.

To sum up, even though making all schools free can be very expensive for state economy, advantages are invaluable. After several years such improvements would bring fruits of happy, intelligent nation confident about its future.

Some people say that television is a very useful tool when it comes to education. Others argue that television is a much overused, ineffective teacher.Discuss both of these views and give your opinion as to the usefulness of television as an educational tool.Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.You should write at least 250 words.

There is a lot of controversy about whether TV can play a role of teacher. Some people hold a viewpoint that it can never be educational at all. Others, although, disagree, reffering to TV's high potential of teaching through amusement.

As a matter of fact, television nowdays can hardly be called educational. All those talk shows and soap operas we can see every day are completely waste of time and can even have negative effects by distracting young and undisciplined people from their studies. Moreother, the most of so called educational programms like National Geographic can not replace books and academic lectures because they tend to entertain people and have not an aim to give deep and concentrated knowledge.

Hovewer, TV can be a powerful mean of delivering information and a nice part of learning process. Educational methodists have proved that the more senses are involved at the time of studying, the more effective result can be achieved. Television produce both picture and sound, so its usefulness is obvious. Many teachers already use this advantage actively by showing to students videocassetes which go as supplimentary material to many language courses. So why not to broadcast such movies through television?

The problem of ineffectiveness of television as educational tool is in fact not a problem of television itself, but of people who decide the content of particular channel. It is hardly unlikely that content directors would abandon their high profits and change talk shows to lectures and video-lessons. Therefore, those, who insist on TVs uselessness maybe right, but let us not forget that as technology improves new cheap ways of broadcasting appear, for instance video podcasts. They can prove exclusive power of such learning tool as television.

Some people think children are more successful in foreign language studies than adults. Discuss.

The viewpoint that children are better learners became almost a common sense, although it is not always true in terms of learning foreign languages. When it comes to make an approach to, for example, Japanese or French, adults have proven themselves superior learners because of their experience of getting knowledge of their own language and their performance is generally better motivated.Every adult have some amount of education it their past and it mean he has already received general understanding of the structure of native language. Thus, this more or less categorized base usually serves as a template for foreign grammar or vocabulary. Person only has to place new material on certain shelves in his memory and operate them like it their own language.

Children, in contrast, are usually confused by any grammar, even of their country. Bringing foreign language to curriculum adds embarrassment because they do not have sufficient understanding of grammatical of semantic categories and can not bring to order such huge amounts of information.Grown-ups also appear to be more enthusiastic about language studies. As a matter of fact, this skill for them is a tool that can be used to achieve career goals. Obviously, more motivated individual do better, and even if his abilities are modest, through practice success can come very fast and lot of success stories can prove it. Kids, though, usually consider second language lessons as a fun or, otherwise, something boring and, even if they tend to absorb knowledge like sponges, without use it rapidly disappears. With no proper encouragement youngsters just do not know they have to practice new words and grammar in order not to forget them.Thus, while it would not be mistake to suggest children are naturally better learners, let us not forget that adults are usually better suited to language studies.

Some people think high school graduates should travel or work for a period oftime instead of going directly to study at university.Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches.Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.You should write at least 250 words.

There is a considerable controversy about what young people should do after receiving graduation certificate of high school. The majority holds the viewpoint that obtaining an university degree immediately after school is the only option to become successful and established person. Others, however, tend to disagree; in their opinion after finishing school individual should receive an opportunity to see the world or try his skills on job.On the one hand, basic knowledge, came into posession of a pupil at school should be preserved and receive futher development at university. Human brain forgets facts rapidly, espessially those, which are not in use. In the case of making a long pause between graduation from school and enrolling to an university, person may become unable to pass admission exams.On the other hand, on job training may provide an opportunity of receiving experience and choosing career before deciding the sphere, in which student wants to obtain higher education. For instance, young person can try his skills of management, working as an assistant manager in a small shop. In addition, that could also help him to understand if this work is really what he desires and prevent from making an expensive mistake of choosing wrong major.Another option of understanding someone’s needs is travelling. This is a perfect way to see the world and different professions in use. Person, who have never been in rural areas could be charmed, for example, by romantism of cheesemaking and come to decision to make genuine milk products all his life.To sum up, there are some ways different from the standart scheme of going to university right after school and they should not be overlooked. Personally I think that whichever option person chooses, time before university should not be wasted on entertainment or parties. It is essential to use it wisely, thinking about the future.

The age of Information Technology has taken a lot of people by surprise. While it has become a way of life for some, others know very little about it and may be unlikely to learn. Eventually we will have a polarised society and this will lead to serious social problems.To what extent do you agree with this statement?

Our highly informatized era became quite a shock for many of us. At the time one part of society uses new means of information very actively, other people stay in the dark without any chance to make an approach to understanding new technologies. There is a raising awareness of does this problem have a potential danger of slicing the society into two parts which would never understand each other.It is the fact that many of everyday activities became available for computer users only. For example, if you are a university student, you are supposed to submit your term paper as typed and printed document, they no longer accept hand-written papers. Furthermore, some manufacturers do not distribute information leaflets, but give a website address on their products’ packs, thus only the Internet users can have an access for product details. The last but not the least, the computer skills became a crucial requirement for employment in urban areas.Meanwhile, inhabitants of rural areas do not need new means of acquiring information. Their work and everyday activities do not demand using computers. For example, a farmer can use radio to hear news and ordinary mail to communicate.Taking into account the fact not every citizen can use new information technologies, governments would not change the traditional ways of interaction with their people. It is highly unlikely people would no longer have a possibility to vote by filling papers by hand or do other activities, important for their citizenship.Informatization of society affected those, who have a need of instant information exchange. People, whose lifestyle do not require any haste in communication have an opportunity to use traditional ways of it. I am assured that as long as situation does not make others to change their way of life against their will, there is no risk of receiving serious social problems.

What’s the best way to help poor countries?Posted by Webmaster – June 13, 2011

Many poor countries receive financial help from richer nations, but poverty is still a problem. Should we give other kinds of help to developing countries in order to eliminate poverty? What other kinds of help can we give, or is money sufficient?

There is a saying that the poor will always be with us, and it sometimes seems that despite years of poor countries being helped financially, the need is just as great as ever. Where has all our foreign aid gone? Why has it not helped? In this essay I will discuss whether we need to reconsider the types of aid we give to poorer countries.

There are many different forms of development aid. When we hear about earthquakes or floods, it’s natural that we rush to our cupboards to look for blankets, clothes, and tins of food. These pile up outside collection depots in our country and cost a fortune to ship to the suffering country, where they clog up warehouses for months and often end up on the black market or make local food or clothing businesses unprofitable. Another form of aid is military aid. We generously sell our planes or tanks to our friends in developing countries, or even give them loans to buy our stuff. Since these countries have frequent wars or need to keep down their own population, it’s a good business, for us. A third type of aid is human expertise. We send consultants and economists, engineers and academics, trainers and managers. They drive around in imported four-wheel drives and live in expensive, secure villas, eating imported food.

Of course, financial aid is not perfect either. Too often, our money disappears into the pockets of ministers and generals and their friends, never reaching the needy. However, the right amount of money, given to the right people in the right way, can do more than our jet fighters, expensive generators, and bags of expired pasta can. Money moves quickly: it does not need trucks or petrol or airlifts. It stimulates local business and allows the people to make their own choices about what to buy and what the most urgent needs are, short and long term. If correctly distributed, money gives people independence. Yes, teach people to fish and you teach them for a lifetime, but give them some money, and they can set up a fish canning factory or a shrimp farm, employing and feeding hundreds.

In summary then, money is still a good way to help other people. Of course, it cannot be thrown at the problem, but without cash, every other form of aid is useless. In our blessed, comfortable lives, we cannot function without money – why should we expect the less fortunate to do so?

Essays by Topic

All the essays on this site. Some are listed in more than one topic.

Culture Are we becoming more independent? Do we need so many languages? (long) Do we need so many languages? (short) Effects of ageing on society (long) Effects of ageing on society (short) Government spending on art More sports & fitness centers? Should foreigners pay more? (long) Should foreigners pay more? (short) Travel and international understanding University: Theory or Practice?

Economy Do foreign workers benefit the host country? (long) Do foreign workers benefit the host country? (short) Do we need so many languages? (short) Does cheap air travel damage the environment? Does tourism benefit a country? Effects of ageing on society (long) Effects of ageing on society (short) Should college be free?

Should foreigners pay more? (short) Universities and rural areas (long) What's the best way to help poor countries?

Education Children: Cooperate or Compete? Effects of ageing on society (short) Is emigration bad for a country? More sports & fitness centers? Should boys and girls study together? Should college be free? Universities and rural areas (long) Universities and rural areas (short) University: Theory or Practice?

Environment Are we becoming more independent? Children: Cooperate or Compete? Do foreign workers benefit the host country? (long) Do foreign workers benefit the host country? (short) Do we need so many languages? (long) Do we need so many languages? (short) Does cheap air travel damage the environment? Does tourism benefit a country? Effects of ageing on society (long) Effects of ageing on society (short) Government spending on art Is emigration bad for a country? More sports & fitness centers? New developments in agriculture (long) New developments in agriculture (short) Protecting the Environment Should boys and girls study together? Should college be free? Should dangerous sports such as motor-racing or boxing be banned? Should foreigners pay more? (long) Should foreigners pay more? (short) Traffic: What can we do? Travel and international understanding Universities and rural areas (long) Universities and rural areas (short) University: Theory or Practice? What's the best way to help poor countries?

Families and Children Are we becoming more independent? Children: Cooperate or Compete? Effects of ageing on society (long) Effects of ageing on society (short)

Science and Technology New developments in agriculture (long) New developments in agriculture (short) Traffic: What can we do?

