会商的意思-白色的英语怎么写
Should animals be used in testing new drugs
and procedures?
Every year, millions of
animals undergo painful suffering or death as a
result of
scientific research into the effects
of drugs, food additives, cosmetics and other
chemical products. While most people think
animal testing is necessary, others are
upset
by what they see as needless suffering. This essay
looks at some of the
positive and negative
aspects of animal testing.
Many medical
treatments and procedures have been developed from
experiments
on animals. Since animals share
many features with humans, scientists use animals
to test the safety and effectiveness of newly
developed drugs before pilot testing on
small
groups of patients. Medical teams practice new
operating techniques such as
transplants on
animals. Without animal testing, many procedures
or new drugs
would be extremely unsafe.
However, many people are concerned that
animals are suffering unnecessarily and
cruelly. They do not believe that every new
drug needs to be tested on animals,
especially
with the huge database of knowledge and modern
computer models.
They also are worried that
many animal tests are ineffective, pointing out
that any
drugs have had to be withdrawn from
the market despite extensive testing. They
particularly feel that animal testing should
not be used for non-essential products
such as
cosmetics, shampoos, soaps, and cleaning products.
Furthermore, some
campaigners would like to
see certain tests replaced and more humane methods
used.
We need to make sure that the
millions of animals who are used for testing new
products are treated with the minimum of
suffering. Although some animal testing
may be
unavoidable at present, treating our fellow
creatures as mercifully as
possible will
demonstrate our humanity.
Should animals be used in testing new
drugs and procedures?
Every day, thousands of
people are saved from painful diseases and death
by
powerful medical drugs and treatments. This
incredible gift of medicine would not
be
possible without animal testing. Despite these
overwhelming benefits, however,
some people
are calling for animal testing to be banned
because of alleged cruelty.
This essay will
examine arguments for and against animal testing.
Those against the use of animal testing claim
that it is inhumane to use animals in
experiments. I disagree completely. It would
be much more inhumane to test new
drugs on
children or adults. Even if it were possible, it
would also take much longer
to see potential
effects, because of the length of time we live
compared to
laboratory animals such as rats or
rabbits.
Opponents of animal testing also
claim that the results are not applicable to
humans.
This may be partly true. Some drugs
have had to be withdrawn, despite testing.
However, we simply do not have alternative
methods of testing. Computer models
are not
advanced enough, and testing on plants is much
less applicable to humans
than tests on
animals such as monkeys. Until we have a better
system, we must use
animal testing.
A
further point often raised against animal testing
is that it is cruel. Some of the
tests
certainly seem painful, but the great majority of
people on this planet eat meat
or wear leather
without any guilt. Where is their sympathy for
animals? Furthermore,
animals clearly do not
feel the same way as humans, and scientists are
careful to
minimize stress in the animals,
since this would damage their research.
I
agree that we need to make sure that animals who
are used for testing new
products have the
minimum of suffering. However, I am convinced that
animal
testing is necessary, and that it will
continue to benefit humans in new and
wonderful ways.
Should
animals be used in testing new drugs and
procedures?
Medical research involving
animals has dramatically improved the health of
the
human race. Without animal testing, the
cure for polio would not exist and diabetics
would suffer or die from their disease.
Despite these benefits, some people believe
that animals should be not be used for testing
medical techniques and drugs. This
essay will
outline the advantages of animal testing.
Animal testing allows scientists to test and
create new drugs. Animals such as
monkeys or
rabbits have similar physical processes to humans.
This allows
scientists to test the effects of
certain drugs. If a drug produces adverse effects
in
animals it is probably unfit for human use.
Animal testing is cheap. There is a large
supply of animals for medical research.
Animals are easily bred, and maintained safely
in controlled labs. The costs of
testing in
humans would be extremely high.
Many people
argue that animal testing is cruel. In some cases
this is true. However
it would be much more
cruel to test new drugs on people or children, or
to let people
die because there was not enough
information about a drug. Furthermore,
legislation in most countries sets standards
for animal treatment, and laboratories
have
guidelines to prevent cruelty.
Opponents of
animal research also say that information from
animals does not apply
to humans. They point
to certain commercial drugs which have been
withdrawn
because of side-effects in humans
While it is true that animal systems differ from
human systems, there are enough similarities
to apply information from animals to
humans.
Animal rights campaigners claim that we don’t
need new tests because we already
have vast
amounts of information. However, many new deadly
infections appear
every year and new
treatments and drugs are needed to combat these
deadly
plagues.
Animal testing is needed
in the world we live in. Our responsibility is to
manage the
animals in our care and balance
their suffering against the good that comes from
them.
Is Education
Losing Its Value?
Today, it seems to be
universally accepted that increased education is a
good thing.
Thousands of colleges and millions
of students spend vast amounts of time and
money chasing pieces of paper. But what is the
value of these qualifications? This
essay will
discuss whether education has been devalued.