Society Are we becoming more independent? Children: Cooperate or Compete? Do foreign workers benefit the host country? (long) Do foreign workers benefit the host country? (short) Do we need so many languages? (long) Do we need so many languages? (short) Does cheap air travel damage the environment? Does tourism benefit a country? Effects of ageing on society (long) Effects of ageing on society (short) Government spending on art Is emigration bad for a country? New developments in agriculture (long) Protecting the Environment Should boys and girls study together? Should college be free? Should dangerous sports such as motor-racing or boxing be banned? Traffic: What can we do? University: Theory or Practice?

Sports and Leisure Does cheap air travel damage the environment? Does tourism benefit a country? More sports & fitness centers? Should dangerous sports such as motor-racing or boxing be banned? Should foreigners pay more? (long)

Travel Does cheap air travel damage the environment? Should foreigners pay more? (long) Should foreigners pay more? (short) Traffic: What can we do? Travel and international understanding

Work Do foreign workers benefit the host country? (long) Do foreign workers benefit the host country? (short) Effects of ageing on society (long) Is emigration bad for a country? Traffic: What can we do?

Are we becoming more independent? Posted by Webmaster – May 3, 2011

People in the past used to be more dependent on one another, whereas nowadays they lead a more independent life. Do you agree or disagree?

Some people fear that modern life is damaging our relationships with friends and family and resulting in more loneliness and isolation. However, others believe that we are now more interdependent than ever. In this essay, I will examine whether our lives are really more independent than in the past.

It’s easy to see a trend towards increasing independence. First of all, traditional families are in decline. People increasingly do not live in large, extended families, and more and more people live alone. Secondly, people move more, for work or other opportunities, and change jobs more frequently. As a result, friendships and links with family may not last. A third issue is that traditional values of consensus, obedience to authority and respect for elders are changing. They are being replaced by individualism, materialism and self-help philosophies.

However, there are also many things which haven’t changed. Deep down, human nature still seeks affection, advice and support from others. Even if people are physically separated because of work or other commitments, they still seek out the help and companionship of others. A second point is that new methods of communication allow us to keep in touch easily. Facebook, Skype, email, mobile phones and messaging allow very quick and inexpensive communication and feedback. Furthermore, although people may not depend on family as much as in the past, colleagues and professional and social networks can provide even better interaction.

In conclusion, I would say that although it appears that some traditional patterns of support have diminished, people are still intensely social and we are learning new ways to live in groups. Who knows? Some of these may serve us better!

Do we need so many languages? (long)

Posted by Webmaster – June 11, 2011

Many languages are disappearing every year. Is this a bad thing, or could having fewer languages help bring people together?

The world appears to be moving towards a smaller number of languages such as English, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese or Hindi, each with millions or billions of speakers. Unfortunately this means that smaller languages are in danger of disappearing. Some people fear the loss of culture and identity, while others believe a world with easier communication would be a better place. In this essay, I will discuss the dangers of both outcomes.

We are indeed losing a lot of languages. One language expert estimates that 60%-80% of all languages will disappear in 100 years, just three generations from now. This is a major loss. First of all, the way that people think is to a certain degree rooted in their first languages. A community’s language is bound up with its way of life, culture, religious beliefs and identity. A second point is the loss of diversity: different languages can contribute to different ways of looking at and solving human problems. Thirdly, fewer languages does not necessarily mean better communication: it could even mean a dangerous situation with billions of people fighting against each other, rather than smaller groups as in the past. This could be the most important drawback: as more people speak one language, it becomes easier for billions to be influenced by shallow media or aggressive politicians.

However, there might be a lot to be gained from having fewer languages and greater communication. First of all is today’s practical problem of translation: business is more

difficult, travel is more complicated, and misunderstandings arise. Another current problem is marginalization: communities who do not speak a major world language fall behind in science and technology and their economies suffer. Third, having fewer languages might mean more shared ideas. Global collaboration could happen instantly rather than taking years. And finally, although some people are afraid of the loss of culture or identity, it seems that good ideas can survive. We don’t speak Latin or classical Greek anymore, but the ideas and values of the people who spoke those languages are still with us.

In conclusion, it seems inevitable that some languages will disappear: like animals or plants, they need a specific habitat and can be squeezed out by stronger competitors. The answer is not to hide and isolate ourselves but to be confident about our identity in whatever language we speak.

Do we need so many languages? (short)

Posted by Webmaster – June 11, 2011


Will we all think the same way in future? Or will countries communicate better? In this essay I will look at a future with fewer languages.

Many people worry about threats to their native language. They think they will lose their identity, and fear losing their culture, or even their religion. They worry that we will lose diversity and instead begin to think and act in the same way worldwide. Some even worry about the increased danger of conflict in a world with just five or six major languages.

However, this is too simplistic. It is true that many languages have disappeared and will disappear. But it’s important to remember that languages are alive, not static. English people do not talk like Shakespeare, and Greeks do not talk like Aristotle. Arabic changes, and so do Mandarin and Thai. New languages are developing right now. Second, even if a language changes, ideas remain. Not many Europeans speak Arabic today, but six hundred years ago it was the language of science. No one speaks Latin or ancient Greek, but the ideas of their philosophers still survive. Third, sharing a language is no guarantee against war. Many countries have vicious civil wars where both sides share a language.

In conclusion, our native language is one way of expressing our ideas and worldview. If it’s useful, we should use it, but we should also realize that our identity and potential is not limited to the geographical accident of our birthplace and native language. What’s more important is that we learn to think, reflect, and genuinely communicate with others, regardless of what languages we use.

Effects of ageing on society (long) Posted by Webmaster – June 5, 2011

In countries such as Japan, the population is getting older. Are the effects of an ageing population positive or negative?

In many countries such as Japan or Russia, the average age of the population is becoming older. Most people think this has a negative effect on a society, but it can also provide some opportunities. In this essay, I will look at some effects of ageing on a country.

When a population gets older, many roles in the society change. First of all, there may be fewer young people to take care of older parents or family. This may cause a breakdown in family relationships. It can also mean that older people need care in nursing homes. There is also an effect on work. Older workers may not want to do hard physical work or to work in poorly paid jobs. This may cause a shortage of workers and the country may have to import foreign workers for these positions. A third effect is on government

spending. Instead of spending on schools and colleges, healthcare may become a priority to treat diseases such as cancer, diabetes or heart conditions.

However, not all the effects have to be negative. Although some people claim that older people do not have new ideas, older employees can be extremely productive and efficient and this can help companies to succeed. There may be less crime in the society, since there may be less competition for jobs or other needs. Some people worry that an older society will be more conservative and will be focused on the past. However, this could also mean a more compassionate society which is less focused on material things. Another possible outcome of an ageing society is that there may be people to take care of young children. In addition, children might have a better education if schools and colleges were not as crowded.

In conclusion it’s probably better for a society to have a good equilibrium in which all age groups are balanced. However, we need to be ready for demographic changes in order to provide our citizens, young or old, with the best opportunities.

Effects of ageing on society (short) Posted by Webmaster – June 5, 2011


In many countries, the population is getting older. Some people believe that this has negative effects. Other people think it can be positive. In this essay, I will look at the positive and negative impact of ageing.

It is true that there are some disadvantages to an older population. First of all, there may not be enough people to work. The economy will decrease, and the government will have to bring in foreign workers. A second reason is that there will not be enough young people to look after the old people. They might have to go to special homes for old people. A third point is that older people don’t buy many things or spend a lot of money. This will also reduce the economy.

However, there are some advantages to having a lot of older people. First, they have a lot of experience in life and in work. A company with experienced employees will be successful. Older people may also have good viewpoints on life and society and will get on well with others. Another advantage is that old people can teach their grandchildren well. In addition, the schools will not be crowded, and there may be less crime. Older people do not usually steal or fight, and there will also be fewer accidents because they drive more carefully.

In conclusion, older people can contribute extensively to society. However it is best if the society has a balance between the energy of young people and the experience and wisdom of the old

Government spending on art Posted by Webmaster – April 26, 2011

Some people think that government should support painters, poets, musicians, and other artists financially. Others argue that money should be spent on other, more important, issues. Do you agree or disagree?

Most people like paintings, music, poetry and other forms of art. However, a lot of people also think that governments have more urgent priorities such as housing, hospitals, defense, or water. In this essay, I will discuss whether art should be included in our national budget.

When drawing up its budget, a government has to make tough decisions. First of all, there are basic requirements such as shelter, health, and the protection of the country’s citizens. People need food, medical care, and education before they need music or statues. Secondly, governments tend to focus on short-term needs. They often fail to

consider what future generations would need or like to see, and as a result, they minimize spending on museums, galleries or architecture. Another point is that individual politicians may not be very interested in art. They may prefer to spend money on things that will get them re-elected, such as roads or schools.

However, excluding art is a mistake. First, even in tough times, people need music, songs, color, dance, design and other forms of art. These allow people to express themselves and release social and political tension. Furthermore, to include beauty in the design of a building or even a city does not add much to the cost. For a slightly higher cost, even a hospital or a school can be beautiful. Additionally, painting, music, poetry or dance can actually serve a government by expressing a national identity or by attracting tourism.

In conclusion, we should always try to keep some beauty in our life, even if money is tight. If we close off all means of expression, we risk problems for ourselves and our societies.

More sports & fitness centers? Posted by Webmaster – June 6, 2011

Would the availability of more sports facilities lead to better public health? It would seem obvious that providing more sports facilities would lead to increased fitness

and better health among the population. However, there are also several reasons why public health might not improve. In this essay, I will explain why access to sports facilities may not be sufficient to improve our health.

More gyms, stadiums, and fitness centers would certainly be a good thing. First of all, people will not use sports facilities if they are not convenient. After a long day working or taking care of a family, nobody wants to spend a long time driving or commuting to a gym or to swim or play tennis. The closer the facility, the more likely people are to use it. Secondly, having facilities in neighborhoods will encourage friends and families to exercise or play sport together. Playing a sport or getting fit can be more enjoyable with people you know. A third point is that just having sports centers available increases awareness of fitness and health, and this can motivate and encourage people who might not normally use them to join.

However, just having more sports facilities may not be enough. First, the facilities may be too expensive, both to use and to build. Massive stadiums costing governments hundreds of millions of dollars may only serve a few people, and ordinary people may not be able to afford gym or spa fees. Another issue is the need to support people with training, diets, professional sports coaching and goal-setting. Without good organization and professional staffing, many people may visit sports facilities just a few times and give up or do something else more fun. However, the most important thing is changing the mindset of people. Children do what their parents do, and parents do what their friends do. If they are not interested in fitness or sports, the facilities will be underused and a waste of money. Until money is spent on education, people may prefer to play computer games or sit around eating unhealthy food, drinking and smoking.

In conclusion, while I think every school, village and town needs sports facilities, I don’t think that real change can result from just building more sports centers. We need a two-pronged approach which motivates us and our children to become more active and which is affordable and accessible

Should foreigners pay more? (long)Posted by Webmaster – June 7, 2011

http://writefix.com/blog/?author=1

In many places, foreign visitors are charged more than locals when they visit cultural or tourist attractions. Do you agree or disagree with this?

To visit the beautiful and remote mountain kingdom of Bhutan, foreigners (everyone without a Bhutanese or an Indian passport) have to pay up to $240 a day. This is an extreme example of charging visitors more than locals, but the country has many valid reasons for this policy. In this essay, I will say why I generally agree with foreigners paying more to visit cultural or historical sites.

It’s easy to see why some foreign visitors resent being charged more. First of all, nobody likes to pay more than other people for the same thing. It’s irritating to know that the person beside you in a queue or at a tourist attraction has paid much less just because of his or her nationality. A second annoying point is that you often don’t get any better service just because you have paid more to enter a historical site or entertainment venue. In fact, the place is often overcrowded with locals and your visit can suffer. Furthermore, knowing that you as a foreign visitor are paying more often makes you bad-tempered and therefore less likely to enjoy the experience. Finally, some think that places such as Cambodia’s Angkor Wat or Ireland’s Cliffs of Moher are world cultural or natural treasures and should be open to everyone. They are not the property of some money-grabbing ministry.

However, there are good reasons why overseas visitors should pay more. For one thing, foreign tourism is still a privilege of the well-off. Why should countries not charge rich visitors as much as the market will bear? Nobody is forced to visit these places. Second, the attraction or cultural site is part of the local community’s history and heritage. They should not have to pay to learn about their own history. A third point is that it is extremely expensive to maintain places like Istanbul’s Topkapi palace. Tourists who may be visiting once in a lifetime can and should contribute to the cost of maintenance. In fact, this is the most important point: if you have dreamed all your life of visiting Peru’s Machu Picchu or China’s Terracotta Army then surely you are ready to spend a little more for this experience.

In conclusion, we need to put things in perspective. The admission fees rarely add much to the cost of our visit, compared to hotels or travel, and we as foreign travelers help maintain and preserve the site for the locals and for future generations.

Should foreigners pay more? (short)Posted by Webmaster – June 11, 2011


Tourist attractions often have two admission prices: one for locals or residents, and one for foreigners or visitors from far away. Some see this as discrimination, while others accept it as being fair. In this essay I will say why I think it is reasonable for foreign visitors to pay more.

I don’t think locals should pay the same as foreign tourists. For one thing, a historical attraction in my country is part of my heritage. My ancestors built it, and I should have free or cheap access so I can know my history. Second, let’s face it : most tourists are rich - or at least richer than us locals. If they can afford to fly from Australia or China to see a castle or a rare animal, than they can pay a few dollars more. In addition, I pay taxes in my country, so I have already paid a lot more from my salary than the foreign tourist who is only here for a few days.

I think foreigners should pay more for several reasons. First of all, it raises money to maintain the attraction. The higher admission fees from foreigners are important in Egypt or Mexico to

preserve world-class historical sites. Secondly, tourists pay far more for their flights, hotels, and cocktails. A few dollars extra to visit a museum is nothing. Third, most tourists only visit the attraction once in their lives. Who is not prepared to pay a little extra for a special occasion?

To sum up, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to pay a little extra when I am in a new country, and vice versa. In fact, I’ve already started to save for my next trip!

Travel and international understandingPosted by Webmaster – May 17, 2011

Does travel help to promote understanding and communication between countries?

Most people would agree that travel broadens the mind. Surely, visiting new places and meeting new people helps us to understand how others live? However, the history of travel has taught us that many misunderstandings and tragedies can occur when different societies meet. In this essay, I will discuss whether travel contributes to mutual respect and understanding.

The issue is probably not travel itself, but the purpose of travel. There are many motivations for travel. It can be to learn, as in a religious pilgrimage, a personal journey, or an expedition. Millions of Muslims meet on Haj each year, and are reminded of the scale and diversity of the faith. Exploration of remote jungles or islands has given us an appreciation of cultures very different from ours. Even the modern traveler, flying in hours from China to Australia or from France to Thailand, glimpses different ways of life and different histories.

However, travel is not always so innocent. Trade, for example, can begin as an equal exchange of crafts or commodities between small groups of traders, but it can also become the basis for massive exploitation, colonization or even extermination. If one group believes its cultural values, religion, or society are superior to the other’s, then friction or resentment can grow into conflict. And too often, travel is undertaken with no desire to meet or learn from the host country’s people: it is simply a change of scene or temperature. Such travel actually sets out to minimize all contact with the culture of the host country and instead surrounds itself with the food, drink and entertainment of its own.

In conclusion, while it might seem that travel can contribute to understanding, it depends on the intention of the traveler and the attitude of the host. Just because travel is easier than ever before does not mean we should bring our prejudices with us on the plane.

University: Theory or Practice?Posted by Webmaster – May 9, 2011

Theoretical subjects such as mathematics, philosophy and economics should be removed from university curricula and replaced with practical subjects such as computer programming and engineering. Do you agree or disagree?

The question of what should or should not be on a university syllabus has always been a contentious one. But suggesting that we make simplistic choices such as removing philosophy and replacing it with engineering is simply ridiculous. In this essay, I will explain why we need to think carefully about forcing our youth into certain college courses.

First of all, universities are not just training centers for companies. Of course the university must remain in contact with the ‘real’ world and provide courses that can be applied to ‘real’ world problems. However, this does not mean that the university’s only function is to provide cheap job-ready recruits for corporations. The real world is not a simple place: it is a multi-dimensional, interwoven web of interests, realities, perspectives and complex social interactions. Perhaps engineers can build a bridge, but they cannot do it by themselves. They need to be politicians, communicators, visionaries, designers, accountants, leaders, and problem-solvers. Similarly philosophers or economists cannot dwell in the clouds concocting grandiose theories: they need to be communicators, writers, breadwinners, accountants, cooks and baby-sitters. We all live in worlds where practice and theory constantly intersect, and our choices of course in college do not mean we are less practical or more theoretical. They simply reflect an area of our interest at a particular point in time.

A second reason why colleges should offer a wide range of courses is in response to market demands. Many colleges depend on tuition fees, and if people want to pay for doctorates in divinity or diplomas in dog-grooming, then the college should respond to this and provide the best courses possible.

Thirdly, imagine a world full of engineers, or philosophers, or food scientists, or economists. Clearly civilization would come to a halt, as would conversation. From time to time gaps will arise in the job market because of new economic or population trends, and colleges will need to produce more doctors, business graduates or nurses, but overall, a healthy society will have a healthy range of courses for its people to maximize its human potential.

However, the most important reason is that people are immensely versatile. An engineer can be a philosopher, and a cook can be an physicist, or a musician, or a day-trader. There is no need to pigeon-hole people and put artificial restrictions on their activities. College should be an opportunity to explore and to connect with the world, rather than a joyless initiation into a lifetime of work. In a world that is changing faster than ever before, we need to forget simplistic distinctions and instead prepare ourselves for a rich, varied lifetime full of opportunities and wonder.

Do foreign workers benefit the host country? (long)Posted by Webmaster – April 10, 2011

In many countries, foreign labor is an important part of the economy. Using migrant labor can contribute to the development of a country, but it can also cause economic problems. What are some of the advantages and drawbacks of expatriate labor for a country’s economy?

The development of countries such as Singapore, Brunei, the Gulf countries, and even the US has been helped greatly by millions of foreign workers. While foreign workers are cheap and quick, they can also cause problems for the economy of the country. In this essay I will look at some of the problems caused by an expatriate workforce and suggest that we need a balanced approach to employing foreign workers.

There are many obvious advantages to using foreign labor. First of all, they are usually cheap. Workers from Bangladesh, India or the Philippines are happy to work for salaries which are high in comparison to their home countries but low in the host country. Foreign workers are also ready to work in remote places or at times when local workers would not. A second point is that foreign workers are usually job-ready. They do not need expensive college education or training. They may have skills not available in the new country. A third point is that many migrant workers are

ready to work in jobs that are too dirty or dangerous for nationals such as construction or cleaning. All these advantages mean that the economy is boosted by cheap labor and low production costs.

However, there are hidden costs to the economy of the country. One major drawback is that the workers are sending a lot of money home, instead of spending it. This results in a loss of foreign exchange for the country. Another point is that they may take jobs from locals. More importantly, they reduce the salaries for some jobs. For example, employers will pay very low salaries for some jobs which some locals might like to do but could not survive on. Security is another issue. Foreign workers can leave at any time if there is a political or other problem, and this can mean a sudden loss of skills and experience. An additional point is that the influx of foreign workers can put pressure on services such as hospitals or housing, and these costs have to be paid by the state, not the employers who are getting rich. All these factors can result in economic problems for the government.

In conclusion it’s important to have some control over the use of foreign workers, and to make sure that using them does not disrupt the labor market for local workers. One way is to pay them higher salaries and give them full protection. Countries should seek to employ their own citizens first before turning outside and depending on foreign labor.