Supporters of education (usually teachers or
educators, or those in the business of
education) say that increased levels of
education will open doors for students.
Certificates, diplomas, and degrees are held
up as a status symbol, a passport to a
private
club of money and power.
However, the truly
powerful are not those with degrees, but people
who stand back
and look at what is really
important in life. These people are found in every
part of
society. Like many brilliant people,
Einstein was a weak math student. Like many
successful businessmen, Bill Gates never
completed college. Like many inventive
and
creative people, Edison never went to school. The
greatest religious teachers do
not have
letters after their name. Similarly, many of the
world’s political leaders do
not have master’s
degrees or doctorates. These are the people who
shape our lives,
and they are too busy with
real life to spend time in the paper chase.
Students in college are being sold an
illusion. They are made to believe that
self-
understanding and society approval will come with
the acquisition of a piece of
paper. Instead
of thinking for themselves, and finding their own
personality and
strengths, they are fitted
like square pegs into round holes, in so-called
professional
jobs.
The role of education
is to prepare masses of people to operate at low
levels of
ability in a very limited and
restricted range of activities. Some of these
activities
are perhaps more challenging than
the assembly lines of the past, but the ultimate
purpose is equally uninteresting. More
worryingly, despite the increased level of
education, people are still not genuinely
expected to think for themselves. In fact,
the
longer years of schooling make the job of
brainwashing even easier.
There is still a
role for study, research, and education. However,
we need to
examine our emphasis on education
for the sake of a piece of paper, and to learn the
real meaning and revolutionary challenge of
knowledge.
Is Education
Being Devalued?
In the past, degrees were
very unusual in my family. I remember the day my
uncle
graduated. We had a huge party, and for
many years my mother called him
genius
sisters have degrees, and two are
studying for their masters'. However, some
people think that this increased access to
education is devaluing degrees. In this
essay,
I will look at some of the arguments for and
against the increased emphasis
on degrees in
our society.
People have several arguments
against the need for degrees. They say that having
so many graduates devalues a degree. People
lose respect for the degree holder. It
is also
claimed that education has become a rat race.
Graduates have to compete
for jobs even after
years of studying. Another point is that studying
for such a long
time leads to learners
becoming inflexible. They know a lot about one
narrow
subject, but are unable to apply their
skills. Employers prefer more flexible and
adaptable workers.
However, I feel
strongly that this move to having more
qualifications is a positive
development. In
the past education was only for the rich and
powerful. Now it is
available to everyone, and
this will have many advantages for the country and
the
individual. First of all, it is impossible
to be overeducated. The more people are
educated, the better the world will be,
because people will be able to discuss and
exchange ideas. A further point is that people
with degrees have many more
opportunities.
They can take a wider variety of jobs and do what
they enjoy doing,
instead of being forced to
take a job they dislike. Finally, a highly
educated
workforce is good for the economy of
the country. It attracts foreign investment.
In conclusion, although there are undoubtedly
some problems with increased levels
of
education, I feel strongly that the country can
only progress if all its people are
educated
to the maximum of their ability.
Are Degrees Becoming Worthless?
Today, more and more people are attending
third level education, and many go on
to post-
graduate degrees. People specialize in subjects
that were not dreamed of a
century ago.
However, the result has not been an increase in
real knowledge, but a
cheapening of education.
In this essay I will discuss how education has
become
devalued.
Education is now
something that can be purchased. Like a powerful
new car or an
architect-designed house, a
degree or a post-graduate degree has become a
luxury
that everyone wants. But when everybody
has something, that thing becomes
worthless.
Gold is sought after because it is expensive and
hard to find, but if
everybody changed their
attitude to gold, its value would drop.
In the
same way, education, like the currency of a
bankrupt country, is becoming
devalued as more
people have degrees. It takes ever-higher
qualifications to get a
job. Once a degree-
holder was respected and listened to. Now he or
she is just
another job-seeker or employee.
One effect of the rush towards degrees is that
knowledge becomes less important.
Other
factors, such as influence, are more central in
getting a job or a promotion
when everyone has
a qualification. A further point is that people
lose respect for
themselves. Since everybody
has a degree, even degree-holders feel that what
they
have is almost worthless. More seriously,
the pressure to have degrees results in a
drop
in quality. When thousands of people study in a
college, the professors cannot
possibly
maintain standards. Furthermore, we need to
question whether advanced
education is
suitable for everyone. Does our entire population
really need to spend
years in school and
college just to do fairly simple jobs?
In
conclusion, there are many negative aspects to the
increased emphasis on
qualifications. If we
want to maintain the value of education, we need
to examine
the emphasis we put on degrees.
Drug abuse is becoming a
problem in our society. What are the causes of
this and what are
some solutions?
Drug
abuse is rife in many countries. Billions of
dollars are spent internationally
preventing
drug use, treating addicts, and fighting drug-
related crime. Although
drugs threaten many
societies, their effects can also be combated
successfully. This
essay looks at some of the
effects of drug use on society, and suggests some
solutions to the problem.
Drug abuse
causes multiple problems for countries and
communities. The medical
and psychological
effects are very obvious. Addicts cannot function
as normal
members of society. They neglect or
abuse their families, and eventually require
expensive treatment or hospitalization. The
second effect is on crime. Huge police
resources are needed to fight smuggling and
dealing. Criminal gangs and mafia
underworlds
develop with the money from drugs.
However,
the menace of drugs can be fought. Education is
the first battle. Children
need to be told at
home and in school about drugs. People need to be
aware of the
effects so that they can make
avoid this problem. A second approach is to
increase
police manpower and powers to stop
dealers and to enforce the law. However the
main target should be the user. Families and
counselors need to talk to children and
people
at risk. Parents need to look at their children
and help them to Jobs are
needed to give
people a role in society.
In conclusion,
although the problem of drugs may seem impossible
to eliminate,
there are concrete steps that
can be taken to weaken the hold of drugs on
society.
The danger from drugs is too great to
ignore.
Many students do
not finish school. Why is this, and how can the
problem be solved?
Today, although most
students in the UAE complete school, a large
number still
drop out because of family,
social and work pressures. This problem requires
serious action from both individuals and the
government.
Most students who do not complete
school do so because of family problems. Girls,
especially, want to get married and start a
family. Some parents are not interested
in
education and do not support their children in
studying. Social problems are also
a
contributing factor. Education is compulsory but,
despite this, some people do not
take it
seriously. Furthermore, jobs are available even if
students do not have a
good education. The
third reason is work pressure. Some families are
poor and need
their children to work in order
to increase the income. All these problems will
create
young people who do not have any skills
and who will not be able to improve their
lives for the family and the country.
There are several things that can be done
about these problems. Parents should be
encouraged to send their children to school.
Schools with baby-minding facilities
should be
opened specially for married students. The
government needs to stress
the importance of
education and even offer financial support to
students to continue.
This will encourage
students to stay at school rather than start
working.
In conclusion, there are several
things that the government can do to allow more
people to finish school. However, a number of
society attitudes also have to change
if the
country’s young people are to achieve their full
potential.
Does foreign aid
work? Or does it only help the rich country by
keeping the poorer country
dependent?
Today, the world is becoming more and more
closely linked. Trade has increased
and the
movement of people between countries is greater
than ever before.
However, billions of people
still live in poverty, and in many places, the gap
between
rich and poor is widening. This essay
will look at the arguments for and against
helping poor countries.
There are many
reasons for helping poor countries. First of all,
there are
humanitarian reasons. Like
individuals who give to charity, many countries
feel it is
their religious, social, or moral
duty to help people in other countries who are
suffering from famine, drought, war, or
disease. However, many rich countries also
donate money for political or diplomatic
reasons. They want to maintain a
relationship
of dependency with the recipient, or simply to
influence the
government and direction of the
country. A further reason why many countries help
poorer ones is for economic reasons. The
donors may want to control the supply of
commodities such as oil, water, or wheat.
Alternatively, the richer country may
want to
ensure markets for their own products, whether
these are planes,
computers or shoes.
However, aid is not necessarily the best way
to help a country. For one thing, billions
of
dollars of aid often goes missing, into corrupt
governments or inefficient
administration. A
second point is that many foreign aid projects are
unsuitable for
the target country. Many
agencies build huge dams or industrial projects
that fail
after a few years or that do not
involve the local people. Furthermore, much aid
returns to the donor. This can be in the form
of expensive specialized equipment and
experts
from the donor country.
There are many other
ways we can help poor countries. Opening up trade
barriers,
so that poor countries can sell
their goods is one way. Another is to remove
subsidies so that imported goods from poorer
countries can compete fairly. A third
method
is to forgive debts. Many poor countries have huge
interest repayments on
old loans.
The
needs of the poorer countries may seem obvious.
However, although our
humanity makes us want
to help eliminate poverty and suffering, we must
examine
the real needs of poor countries and
implement solutions that will benefit both them
and us.
Do children
learn more quickly than adults?
Small
children seem to learn very quickly, while adults
sometimes appear to lose the
ability to pick
up new subject such as languages, music, games, or
computer
programs. In this essay, I will
discuss whether children or adults make the best
learners.
It is undoubtedly true that
children seem to learn very quickly. In just a few
years,
they can learn how to play a musical
instrument, speak one or even two new
languages, and deal with many subjects at
school. They even have time for sports
and
hobbies, and become experts in their favorite
pastimes. However, how much of
this is social
pressure and how much is genetic? I am convinced
that while children's
brains have a natural
ability to absorb new information as part of their
developmental growth, much of their
achievement is because of social pressure.
Schools force them to take many subjects.