Do foreign workers benefit the host country? (short)Posted by Webmaster – April 11, 2011

In many countries, foreign labour is an important part of the economy. What are some of the benefits and disadvantages for the economy of having workers from outside the country?

In many countries such as the USA, Singapore and many Gulf countries, foreign workers make up a large part of the labour force. However, there is some debate about the advantages of this for the economy of the country. In this essay, I will look at some of the arguments in favour of foreign labour and discuss some of the negative effects it can have.

There are several advantages to foreign labour. First of all, foreign labour is almost always cheap. Workers and economic migrants are attracted to countries with strong economies because they gcan earn higher salaries than at home. This means that the host country can get a good supply of cheap labour and this will make it more competitive and increase profits. Second, foreign workers are already trained. There is no need to wait years to train them in college or on the job. This also saves a lot of money and means that projects can be completed rapidly. A third point is that foreign workers are prepared to do jobs that local people do not want to do, such as work in remote areas or do dangerous or dirty jobs. These often include jobs in construction or in jobs with anti-social hours such as hotels. All of these mean that companies can provide a wide range of services at lower costs.

However, there are also hidden costs to hiring foreign labour. First of all, foreign workers may not be loyal to a company. This means they may change job often or leave the country quickly if there is a problem, such as happened recently in Libya. Secondly, they may create a lack of employment opportunities among locals. Employers may not want to give locals high salaries if they can employ expatriates more cheaply. A third problem is that they lower wages for certain jobs. Jobs which are attractive in some countries such as construction become very lowly paid if they employ mostly foreign workers. These factors may cause serious problems and imbalances in the host economy, such as too many locals in the government or public sector. A further point

is that some expatriate labour is not really cheap, since it may be less effective or their skills may not transfer well to the new country.

In conclusion, it’s a difficult balance between finding workers at the right price and developing a strong and diversified economy with good employment opportunities for all. Countries have to decide between protecting their own workforce and creating a competitive environment for business.

Do we need so many languages? (short)Posted by Webmaster – June 11, 2011






Does cheap air travel damage the environment?Posted by Webmaster – April 19, 2011

Some people say cheap air travel is good because it enables ordinary people to travel, while others argue that it is bad for the environment. Discuss both views, and include your opinion.

In the past air travel was only for the elite – the rich, the powerful, the privileged. Today, hundreds of millions of people are able to travel around the world for work or pleasure. As Air Asia’s slogan puts it: “Now everyone can fly.” However, the price to be paid for this easier travel

may be damage to the environment. In this essay, I will examine some of the arguments for and against cheap air travel.

There are plenty of accusations against cheap flights. Critics of budget air travel claim that the emissions from jet fuel are damaging the atmosphere. This is particularly serious at the higher levels of the atmosphere where modern jets fly. A single short flight from Dubai to Mumbai can produce as much carbon dioxide as one month’s driving for a family. The environmental cost continues when the tourists land, as hotels, leisure and other facilities are very significant polluters and consume a lot of resources. A third point of course is that this travel is mostly ‘unnecessary’ and people would simply stay at home if the flights were not so cheap.

However, the proponents of cheap air travel, such as Ireland’s Michael O’Leary, have their own powerful counterclaims. First, they reject the allegation that jets contribute significantly to global warming. They point out that modern jets are much quieter and much more fuel-efficient than in the past. Secondly, many countries already have carbon taxes or levies included in the price of the airline ticket or aviation fuel. This can offset the carbon produced during the flight. In addition, most of the arguments against cheap flights are based on the belief that it is acceptable for certain people to fly, but not for ordinary people. In other words, the wealthy or powerful would like to deprive ordinary people of the right to travel, to see new places and meet new people.

In conclusion, cheap air travel is not a clear-cut issue, but a political, economic and environmental minefield. In my opinion, everyone should have the opportunity to travel, but we do need some monitoring of the effect on the environment, both in the air and on the ground.

Does tourism benefit a country?Posted by Webmaster – April 19, 2011

Tourism is big business. However, are there hidden costs, and does tourism always benefit a country?

Every year, millions of people travel to other countries for vacations, spending billions of dollars. This tourism can create jobs and improve lives, or it can lead to problems. In this essay, I will describe some of the effects of tourism and say why I think it is useful.

Tourism can have some benefits. One advantage is that it creates jobs. Work is available in hotels, restaurants, travel businesses, taxis, entertainment centers resorts and many other places which serve tourists. Secondly, tourism can increase awareness of culture. Foreigners who visit the UAE can learn about the Emirati culture and tradition and religion, and vice versa. Finally, tourism can lead to a better environment. The government will clean the streets and try to reduce pollution.

However, tourism can lead to many problems. First of all the income from tourism is not reliable. For example, last month in Egypt, there were some political problems, and suddenly it affected the tourism dramatically, which is very important for the economy. A second point is that the jobs from tourism are poorly paid. People working as waiters or cleaners do not receive high salaries. However, the most important point is that tourism can lead to problems such as lack of respect for the local culture, or even problems such as alcohol or prostitution.

In conclusion, tourism can have good or bad effects on the environment, the economy or even the culture. In my opinion people should enjoy travelling and visiting new places, but they should be careful to respect the local people and places.

Effects of ageing on society (long)Posted by Webmaster – June 5, 2011



When a population gets older, many roles in the society change. First of all, there may be fewer young people to take care of older parents or family. This may cause a breakdown in family relationships. It can also mean that older people need care in nursing homes. There is also an effect on work. Older workers may not want to do hard physical work or to work in poorly paid jobs. This may cause a shortage of workers and the country may have to import foreign workers for these positions. A third effect is on government spending. Instead of spending on schools and colleges, healthcare may become a priority to treat diseases such as cancer, diabetes or heart conditions.



Effects of ageing on society (short)Posted by Webmaster – June 5, 2011




However, there are some advantages to having a lot of older people. First, they have a lot of experience in life and in work. A company with experienced employees will be successful. Older

people may also have good viewpoints on life and society and will get on well with others. Another advantage is that old people can teach their grandchildren well. In addition, the schools will not be crowded, and there may be less crime. Older people do not usually steal or fight, and there will also be fewer accidents because they drive more carefully.

In conclusion, older people can contribute extensively to society. However it is best if the society has a balance between the energy of young people and the experience and wisdom of the old.

Should college be free?Posted by Webmaster – May 8, 2011

Should college education be free, or should university students be required to pay tuition fees?

Some countries have free education from kindergarten to university, while students in other countries have to pay at every step of the way. This essay will look at some of the reasons for this difference at university level.

Free third level education has several advantages. First of all, everyone can attend, so the gap between rich and poor students decreases as poorer students have more opportunity. The economy also benefits from the increased pool of highly educated labor. An educated workforce attracts employers and foreign investment. Socially, a more educated population should have more choices regarding nutrition, jobs and lifestyle. An additional point is that university fees only contribute a small proportion of the university budget.

However, some people are opposed to free education. First of all, through their taxes, poor families subsidize rich students who can easily afford to pay fees. A second point is that spending government money on free education is often not possible or desirable when a country needs hospitals, roads, and primary or secondary schools. A third point is that a university education is a choice, not a requirement. People who finish college with advanced qualifications are going to earn large salaries and can easily afford to pay back loans. Furthermore, when people get something for free, they often do not value it. If college is free, many students will go there just because they cannot think of anything else to do.

In conclusion, free third level education is not always a good thing. Governments need to think carefully about their policies and ensure that they are using their resources to help all the people in the country equitably.




I don’t think locals should pay the same as foreign tourists. For one thing, a historical attraction in my country is part of my heritage. My ancestors built it, and I should have free or cheap access

so I can know my history. Second, let’s face it : most tourists are rich - or at least richer than us locals. If they can afford to fly from Australia or China to see a castle or a rare animal, than they can pay a few dollars more. In addition, I pay taxes in my country, so I have already paid a lot more from my salary than the foreign tourist who is only here for a few days.

I think foreigners should pay more for several reasons. First of all, it raises money to maintain the attraction. The higher admission fees from foreigners are important in Egypt or Mexico to preserve world-class historical sites. Secondly, tourists pay far more for their flights, hotels, and cocktails. A few dollars extra to visit a museum is nothing. Third, most tourists only visit the attraction once in their lives. Who is not prepared to pay a little extra for a special occasion?


Universities and rural areas (long)Posted by Webmaster – May 16, 2011

Not many young people living in rural areas have access to university education. Universities should make it easier for people from rural areas. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Now that the majority of the world’s population live in cities, it’s easy to forget that millions still live in the countryside, far from most of the world’s prestigious schools and colleges. In this essay, I will suggest how universities can make it easier for students living far from cities to receive a good education.

It’s not necessarily a good thing for colleges to open physical campuses in rural areas. First of all, land costs money, and building labs, libraries and research units is eye-wateringly expensive. Secondly there is the problem of staff. Not all university staff will be able or will want to relocate to small towns or villages far from their colleagues. A third issue is inefficiency. A tiny campus in a rural area may only serve a few hundred students, compared to extensive facilities for thousands of students in a city. In addition, students in a small campus may miss the interaction and atmosphere of a larger city university.

However, there are many ways to facilitate third level education outside the cities. For one thing, there are many technological solutions. Radio and television have long been used to extend the reach of education, and now almost all bricks-and-mortar universities offer some form of distance education via email or the internet. These are not perfect solutions, but they can work well. Another approach is to offer beginner-level courses in rural campuses and then require students to transfer for their final years. Yet another approach is specialization, where particular departments or faculties disperse across the country, perhaps with agriculture in one province and engineering in another. However, a very important point is to offer scholarships and to have special entry requirements or quotas for students from rural areas. Many people in the countryside may lack the financial resources to live in cities and pay high tuition fees.

In conclusion, many universities nowadays welcome diversity and equality in their policies and student bodies. It’s important for them to also make sure that students from rural areas also get the best education they can.