Parents force them to practice new
sports or
to learn music. Even their playmates force them to
become better at
computer games or to read
Harry Potter novels faster. In summary, children
may
enjoy learning, but their environment also
is a big motivating factor.
Adults on the
other hand are supposed to be poor learners.
However, I disagree with
people who say that
adults cannot learn quickly. Adults have many
skills that
compensate for the decline in the
ability of the brain to grasp and remember new
material. They can organize their learning by
setting times for reading or practice.
They
can build on skills and experiences they know
already. Adults usually cannot
learn to do
ballet or to play the violin, but even despite
these physical challenges,
their motivation
can often be higher than a child's. Unfortunately,
society does not
encourage many adults to
learn. People are busy with families and work, and
some
adults may feel that further learning is
pointless, since they have already achieved
many goals at work or in their personal life.
In conclusion, I feel that we cannot
generalize about children or adults being better
learners. It depends on the situation and the
motivation of the person, and the level
of
enthusiasm he or she has for learning.
Should smoking be banned completely?
It has become fashionable in the world today
to condemn smoking. However,
although I feel
that smoking can be harmful, I do not think it
should be banned
completely.
Let me deal
first with the positive side of smoking. First,
smoking undoubtedly helps
many people to
relax. For some, it even improves concentration.
Many people like to
smoke before exams or when
they are relaxing with friends.
A further
point is that governments throughout the world
make huge profits from
levying taxes on
cigarettes. This provides funds which are used for
building schools,
hospitals and other public
amenities.
The tobacco industry also employs
tens of thousands of people throughout the world,
particularly in poorer countries like Zimbabwe
or India. Without cigarettes, these
people
would have no jobs.
I would also argue that
people should have the right to choose whether
they smoke
or not. People should not smoke in
a room where there are non-smokers but surely
they should be free to smoke elsewhere.
The arguments against smoking are well known.
Smoking has been shown to be
dangerous to
health. Heart disease, bronchitis and lung cancer
have all been linked.
A further issue is that
smoking costs governments millions of pounds
because of the
large number of people who need
treatment in hospitals for smoking related
problems.
There is also concern today
about passive smoking. Recent research has shown
that
non-smokers can suffer health problems if
they spend long periods of time among
people
who do smoke.
In general, I think the world
would be a better place without cigarettes.
However,
the decision as to whether to smoke
or not should be for each individual to make.
Should dangerous sports such as
boxing or motor-racing be banned?
Millions of
people play sport every day, and, inevitably, some
suffer injury or pain.
Most players and
spectators accept this risk. However, some people
would like to
see dangerous sports such as
boxing banned. This essay will examine some of the
reasons for banning certain sports.
Some
sports are nothing but an excuse for violence.
Boxing is a perfect example.
The last thing an
increasingly violent world needs is more violence
on our television.
The sight of two men (or
even women) bleeding, with faces ripped open,
trying to
obliterate each other is barbaric.
Other sports, such as American football or rugby,
are also barely-concealed violence.
Some
people argue that the players can choose to
participate. However this is not
always the
case. Many boxers, for example, come from
disadvantaged backgrounds.
They are lured by
money or by social or peer pressure and then
cannot escape. Even
in richer social groups,
schools force unwilling students to play
aggressive team
sports, claiming that playing
will improve the students' character (or the
school's
reputation), but in fact increasing
the risk of injury.
Even where people can
choose, they sometimes need to be protected
against
themselves. Most people approve of
governments' efforts to reduce smoking. In the
same way, governments need to act if there are
unacceptably high levels of injuries
in sports
such as football, diving, mountaineering, or
motor-racing.
I accept that all sports involve
challenge and risk. However violence and
aggression
should not be permitted in the name
of sport. Governments and individuals must act
to limit brutality and violence, so that
children and adults can enjoy and benefit from
sport.
Should dangerous
sports be banned?
Today, many sports are
becoming increasingly regulated. Boxing, rugby,
soccer, and other
games are being targeted by
sports bodies and medical organizations in an
effort to improve
safety standards and to
reduce injuries. However, for some people, this is
not enough, and
they would rather see some
dangerous sports banned completely. In this essay,
I will
examine some arguments against banning
dangerous sports.
Sports, competition, and
games seem to be natural to humans. Young children
learn their
own limits and strengths through
play with others, but they also learn valuable
social lessons
about what acceptable behavior
and the rights of others. Sport therefore is not
just a physical
phenomenon, but a mental and
social one.
Challenging sport provides a
healthy, largely safe, physical outlet for
aggression. There is
very little evidence to
show that people who take part in dangerous sports
become violent as
a result. In fact it is more
likely that apart from the many friendships
created in playing, sport
acts as a safety
valve for a society by reducing stress. Moreover,
sport teaches and requires
discipline,
training, and respect for the rules - valuable
lessons in any society.