You can find a shorter version of this essay (241 words, compared to 343 for this one) here.







Children: Cooperate or Compete?Posted by Webmaster – April 24, 2011

Some people think that a sense of competition in children should be encouraged. Others believe that children who are taught to co-operate rather than compete become more useful adults. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Some people view the world as a competitive place, and push their children to win. Others, however, value cooperation, and encourage their children to share, play and work together. In this essay, I will ask if winning always means that the other person loses, and whether teaching our children to win is the best preparation for life.

Competition is undoubtedly good. First of all, it pushes us to do well, both as children and adults. Our physical limits are tested in competitive sports. Competition in business helps companies to produce new products and services, and competition in politics ensures that different opinions get heard and represented. For children, learning to compete is good preparation for the world. A second point is that competition does not just mean winning: children have to learn to lose well and to learn from their mistakes. In addition, competition does not just mean success for the individual. When competing as part of a team children learn the need to share and cooperate.

However, a focus on competitiveness is not always beneficial for children. To begin with, very young children are naturally egocentric. As a result, they have to learn that there are others around them. Children have to be taught the skills of cooperation and sharing. A further point is that by learning to cooperate and work in teams, children learn to share responsibility when things go badly as well as when they go well. Finally, in our highly-interdependent knowledge society, very few breakthroughs happen as a result of one person’s work or ideas. No matter how brilliant an individual is, his or her work is the result of working in a team or a community. In fact, many people now believe that all learning is social, rather than individual.

In conclusion, it is almost impossible to separate these two strands of our lives. We are individuals but we are also social. In his book “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,” Steven Covey suggests we need to develop a “win-win” attitude. We need to be true to ourselves and what we need, but also to think about the other person’s needs. If we can help our children to do this, we will be doing future generations a huge service.







Is emigration bad for a country?Posted by Webmaster – April 19, 2011

Should rich countries offer jobs to professionals such as doctors, engineers and teachers from poorer countries, even though these people are needed in their own countries?

Every year millions of workers migrate to developed countries such as Canada or Germany to work as doctors, engineers, or other professionals. This is good for the rich countries, but can be bad for the developing countries. This essay will explain why it is difficult to limit this flow of talented people from poor to rich countries.

Allowing foreign professionals to work overseas can cause many problems back home. First, the rich country is essentially taking the money that the developing country spent educating these workers. They are getting highly trained employees at a minimal cost without the need to build expensive universities. Why should Canada or Ireland benefit from South Africa’s or India’s education system? Another point is that many of these workers never go home. The skills they pick up abroad are not available for their home country. A third point is that many education systems are producing people for export, rather than providing skills needed in the home country.

However, we cannot simply stop employing workers from overseas. First, most professionals are free to work where they want, and if Australia won’t take them, the UAE or Saudi will. Competition exists, and people are free to choose their careers. Secondly, the remittances from these workers help to educate children. These children will, we hope, be able to work in their economy without the need to emigrate. In addition, allowing emigration can prevent social unrest. Unemployment can cause political or social problems, so it can be better for workers to emigrate, earn good salaries, and learn new skills elsewhere.

Finally, while many people would prefer to stay and work in their own country, it is inevitable that many others are attracted to higher salaries or better opportunities overseas. Developing countries need to examine why so many of their brightest, most talented people are leaving, and richer countries need quotas in place to ensure that they do not distort other education systems and economies.

More sports & fitness centers?Posted by Webmaster – June 6, 2011

Would the availability of more sports facilities lead to better public health?

It would seem obvious that providing more sports facilities would lead to increased fitness and better health among the population. However, there are also several reasons why public health might not improve. In this essay, I will explain why access to sports facilities may not be sufficient to improve our health.

More gyms, stadiums, and fitness centers would certainly be a good thing. First of all, people will not use sports facilities if they are not convenient. After a long day working or taking care of a family, nobody wants to spend a long time driving or commuting to a gym or to swim or play tennis. The closer the facility, the more likely people are to use it. Secondly, having facilities in neighborhoods will encourage friends and families to exercise or play sport together. Playing a sport or getting fit can be more enjoyable with people you know. A third point is that just having sports centers available increases awareness of fitness and health, and this can motivate and encourage people who might not normally use them to join.

However, just having more sports facilities may not be enough. First, the facilities may be too expensive, both to use and to build. Massive stadiums costing governments hundreds of millions of dollars may only serve a few people, and ordinary people may not be able to afford gym or spa fees. Another issue is the need to support people with training, diets, professional sports coaching and goal-setting. Without good organization and professional staffing, many people may visit sports facilities just a few times and give up or do something else more fun. However, the most important thing is changing the mindset of people. Children do what their parents do, and parents do what their friends do. If they are not interested in fitness or sports, the facilities will be underused and a waste of money. Until money is spent on education, people may prefer to play computer games or sit around eating unhealthy food, drinking and smoking.

In conclusion, while I think every school, village and town needs sports facilities, I don’t think that real change can result from just building more sports centers. We need a two-pronged approach which motivates us and our children to become more active and which is affordable and accessible

Should boys and girls study together?Posted by Webmaster – April 10, 2011

Should male and female students attend college together or separately?

In the UAE, the government has separate colleges for men and women. However, there are some private universities where women and men attend classes together. In this essay, I will discuss whether it is better for men and women to be educated separately or together.

There are several reasons put forward why men and women should study separately. First of all, it is suggested that young men and women are too immature. They will spend their class time thinking about each other and playing games instead of studying, and will be easily distracted. Another point which is sometimes made is that because women and men have different ways of thinking, they should be taught differently. People who say this claim that women do better in single-sex schools because of this. The most important point is that for cultural or religious reasons in the UAE, it is not allowed for unrelated men and women to be together. This is a very sensitive issue for many parents in the region.

However, there are many good reasons in favor of educating women and men together. To begin with, studying side by side is very good preparation for working together. In the UAE, men and women work side by side in hospitals, government offices, private companies, banks, and even in the police and army. If they have no experience of working together, it can be difficult to learn to communicate on the job. A second point is that having boys and girls in the same class should lead to better behavior. The boys will be more polite and less noisy, and the girls will learn to be less shy. In addition, having girls and boys sharing ideas will help to solve problems more quickly because they have different ways of looking at things.

In conclusion, although some parents are concerned about sending their children to co-ed schools, they should trust their children to be mature. The country will benefit from having more well-adjusted adults who can live and work together and help develop the society.

Should college be free?Posted by Webmaster – May 8, 2011

Should college education be free, or should university students be required to pay tuition fees?

Some countries have free education from kindergarten to university, while students in other countries have to pay at every step of the way. This essay will look at some of the reasons for this difference at university level.

Free third level education has several advantages. First of all, everyone can attend, so the gap between rich and poor students decreases as poorer students have more opportunity. The economy also benefits from the increased pool of highly educated labor. An educated workforce attracts employers and foreign investment. Socially, a more educated population should have more choices regarding nutrition, jobs and lifestyle. An additional point is that university fees only contribute a small proportion of the university budget.

However, some people are opposed to free education. First of all, through their taxes, poor families subsidize rich students who can easily afford to pay fees. A second point is that spending government money on free education is often not possible or desirable when a country needs hospitals, roads, and primary or secondary schools. A third point is that a university education is a choice, not a requirement. People who finish college with advanced qualifications are going to earn large salaries and can easily afford to pay back loans. Furthermore, when people get something for free, they often do not value it. If college is free, many students will go there just because they cannot think of anything else to do.

In conclusion, free third level education is not always a good thing. Governments need to think carefully about their policies and ensure that they are using their resources to help all the people in the country equitably.





However, there are many ways to facilitate third level education outside the cities. For one thing, there are many technological solutions. Radio and television have long been used to extend the reach of education, and now almost all bricks-and-mortar universities offer some form of distance education via email or the internet. These are not perfect solutions, but they can work well. Another approach is to offer beginner-level courses in rural campuses and then require students to transfer for their final years. Yet another approach is specialization, where particular departments or faculties disperse across the country, perhaps with agriculture in one province

and engineering in another. However, a very important point is to offer scholarships and to have special entry requirements or quotas for students from rural areas. Many people in the countryside may lack the financial resources to live in cities and pay high tuition fees.

In conclusion, many universities nowadays welcome diversity and equality in their policies and student bodies. It’s important for them to also make sure that students from rural areas also get the best education they can.


Universities and rural areas (short)Posted by Webmaster – May 16, 2011


Most top universities are located in big cities. However, millions of people still live in villages and small towns, far from the city. How can they get a good university education? In this essay, I will say why I think universities must serve rural as well as urban students.

We don’t need to build big colleges in every rural area. First of all, it would be too expensive. It’s better and more efficient to locate universities in cities because thousands of students can use them. Secondly, small campuses would lack resources and would be boring. They would not offer many courses, and the staff might not be the best available. A third point is that rural students and urban students should mix and learn from each other. They should not be separate.

In fact, there are many better ways to help rural students. First of all, they may need money. People working on farms may be poor and unable to afford fees and accommodation. The college can help by reducing fees and housing costs. Second, using technology can really help. Even in rural areas, many people have internet or email, and can take courses this way. Thirdly, first or second year courses can be given in the countryside, and students can then transfer to finish.

In conclusion, since universities are usually funded by the government, they should serve all the people, not just the city students. Everybody deserves access to education.




First of all, universities are not just training centers for companies. Of course the university must remain in contact with the ‘real’ world and provide courses that can be applied to ‘real’ world problems. However, this does not mean that the university’s only function is to provide cheap job-ready recruits for corporations. The real world is not a simple place: it is a multi-dimensional, interwoven web of interests, realities, perspectives and complex social interactions. Perhaps engineers can build a bridge, but they cannot do it by themselves. They need to be politicians, communicators, visionaries, designers, accountants, leaders, and problem-solvers. Similarly philosophers or economists cannot dwell in the clouds concocting grandiose theories: they need to be communicators, writers, breadwinners, accountants, cooks and baby-sitters. We all live in worlds where practice and theory constantly intersect, and our choices of course in college do not mean we are less practical or more theoretical. They simply reflect an area of our interest at a particular point in time.