Almost all sports
involve some risk. Young rugby players are
paralysed every year in scrums.
Scuba-diving
accidents can lead to brain damage or death. Even
golf or jogging can lead to
pain or injury.
Without some elements of risk or challenge, sport
becomes meaningless. A
marathon runner trying
to improve his time, basketball players fiercely
battling an opposing
team, or a sky-diving
team defying gravity - all are trying to push
themselves to their
maximum. There is
therefore no sport without danger.
There is
also the issue of freedom. Without a wide range of
sports, many people would feel
trapped or
limited. People should be free to participate in
activities with others as long as it
does not
affect the safety of non-participants.
There
also should be limits to the power of governments
to ban sports. If one sport is banned
because
of alleged danger, then what sport would be next?
Boxing is the most common target
of opponents
of dangerous sports. But if boxing is banned,
would motor racing follow, then
rugby,
wrestling, or weightlifting? Furthermore, many
sports would go underground, leading
to
increased injury and illegal gambling.
Nobody
denies that regulation is needed. Medical bodies
have introduced safety rules in
boxing, in
soccer, and these safety regulations have been
welcomed by players. But the role
of
government should be reduced.
In conclusion,
our society would be healthier if more people took
part in sports of all kinds.
We should
continue to try to prevent accidents and injuries.
However, we should also ensure
that sports are
challenging, exciting, and, above all, fun.
How do you think society will be
affected by the growth of telecommuting?
Telecommuting will have major effects in the
worlds of work and family life.
However, its
biggest effect will be in the area of individual
freedom, responsibility,
and time management.
Work and workplaces will alter dramatically.
Offices may become smaller, as fewer
desks are
needed. There will be greater need for high-
bandwidth connections to link
the office and
the home, and even homes to other homes, as other
employees and
supervisors also begin working
at home. Hours spent commuting, traffic jams, and
fights for parking should diminish, as workers
make fewer journeys or work
staggered hours.
Family life will also change. Workers, both
husbands and wives, can arrange their
work
around family commitments such as taking children
to school, cooking, leisure
activities, etc.
However, households will also have to set aside
areas for work -
particularly if both spouses
are telecommuting.
However, although the ideas
of more time at home and less time traveling are
attractive, there are some drawbacks to
telecommuting. People may feel unable to
escape their work, and may even work longer or
more unsocial hours. The quality of
work may
suffer because of the reduced face-to-face
interaction with other
employees. There may be
delays if other workers are not immediately
available.
Telecommuters may feel isolated or
unmotivated, or insecure about decisions. A
major change will be in the way people think
about work as a place or an institution.
Instead, they will focus on the task or
product. Workers may feel less loyal to a
company and more inclined to change jobs or
work part-time or on contract.
In conclusion,
the effects are difficult to predict because they
depend on the extent
to which telecommuting
becomes popular. However, telecommuting could be
the
start of a major societal shift, possibly
as big as the Industrial Revolution which
created our present ideas of work.
Is a third-level education
necessary for success?
It is very difficult
to answer the claim that a person needs a
university education to
be successful in life
because success in life means different things to
different people.
This essay starts by
defining three different ideas of success.
Following this, it looks
at which types of
success are dependent on a university education.
Success in life can be achieved in different
ways. Many magazines and television
programmes
tell us that success means having a lot of money,
having a fulfilling
career, and being
powerful. In contrast, most religious and
spiritual organizations
claim that success
means finding spiritual happiness and being at
peace with God
and with yourself. Another idea
of success focuses on relationships - being
surrounded by people who love you and care
about you, spending time with family
and
friends.
A university education can help you
achieve some types of success, but it makes
little or no difference to whether or not you
are successful in other areas of life.
Undoubtedly, a university education is
essential if you want to have a career in a
profession such as law, engineering, teaching,
or medicine. However, you do not
need a
university degree to become a wealthy and powerful
movie star, sports star
or businessperson. In
fact, a university education does not generally
enable you to
achieve spiritual happiness, or
to have successful relationships with family and
friends.
sIn conclusion, there are many
different types of success. A university education
may help you to achieve professional success
in some careers. However, it will not
help you
to achieve success in other areas of your life
such as your spiritual life or
your
relationships.
Should
parents pay if their children end up in trouble
with the law?
Many crimes and social problems
are caused by children. Despite the damage these
teenage criminals cause, parents are not held
responsible in most countries. This
essay will
discuss whether parents should be forced to pay
for their children's
crimes.
There are
many reasons why parents should not be responsible
for crimes
committed by teenage children.
First of all, teenagers today are independent.
They
often move out of the parent's house at
18 years of age or younger. They are
expected
to learn to take care of themselves and make their
own decisions, and not
stay like small
children attached to their parents. Secondly,
parents are working.
They cannot watch their
adolescent children all the time. A third point is
that even
children from good families can
sometimes commit crimes. Parents should not be
responsible if they have worked hard to raise
their children properly.
However, because of
the many problems young troublemakers cause, I
feel we
should make parents responsible.
Firstly, most juvenile crimes are committed by
adolescents whose parents do not care or make
any effort to control their children.
If
parents had to pay fines, they might make more
effort. Another point is that even
though the
children may seem mature, they are not really able
to make good
decisions. Parents should be
responsible for raising and teaching their
children until
they are fully grown.
Furthermore, if children know that their parents
will have to
pay, they will think carefully
before doing getting into trouble
In summary,
there are good reasons both for and against making
parents pay for
acts committed by their
children. However, I feel strongly that if we want
to reduce
the number of such crimes, we need
to make parents take more responsibility.
Should parents use corporal
punishment to discipline children?
Many
parents use physical punishment to discipline
their children. Others prefer to
use different
methods to reward good behavior or punish
misbehavior. This essay
will look at some of
the arguments for and against physical punishment
of children.
It is often claimed that physical
punishment will damage children in later life.
Opponents of corporal punishment claim that
the children will grow up to become
delinquents or even beat their wives. However,
many happily married adults today
were slapped
when they were younger but have never hit their
spouses. Another
point often made is that
physical punishment teaches children that you can
use
force to make others do what you want. In
fact children brought up well soon learn
that
force by itself is nothing - it must be associated
with right. Finally, some people
say that
punishing a child by smacking him will damage the
relationship between
the child and the
parents. This is clearly wrong. Children who
understand the
reasons for rules will be
happier than children who are not given clear
guidelines.
There are definitely concerns
about physical punishment. Some parents lose
control
and can injure children - even
breaking bones or causing bruises. Others can use
violence excessively or as the only method of
discipline. In this case, the child will be
hurt, fearful and anxious and will not learn
to distinguish right from wrong. The
biggest
problem with physical violence is when it is not
appropriate to the age of the
child. It can be
very effective to quickly smack a two-year-old who
is screaming.
However, it is not effective to
beat a 16-year-old who is late for school once
again.
In conclusion, physical punishment can
be a useful method of discipline. However it
should be the last choice for parents. If we
want to build a world with less violence
we
must begin at home, and we must teach our children
to be responsible.
Physical Punishment for Children?
There have been big changes in the attitudes
of most parents over the last few years.
Very
few parents would agree with using force regularly
as a way of dealing with
discipline problems
in their children. Physical punishment is banned
in schools in
most countries, and in many
countries, there are moves to ban all corporal
punishment of children even in the home.
However, many parents still believe that
they
have a right to use some physical punishment to
deal with certain
misbehaviors at certain
ages. This essay will ask if some physical
punishment is
acceptable today, and will ask
how parents can know what the limits are.
It
is easy to find reasons to allow some physical
punishment. One issue is that many
parents
find it very difficult to abandon physical
punishment completely. Parents
argue that this
was the way they were brought up themselves and
that it didn’t do
any harm to them. They
believe that for the child’s sake that they have
the right to
discipline the child in any way
they see fit, including using corporal punishment.
A
second point is that corporal punishment can
be quick and effective: there is not
much
point reasoning with a screaming child in the
supermarket. Finally, most
parents are
reasonable and fair, and very very few would ever
consider hurting their
children by using
unnecessary physical force.
There are several
reasons however why we should stop using physical
punishment
even in the home. One point is that
most parents are not trained to deal with
misbehaving children. They do not have enough
resources or choices to handle the
situation.
As a result, they immediately react by smacking or
hitting the child, even
if there are other
solutions to the problem. Another point is that
unless people are
challenged or forced to
change their beliefs they may keep following
negative habits.
An example is seatbelt use -
now most people wear seat belts without thinking,
whereas years ago the idea of using safety
belts was strange to most people. In the
same
way, banning physical punishment in the home will
allow people to change
their habits and break
a cycle of violence. However, the most obvious
reason for
banning all physical punishment of
children is to prevent child abuse. If all parents
are allowed to hit their children in the name
of discipline, some parents will go too
far
and will inflict severe emotional and physical
damage on their children. It may
only be a
smll minority of parents, but we need to protect
all our children.
In conclusion, parents have
to change some of their beliefs and ideas about
how
children should be raised. It is possible
to avoid the use of physical force in the home,
and doing so will help us move closer to dream
of removing violence from our
society.
Should governments spend
money on art, when they have so many other
important issues and concerns?
Throughout
the ages, man has tried to create beauty through
painting, music,
sculpture and other artistic
expression. It seems to be a basic need of humans
to
surround themselves with art. However some
people feel that government money
spent on art
is wasted, particularly when there are so many
other demands on it.
This essay will examine
the conflict between those who say art is
important and
those who feel it is a waste of
money.
It can be wrong for governments to
spend large sums of money on art. Too often,
governments spend unwisely. They spend money
on art not because a picture is
good or a
museum is needed, but for political reasons.