Are we becoming more independent?Posted by Webmaster – May 3, 2011




However, there are also many things which haven’t changed. Deep down, human nature still seeks affection, advice and support from others. Even if people are physically separated because of work or other commitments, they still seek out the help and companionship of others. A

second point is that new methods of communication allow us to keep in touch easily. Facebook, Skype, email, mobile phones and messaging allow very quick and inexpensive communication and feedback. Furthermore, although people may not depend on family as much as in the past, colleagues and professional and social networks can provide even better interaction.








Do foreign workers benefit the host country? (long)Posted by Webmaster – April 10, 2011

In many countries, foreign labor is an important part of the economy. Using migrant labor can contribute to the development of a country, but it can also cause economic problems. What are some of the advantages and drawbacks of expatriate labor for a country’s economy?

The development of countries such as Singapore, Brunei, the Gulf countries, and even the US has been helped greatly by millions of foreign workers. While foreign workers are cheap and quick, they can also cause problems for the economy of the country. In this essay I will look at some of the problems caused by an expatriate workforce and suggest that we need a balanced approach to employing foreign workers.

There are many obvious advantages to using foreign labor. First of all, they are usually cheap. Workers from Bangladesh, India or the Philippines are happy to work for salaries which are high in comparison to their home countries but low in the host country. Foreign workers are also ready to work in remote places or at times when local workers would not. A second point is that foreign workers are usually job-ready. They do not need expensive college education or training. They may have skills not available in the new country. A third point is that many migrant workers are ready to work in jobs that are too dirty or dangerous for nationals such as construction or cleaning. All these advantages mean that the economy is boosted by cheap labor and low production costs.

However, there are hidden costs to the economy of the country. One major drawback is that the workers are sending a lot of money home, instead of spending it. This results in a loss of foreign exchange for the country. Another point is that they may take jobs from locals. More importantly, they reduce the salaries for some jobs. For example, employers will pay very low salaries for some jobs which some locals might like to do but could not survive on. Security is another issue. Foreign workers can leave at any time if there is a political or other problem, and this can mean a sudden loss of skills and experience. An additional point is that the influx of foreign workers can put pressure on services such as hospitals or housing, and these costs have to be paid by the state, not the employers who are getting rich. All these factors can result in economic problems for the government.

In conclusion it’s important to have some control over the use of foreign workers, and to make sure that using them does not disrupt the labor market for local workers. One way is to pay them higher salaries and give them full protection. Countries should seek to employ their own citizens first before turning outside and depending on foreign labor.

Do foreign workers benefit the host country? (short)Posted by Webmaster – April 11, 2011

In many countries, foreign labour is an important part of the economy. What are some of the benefits and disadvantages for the economy of having workers from outside the country?

In many countries such as the USA, Singapore and many Gulf countries, foreign workers make up a large part of the labour force. However, there is some debate about the advantages of this for the economy of the country. In this essay, I will look at some of the arguments in favour of foreign labour and discuss some of the negative effects it can have.

There are several advantages to foreign labour. First of all, foreign labour is almost always cheap. Workers and economic migrants are attracted to countries with strong economies because they gcan earn higher salaries than at home. This means that the host country can get a good supply

of cheap labour and this will make it more competitive and increase profits. Second, foreign workers are already trained. There is no need to wait years to train them in college or on the job. This also saves a lot of money and means that projects can be completed rapidly. A third point is that foreign workers are prepared to do jobs that local people do not want to do, such as work in remote areas or do dangerous or dirty jobs. These often include jobs in construction or in jobs with anti-social hours such as hotels. All of these mean that companies can provide a wide range of services at lower costs.

However, there are also hidden costs to hiring foreign labour. First of all, foreign workers may not be loyal to a company. This means they may change job often or leave the country quickly if there is a problem, such as happened recently in Libya. Secondly, they may create a lack of employment opportunities among locals. Employers may not want to give locals high salaries if they can employ expatriates more cheaply. A third problem is that they lower wages for certain jobs. Jobs which are attractive in some countries such as construction become very lowly paid if they employ mostly foreign workers. These factors may cause serious problems and imbalances in the host economy, such as too many locals in the government or public sector. A further point is that some expatriate labour is not really cheap, since it may be less effective or their skills may not transfer well to the new country.

In conclusion, it’s a difficult balance between finding workers at the right price and developing a strong and diversified economy with good employment opportunities for all. Countries have to decide between protecting their own workforce and creating a competitive environment for business.

Do we need so many languages? (long)Posted by Webmaster – June 11, 2011


The world appears to be moving towards a smaller number of languages such as English, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese or Hindi, each with millions or billions of speakers. Unfortunately this means that smaller languages are in danger of disappearing. Some people fear the loss of culture and identity, while others believe a world with easier communication would be a better place. In this essay, I will discuss the dangers of both outcomes.

We are indeed losing a lot of languages. One language expert estimates that 60%-80% of all languages will disappear in 100 years, just three generations from now. This is a major loss. First of all, the way that people think is to a certain degree rooted in their first languages. A community’s language is bound up with its way of life, culture, religious beliefs and identity. A second point is the loss of diversity: different languages can contribute to different ways of looking at and solving human problems. Thirdly, fewer languages does not necessarily mean better communication: it could even mean a dangerous situation with billions of people fighting against each other, rather than smaller groups as in the past. This could be the most important drawback: as more people speak one language, it becomes easier for billions to be influenced by shallow media or aggressive politicians.

However, there might be a lot to be gained from having fewer languages and greater communication. First of all is today’s practical problem of translation: business is more difficult, travel is more complicated, and misunderstandings arise. Another current problem is marginalization: communities who do not speak a major world language fall behind in science and technology and their economies suffer. Third, having fewer languages might mean more shared ideas. Global collaboration could happen instantly rather than taking years. And finally,

although some people are afraid of the loss of culture or identity, it seems that good ideas can survive. We don’t speak Latin or classical Greek anymore, but the ideas and values of the people who spoke those languages are still with us.

In conclusion, it seems inevitable that some languages will disappear: like animals or plants, they need a specific habitat and can be squeezed out by stronger competitors. The answer is not to hide and isolate ourselves but to be confident about our identity in whatever language we speak.

Do we need so many languages? (short)Posted by Webmaster – June 11, 2011






Does cheap air travel damage the environment?Posted by Webmaster – April 19, 2011


In the past air travel was only for the elite – the rich, the powerful, the privileged. Today, hundreds of millions of people are able to travel around the world for work or pleasure. As Air Asia’s slogan puts it: “Now everyone can fly.” However, the price to be paid for this easier travel

may be damage to the environment. In this essay, I will examine some of the arguments for and against cheap air travel.




















However, there are some advantages to having a lot of older people. First, they have a lot of experience in life and in work. A company with experienced employees will be successful. Older

people may also have good viewpoints on life and society and will get on well with others. Another advantage is that old people can teach their grandchildren well. In addition, the schools will not be crowded, and there may be less crime. Older people do not usually steal or fight, and there will also be fewer accidents because they drive more carefully.


Government spending on artPosted by Webmaster – April 26, 2011

Some people think that government should support painters, poets, musicians, and other artists financially. Others argue that money should be spent on other, more important, issues. Do you agree or disagree?

Most people like paintings, music, poetry and other forms of art. However, a lot of people also think that governments have more urgent priorities such as housing, hospitals, defense, or water. In this essay, I will discuss whether art should be included in our national budget.

When drawing up its budget, a government has to make tough decisions. First of all, there are basic requirements such as shelter, health, and the protection of the country’s citizens. People need food, medical care, and education before they need music or statues. Secondly, governments tend to focus on short-term needs. They often fail to consider what future generations would need or like to see, and as a result, they minimize spending on museums, galleries or architecture. Another point is that individual politicians may not be very interested in art. They may prefer to spend money on things that will get them re-elected, such as roads or schools.

However, excluding art is a mistake. First, even in tough times, people need music, songs, color, dance, design and other forms of art. These allow people to express themselves and release social and political tension. Furthermore, to include beauty in the design of a building or even a city does not add much to the cost. For a slightly higher cost, even a hospital or a school can be beautiful. Additionally, painting, music, poetry or dance can actually serve a government by expressing a national identity or by attracting tourism.

In conclusion, we should always try to keep some beauty in our life, even if money is tight. If we close off all means of expression, we risk problems for ourselves and our societies.

New developments in agriculture (long)Posted by Webmaster – April 19, 2011

New developments in agriculture include factory farming and the creation of new fruits and vegetables. Many people believe, however, that huge industrial farms and genetically modified plants are dangerous and that we need to go back to smaller, more natural farming. Do you agree with the developments in farming?

In the last 50 years, agriculture has become more and more mechanized and there have been many discoveries in genetic engineering. However, some people are worried about the effect of this on our health and our environment. This essay will look at how agriculture is developing and discuss whether it would be better to turn back to smaller farms.

There is no doubt that we need more food. There are over 7 billion people now and there will be 10 billion in just a few decades. To feed these extra people we need more food. Another point is that this food has to come from less and less land. This means each hectare has to produce more food. A third point is that we need to reduce waste and inefficiency. Up to 30% of food is wasted on the farm, between the farm and the shop, or in the home. New methods to stop food from spoiling or to improve vitamin or other qualities will be good.

However, many of these developments in farming are dangerous. First of all, nobody knows what the effect of genetically modified organisms will be on our bodies. There has not been enough long-term testing to see the effects. A second point is that factory farming often causes disease or helps it to spread. We are feeding our animals unsuitable food and keeping them in bad conditions. This will affect the quality of our food. Finally, if agriculture is a business instead of a way of life, the farm owners will think only of quick profit, not long-term sustainability.