Cities end up with huge
statues or empty
expensive buildings that are used only by a few
people or the elite.
Another point is that the
artworks are often chosen to represent social or
political
rather than artistic ideas. The city
gets yet another statue of the leader or an ugly
monument to national aspirations. A third
point is that governments often respond
to
fashions, and tastes in art can change very
rapidly. Without careful advice an
expensive
collection of worthless paintings or tasteless
productions can be the
result.
However, it
would be wrong to say that governments should not
spend any money
at all on art. Painters,
musicians, and composers cannot survive without
financial
support. Rich people or large
companies do finance art, but then it is often
inaccessible to ordinary people. Governments
have a duty to make this art available
to
everyone. However, the most important reason why
governments should support
the arts is because
an appreciation of art is one of the things that
makes life
worthwhile. Humans do not need just
shelter and food. Creative people have always
tried to look at things in a new way and to
make the world a better place through
painting, music, poetry, calligraphy,
sculpture, dance, and numerous other forms of
expression. While art may not make us
immortal, it does make the world a richer
place for future generations.
In
conclusion, although people do need to be provided
with the necessities of life,
such as housing
and medical care, governments also have a duty to
provide their
citizens with something more.
They should make sure that they pass on beauty,
ideas and expression to the next generation
and make art available to all instead of
being
the possession of only the few. I firmly believe
that spending money on art is
a vital part of
a government's responsibility, and I am confident
that my country will
be able to contribute its
share to the richness of the world's art and
creativity.
Should
governments spend money on art, when they have so
many other
important issues and concerns?
Many people's lives are richer because of art
- music, paintings, calligraphy, pictures,
sculpture, poems and dance. However, some
people feel that governments should
be
spending money on housing, medical care, or
defence, instead of on art. This
essay will
discuss whether governments should or should not
spend money on the
arts.
There are several
reasons why governments should not finance
artists. First of
all, artists should have to
follow the same rules as the rest of the market.
If there is
a demand for their music or
sculpture, then they will be rich. Secondly,
politicians
generally do not have good taste.
They will waste public money on popular art or on
their own preferences. But the main reason why
governments should
minimize spending on the
art world is that there are more important areas
like
housing, roads, hospitals, and factories
which need the money first.
However, it
would be wrong to say that governments should not
spend any
money at all on art. Everybody needs
some beauty in their life, but not everyone can
afford a Picasso or a piece of music.
Governments should provide money for
museums
or concert halls for everyone. Another point is
that art allows people to
express themselves
and this is good for society, culture and thought.
Thirdly,
artists can be good for the economy
by producing music, films, and attracting
tourists.
All in all, governments should
prioritize their spending carefully, but they
should
also allocate some of their budget for
art. It is part of their duty to society and to
future generations.
In the fight against crime, police
forces and governments are increasingly
using
security cameras in public places. Some people are
opposed to this,
saying that it invades our
privacy. What do you think?
Security cameras
have become ubiquitous in many countries. Whereas
before they
appeared only in banks and at
high-security areas, they are now entering public
places such as malls, streets, stadiums and
transport. Many people feel this affects
their
privacy. This essay will examine whether the
advantages of these cameras
outweigh their
negative impact.
Surveillance cameras have
several benefits. An obvious benefit is that the
police can
catch criminals in the act, thus
reducing crime. This will make the streets safer
for
ordinary people. A more important point is
that criminals, particularly young
offenders
or petty criminals will be deterred. They will not
be tempted to carry out
crimes, and thus
society will be a lot safer. Cameras are also
cost-effective and
unobtrusive. Authorities do
not need to spend large amounts of money on
police.
However, security cameras are far from
being a perfect solution. The biggest
objection concerns privacy. Many people feel
that they should be free to travel or
move
around a shop, mall, street or country without
being photographed or
recorded. They feel that
being watched constantly is like being in a jail,
and that
ordinary people are losing their
freedom because of these devices. Another point is
that although the police say that only
criminals have something to fear from the
cameras, many people do not trust governments
with too much information.
Corrupt authorities
could use information in the wrong way or twist it
to victimize
some groups. Thirdly, cameras and
computers can make mistakes.
In conclusion,
although there are definite advantages to using
surveillance devices
such as cameras, we need
to balance the need for security with respect for
the
individual's privacy and freedom. If we do
not trust the members of society, a
situation
like George Orwell's
When should people be made to retire?
55? 65? Should there be a
compulsory
retirement age?
Many old people work well into
their 70s and 80s, running families, countries or
corporations. Other people, however, despite
being fit and highly talented, are
forced to
retire in their or even earlier because of company
or national regulations.
This essay will
examine whether people should be allowed to
continue working for as
long as they want or
whether they should be encouraged to retire at a
particular
stage.