In conclusion, we need more food and more efficient farming, but we need to learn from mad cow disease and bird flu that nature does not like being forced to do things our way.

New developments in agriculture (short)Posted by Webmaster – April 21, 2011


There have been big changes in farming in the last 50 years. Scientists have developed new plants and farmers are using more machines and growing bigger crops and herds. However, some people are worried about the effect of these developments on people and the environment. In this essay, I will show why we need to be careful with our farming.

Of course agriculture needs to develop. First of all, we need more food for the world’s increasing population. More people means more mouths to feed. Secondly, there is less land and water available. As a result, we need to use it more efficiently and produce more. A third point is that we need to reduce waste. A huge amount of food is lost due to disease, insects, rats, decay, or poor handling.

However, not all the changes in agriculture are positive. To begin with, some new discoveries such as GMO foods may be dangerous. We don’t know the effect of these foods on humans. Secondly, we keep animals in bad conditions. Hens, cows and other animals are crowded together in sheds or cages, unable to move, and sometimes fed unsuitable food. This can affect the quality of the food, and disease can spread quickly. Finally, farming today has become a business. This means profit comes first. In the past, it was a way of life, and the farmer was closer to his environment.

In conclusion, farming has to change in order to feed the world, but it also needs to produce good food and not affect the environment. As consumers, we need to make sure that our food is produced properly, not just cheaply.

Protecting the Environment

Posted by Webmaster – April 30, 2011

Many people say there is a need to protect the environment, but do not really make any effort to do anything about it. Are you one of these people? What can we do to encourage people to take action to protect the environment?

Most people are increasingly aware of the need to protect our environment. Despite this, not many of us are really taking steps to reduce our impact on the planet. In this essay, I will suggest some steps each of us can take and some ways to motivate others to do the same.

Many environmental problems seem so big that only governments, local authorities or big companies can deal with them. One example is global warming. We need government action to reduce emissions from coal and oil burning power stations and to develop safer sources of power. These require tough regulations and huge investment. The loss of forests and other habitat is another problem. How can we as individuals stop the destruction of the Amazon or Indonesian rain forests? Yet another example is waste. When people live in cities, they may not be able store or recycle waste, so huge landfills or incinerators are needed.

However, as consumers, we are the ones responsible for all these problems. First of all, we all need to consume less power. We need to turn off lights, replace inefficient bulbs with low-power ones, and not leave equipment on standby. Secondly, we need to control our surging populations. Each of us can make a decision regarding family size. This has a huge impact on the size of our cities and the need for food and more agricultural land. In addition, we need to consider eating less meat and more vegetables and fruit, in order to reduce the amount of land needed for meat. Generally, the main step we need to take is to live more simply. We need to reduce our consumption, recycle, and reuse.

In conclusion, our choices, however small, do have a real impact. If each of us made took two or three simple steps to live more simply, imagine the positive effect on the planet!

Should boys and girls study together?Posted by Webmaster – April 10, 2011

Should male and female students attend college together or separately?

In the UAE, the government has separate colleges for men and women. However, there are some private universities where women and men attend classes together. In this essay, I will discuss whether it is better for men and women to be educated separately or together.

There are several reasons put forward why men and women should study separately. First of all, it is suggested that young men and women are too immature. They will spend their class time thinking about each other and playing games instead of studying, and will be easily distracted. Another point which is sometimes made is that because women and men have different ways of thinking, they should be taught differently. People who say this claim that women do better in single-sex schools because of this. The most important point is that for cultural or religious reasons in the UAE, it is not allowed for unrelated men and women to be together. This is a very sensitive issue for many parents in the region.

However, there are many good reasons in favor of educating women and men together. To begin with, studying side by side is very good preparation for working together. In the UAE, men and women work side by side in hospitals, government offices, private companies, banks, and even in

the police and army. If they have no experience of working together, it can be difficult to learn to communicate on the job. A second point is that having boys and girls in the same class should lead to better behavior. The boys will be more polite and less noisy, and the girls will learn to be less shy. In addition, having girls and boys sharing ideas will help to solve problems more quickly because they have different ways of looking at things.

In conclusion, although some parents are concerned about sending their children to co-ed schools, they should trust their children to be mature. The country will benefit from having more well-adjusted adults who can live and work together and help develop the society.

Should dangerous sports such as motor-racing or boxing be banned?Posted by Webmaster – April 11, 2011

Across the world, millions of people enjoy watching or even taking part in sports such as boxing, wrestling, mountain climbing, bungee jumping and a whole range of other hazardous sports. However, others think that these sports should be strictly controlled or even banned completely. In this essay I will describe why I think it is a mistake to ban dangerous sports, and why people should be able to enjoy the sports they want.

It can be hard to understand why people like dangerous sports so much. In boxing, for example, many people are killed or suffer brain injury every year. Mohammed Ali, one of the most famous boxers of all time, has severe medical problems even as a result of boxing. In addition, some people do not understand why blood and danger is so important. They wonder why boxers need to hit each other or why Formula 1 racers have to crash or risk serious injury in order for other people to enjoy this sport. A third point is that sport is now a big business. Companies, television stations, and sponsors spend a large amount of money on these sports instead of safer alternatives such as swimming or running.

However there are many reasons why people should be allowed to do whatever sport they want. For one thing, even if something is forbidden, people will still try to find a way to do it. The sport will go underground, like cock-fighting in most European countries. Secondly, there is almost no activity which does not have some danger. For example, swimming, running and even walking can all result in injury. But the main reason is that people will always be attracted to sports where they can move faster or go further. Even the motto of the Olympics is ‘Citius, Altius, Fortius,’ Latin for ‘Faster, Higher, Stronger.’ It is part of human nature, and sportsmen and sportswomen are aware of the risk in their sport.

In conclusion, while there are some understandable reasons for worrying about danger in sport, I believe people should be free to watch and participate in whatever sport they want. What we need to do is to ensure that personal safety of the players or athletes is not in danger, and to encourage more people to push themselves and take part so that they can enjoy these activities.

Should foreigners pay more? (long)Posted by Webmaster – June 7, 2011


To visit the beautiful and remote mountain kingdom of Bhutan, foreigners (everyone without a Bhutanese or an Indian passport) have to pay up to $240 a day. This is an extreme example of charging visitors more than locals, but the country has many valid reasons for this policy. In this essay, I will say why I generally agree with foreigners paying more to visit cultural or historical sites.

It’s easy to see why some foreign visitors resent being charged more. First of all, nobody likes to pay more than other people for the same thing. It’s irritating to know that the person beside you in a queue or at a tourist attraction has paid much less just because of his or her nationality. A second annoying point is that you often don’t get any better service just because you have paid more to enter a historical site or entertainment venue. In fact, the place is often overcrowded with locals and your visit can suffer. Furthermore, knowing that you as a foreign visitor are paying more often makes you bad-tempered and therefore less likely to enjoy the experience. Finally, some think that places such as Cambodia’s Angkor Wat or Ireland’s Cliffs of Moher are world cultural or natural treasures and should be open to everyone. They are not the property of some money-grabbing ministry.

However, there are good reasons why overseas visitors should pay more. For one thing, foreign tourism is still a privilege of the well-off. Why should countries not charge rich visitors as much as the market will bear? Nobody is forced to visit these places. Second, the attraction or cultural site is part of the local community’s history and heritage. They should not have to pay to learn about their own history. A third point is that it is extremely expensive to maintain places like Istanbul’s Topkapi palace. Tourists who may be visiting once in a lifetime can and should contribute to the cost of maintenance. In fact, this is the most important point: if you have dreamed all your life of visiting Peru’s Machu Picchu or China’s Terracotta Army then surely you are ready to spend a little more for this experience.

In conclusion, we need to put things in perspective. The admission fees rarely add much to the cost of our visit, compared to hotels or travel, and we as foreign travelers help maintain and preserve the site for the locals and for future generations.




I don’t think locals should pay the same as foreign tourists. For one thing, a historical attraction in my country is part of my heritage. My ancestors built it, and I should have free or cheap access so I can know my history. Second, let’s face it : most tourists are rich - or at least richer than us locals. If they can afford to fly from Australia or China to see a castle or a rare animal, than they can pay a few dollars more. In addition, I pay taxes in my country, so I have already paid a lot more from my salary than the foreign tourist who is only here for a few days.

I think foreigners should pay more for several reasons. First of all, it raises money to maintain the attraction. The higher admission fees from foreigners are important in Egypt or Mexico to

preserve world-class historical sites. Secondly, tourists pay far more for their flights, hotels, and cocktails. A few dollars extra to visit a museum is nothing. Third, most tourists only visit the attraction once in their lives. Who is not prepared to pay a little extra for a special occasion?


Traffic: What can we do?Posted by Webmaster – April 23, 2011

Nowadays traffic in major cities is worsening. What problems does it create? How can we help solve these problems as individuals?

As more and more people move from the countryside into the world’s cities, traffic is becoming a bigger and bigger problem. Public transport is unable to cope, and people turn to private transport, often making the situation worse. In this essay, I will suggest ways in which individuals can take the lead in improving the flow of traffic in our cities.

It may seem as if there is nothing the individual can do to solve traffic problems. Investing in public transport such as the construction of a metro, railway or tram system, or even introducing a bus network is far too expensive for the ordinary individual. Even calling on local authorities or politicians to begin such projects is usually very unrewarding because of the long timescales involved. Finally, buying your own car or motorbike just adds to the overcrowding and magnifies the traffic problem.

However, there are some steps ordinary individuals can take. First of all, where possible we should opt for public transport, such as buses, trains, or even taxis, rather than using cars. These are a more efficient use of limited urban space than private vehicles. Another option is to pool: to share our cars with other people going to the same work or school. The fewer vehicles on the road, the less congestion. A third approach is to live closer to where we work, so that we can walk or cycle. It is much less stressful to know that you can reach your work within a few minutes by the simplest forms of transport. Finally, we do need to work with local politicians and urban planners to provide transport services. If they are not constantly pressed, they will spend the money elsewhere.

In conclusion, although traffic may seem like an insurmountable problem, it is simply the result of many individual choices. It is pointless waiting for governments to take action – we must take some responsibility ourselves.

Travel and international understandingPosted by Webmaster – May 17, 2011

Does travel help to promote understanding and communication between countries?

Most people would agree that travel broadens the mind. Surely, visiting new places and meeting new people helps us to understand how others live? However, the history of travel has taught us that many misunderstandings and tragedies can occur when different societies meet. In this essay, I will discuss whether travel contributes to mutual respect and understanding.

The issue is probably not travel itself, but the purpose of travel. There are many motivations for travel. It can be to learn, as in a religious pilgrimage, a personal journey, or an expedition. Millions of Muslims meet on Haj each year, and are reminded of the scale and diversity of the faith. Exploration of remote jungles or islands has given us an appreciation of cultures very different from ours. Even the modern traveler, flying in hours from China to Australia or from France to Thailand, glimpses different ways of life and different histories.

However, travel is not always so innocent. Trade, for example, can begin as an equal exchange of crafts or commodities between small groups of traders, but it can also become the basis for massive exploitation, colonization or even extermination. If one group believes its cultural values, religion, or society are superior to the other’s, then friction or resentment can grow into conflict. And too often, travel is undertaken with no desire to meet or learn from the host country’s people: it is simply a change of scene or temperature. Such travel actually sets out to minimize all contact with the culture of the host country and instead surrounds itself with the food, drink and entertainment of its own.

In conclusion, while it might seem that travel can contribute to understanding, it depends on the intention of the traveler and the attitude of the host. Just because travel is easier than ever before does not mean we should bring our prejudices with us on the plane.





However, there are many ways to facilitate third level education outside the cities. For one thing, there are many technological solutions. Radio and television have long been used to extend the reach of education, and now almost all bricks-and-mortar universities offer some form of distance education via email or the internet. These are not perfect solutions, but they can work well. Another approach is to offer beginner-level courses in rural campuses and then require students to transfer for their final years. Yet another approach is specialization, where particular departments or faculties disperse across the country, perhaps with agriculture in one province and engineering in another. However, a very important point is to offer scholarships and to have special entry requirements or quotas for students from rural areas. Many people in the countryside may lack the financial resources to live in cities and pay high tuition fees.

In conclusion, many universities nowadays welcome diversity and equality in their policies and

student bodies. It’s important for them to also make sure that students from rural areas also get the best education they can.


Universities and rural areas (short)Posted by Webmaster – May 16, 2011


Most top universities are located in big cities. However, millions of people still live in villages and small towns, far from the city. How can they get a good university education? In this essay, I will say why I think universities must serve rural as well as urban students.

We don’t need to build big colleges in every rural area. First of all, it would be too expensive. It’s better and more efficient to locate universities in cities because thousands of students can use them. Secondly, small campuses would lack resources and would be boring. They would not offer many courses, and the staff might not be the best available. A third point is that rural students and urban students should mix and learn from each other. They should not be separate.

In fact, there are many better ways to help rural students. First of all, they may need money. People working on farms may be poor and unable to afford fees and accommodation. The college can help by reducing fees and housing costs. Second, using technology can really help. Even in rural areas, many people have internet or email, and can take courses this way. Thirdly, first or second year courses can be given in the countryside, and students can then transfer to finish.

In conclusion, since universities are usually funded by the government, they should serve all the people, not just the city students. Everybody deserves access to education.




First of all, universities are not just training centers for companies. Of course the university must remain in contact with the ‘real’ world and provide courses that can be applied to ‘real’ world problems. However, this does not mean that the university’s only function is to provide cheap job-ready recruits for corporations. The real world is not a simple place: it is a multi-dimensional, interwoven web of interests, realities, perspectives and complex social interactions. Perhaps engineers can build a bridge, but they cannot do it by themselves. They need to be politicians,

communicators, visionaries, designers, accountants, leaders, and problem-solvers. Similarly philosophers or economists cannot dwell in the clouds concocting grandiose theories: they need to be communicators, writers, breadwinners, accountants, cooks and baby-sitters. We all live in worlds where practice and theory constantly intersect, and our choices of course in college do not mean we are less practical or more theoretical. They simply reflect an area of our interest at a particular point in time.










Are we becoming more independent?Posted by Webmaster – May 3, 2011




However, there are also many things which haven’t changed. Deep down, human nature still seeks affection, advice and support from others. Even if people are physically separated because of work or other commitments, they still seek out the help and companionship of others. A second point is that new methods of communication allow us to keep in touch easily. Facebook, Skype, email, mobile phones and messaging allow very quick and inexpensive communication and feedback. Furthermore, although people may not depend on family as much as in the past, colleagues and professional and social networks can provide even better interaction.












However, not all the effects have to be negative. Although some people claim that older people do not have new ideas, older employees can be extremely productive and efficient and this can help companies to succeed. There may be less crime in the society, since there may be less competition for jobs or other needs. Some people worry that an older society will be more conservative and will be focused on the past. However, this could also mean a more compassionate society which is less focused on material things. Another possible outcome of an

ageing society is that there may be people to take care of young children. In addition, children might have a better education if schools and colleges were not as crowded.








New developments in agriculture (long)Posted by Webmaster – April 19, 2011


In the last 50 years, agriculture has become more and more mechanized and there have been many discoveries in genetic engineering. However, some people are worried about the effect of this on our health and our environment. This essay will look at how agriculture is developing and discuss whether it would be better to turn back to smaller farms.

There is no doubt that we need more food. There are over 7 billion people now and there will be 10 billion in just a few decades. To feed these extra people we need more food. Another point is that this food has to come from less and less land. This means each hectare has to produce more

food. A third point is that we need to reduce waste and inefficiency. Up to 30% of food is wasted on the farm, between the farm and the shop, or in the home. New methods to stop food from spoiling or to improve vitamin or other qualities will be good.

However, many of these developments in farming are dangerous. First of all, nobody knows what the effect of genetically modified organisms will be on our bodies. There has not been enough long-term testing to see the effects. A second point is that factory farming often causes disease or helps it to spread. We are feeding our animals unsuitable food and keeping them in bad conditions. This will affect the quality of our food. Finally, if agriculture is a business instead of a way of life, the farm owners will think only of quick profit, not long-term sustainability.

In conclusion, we need more food and more efficient farming, but we need to learn from mad cow disease and bird flu that nature does not like being forced to do things our way.

New developments in agriculture (short)Posted by Webmaster – April 21, 2011


There have been big changes in farming in the last 50 years. Scientists have developed new plants and farmers are using more machines and growing bigger crops and herds. However, some people are worried about the effect of these developments on people and the environment. In this essay, I will show why we need to be careful with our farming.

Of course agriculture needs to develop. First of all, we need more food for the world’s increasing population. More people means more mouths to feed. Secondly, there is less land and water available. As a result, we need to use it more efficiently and produce more. A third point is that we need to reduce waste. A huge amount of food is lost due to disease, insects, rats, decay, or poor handling.

However, not all the changes in agriculture are positive. To begin with, some new discoveries such as GMO foods may be dangerous. We don’t know the effect of these foods on humans. Secondly, we keep animals in bad conditions. Hens, cows and other animals are crowded together in sheds or cages, unable to move, and sometimes fed unsuitable food. This can affect the quality of the food, and disease can spread quickly. Finally, farming today has become a business. This means profit comes first. In the past, it was a way of life, and the farmer was closer to his environment.

In conclusion, farming has to change in order to feed the world, but it also needs to produce good food and not affect the environment. As consumers, we need to make sure that our food is produced properly, not just cheaply.

Does cheap air travel damage the environment?

Posted by Webmaster – April 19, 2011


In the past air travel was only for the elite – the rich, the powerful, the privileged. Today, hundreds of millions of people are able to travel around the world for work or pleasure. As Air Asia’s slogan puts it: “Now everyone can fly.” However, the price to be paid for this easier travel may be damage to the environment. In this essay, I will examine some of the arguments for and against cheap air travel.










Protecting the EnvironmentPosted by Webmaster – April 30, 2011

Many people say there is a need to protect the environment, but do not really make any effort to do anything about it. Are you one of these people? What can we do to encourage people to take action to protect the environment?

Most people are increasingly aware of the need to protect our environment. Despite this, not many of us are really taking steps to reduce our impact on the planet. In this essay, I will suggest some steps each of us can take and some ways to motivate others to do the same.

Many environmental problems seem so big that only governments, local authorities or big companies can deal with them. One example is global warming. We need government action to reduce emissions from coal and oil burning power stations and to develop safer sources of power. These require tough regulations and huge investment. The loss of forests and other habitat is another problem. How can we as individuals stop the destruction of the Amazon or Indonesian rain forests? Yet another example is waste. When people live in cities, they may not be able store or recycle waste, so huge landfills or incinerators are needed.

However, as consumers, we are the ones responsible for all these problems. First of all, we all need to consume less power. We need to turn off lights, replace inefficient bulbs with low-power ones, and not leave equipment on standby. Secondly, we need to control our surging populations. Each of us can make a decision regarding family size. This has a huge impact on the size of our cities and the need for food and more agricultural land. In addition, we need to consider eating less meat and more vegetables and fruit, in order to reduce the amount of land needed for meat. Generally, the main step we need to take is to live more simply. We need to reduce our consumption, recycle, and reuse.

In conclusion, our choices, however small, do have a real impact. If each of us made took two or three simple steps to live more simply, imagine the positive effect on the planet!

Date post:	22-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sons-yesu
View:	226 times
Download:	2 times

Nowadays We Are Producing More and More Rubbish

Documents