There are several
arguments for allowing older people to continue
working as long
as they are able. First of
all, older employees have an immense amount of
knowledge and experience which can be lost to
a business or organization if they are
made to
retire. A second point is that older employees are
often extremely loyal
employees and are more
willing to implement company policies than younger
less
committed staff. However, a more
important point is regarding the attitudes in
society to old people. To force someone to
resign or retire at 60 or 65 indicates that
the society does not value the input of these
people and that effectively their useful
life
is over.
Allowing older people to work
indefinitely however is not always a good policy.
Age
alone is no guarantee of ability. Many
younger employees have more experience or
skills than older staff, who may have been
stuck in one area or unit for most of their
working lives. Having compulsory retirement
allows new ideas in an organization. In
addition, without age limits, however
arbitrary, many people would continue to
work
purely because they did not have any other plans
or roles. A third point of view
is that older
people should be rewarded by society for their
life’s labor by being given
generous pensions
and the freedom to enjoy their leisure.
With
many young people unemployed or frustrated in low-
level positions, there are
often calls to
compulsorily retire older workers. However, this
can affect the older
individual’s freedom -
and right - to work and can deprive society of
valuable
experience and insights. I feel that
giving workers more flexibility and choice over
their retirement age will benefit society and
the individual.
Should
famous people have more privacy? Does the media
treat celebrities
fairly?
Being famous is
not as easy as you think. Newspapers, television
and the internet
can make you very well-known,
but they can also take away your privacy. This
essay will discuss whether celebrities are
treated fairly by the media.
Famous people
depend on the media. Without films, television,
magazines, radio,
and other media, there would
be no money for actors or musicians, and
politicians
would not get elected. Without
advertisements, Beckham would not get huge
contracts. However, in return for publicity
and even more fame and money,
celebrities sell
part of their personal and professional lives.
Often, their friends and
families suffer too.
The media, in turn, depends on celebrity.
Sports heroes, supermodels, and
politicians
fill the pages of our papers and our television
screens. But the
relationship can easily go
wrong. Too much attention from the media can drive
some celebrities crazy. The families are
affected, and relationships break down.
Their
work or social life suffers, leading to even more
rumors and media stories. Like
a pack of wild
dogs, the press feeds on its victims and fights
over the bones.
Sometimes, the media has a
duty to do. It must tell the public about some
wrongdoing or some crooked business deal. But
usually the main business of the
media is to
sell more magazines or advertisements, and when it
has chewed up one
victim, the pack will move
on to the next.
In conclusion, there is a
constant battle between media and celebrities, and
often
there are human victims. The next time
you read about the latest footballer or
singer, think about the human behind the
story.
Do the media
treat famous people unfairly? Should famous people
be given
more privacy? Is publicity about
their private lives the price VIPs must pay
for fame?
Most ordinary people respect
the rights of others to a private life. However,
some
people are obsessed with celebrities and
VIPS. They want to know everything about
them,
and have an insatiable desire for more
information. This essay will discuss
whether
newspapers and TV should show us intimate details
of famous people’s
lives.
Famous people
deserve privacy and respect. First of all, we
should admire what they
do, not who they are.
If someone is a famous singer or footballer, we
should enjoy
their talent on the pitch or at a
concert, but we should not invade their family or
private life through the media. Secondly, the
children and family of famous people
should
not be affected. Some stars have to hire security
for their children or spouses
because of media
attention. Another point is that too much
attention can affect
celebrities. They begin
to act strangely and lose touch with reality.
Although, generally speaking, the media should
not interfere in people’s private
lives, there
are times when it is correct to do so. If a
politician is becoming very rich,
the media
should investigate where the money is coming from.
If a businessman is
committing a crime, the
public should know. It is also fair for the media
to show
contradictions between a famous
people’s private and public lives. A further point
is
that media such as TV or papers are meeting
a demand. We can make the media
accountable by
not buying rubbishy magazines or watching
sensationalist
programs.
In conclusion,
the responsibility lies with us, the consumers. We
should treat
celebrities the way we would like
to be treated—with respect, and we should treat
trashy media with the scorn it deserves.
What are the problems of
living with a roommate in college? Is it better
than living alone?
Many students are
obliged to share accommodation with another
student while in
college. Sharing may seem
awkward at first, but it may prove to be a very
good
experience. In this essay, the benefits
and disadvantages of living with a roommate
will be discussed, as well as the qualities
needed in a good roommate.
If you have never
shared with someone, you may have some
difficulties adjusting.
You may find that the
other person is very different in character and he
or she
doesn't suit you as a companion. Will
he person be clean and tidy? Will she eat the
same food or enjoy the same music? How should
you react to your roommate's
friends? And of
course, there is the issue of telephone bills and
shared expenses. For
some people, the lack of
privacy is the biggest challenge, while others may
find their
roommates over-sensitive or
distant. It is essential to try to understand each
other
and make living together more pleasant
and even fun.
Yes, fun, because there are many
positive aspects to sharing. New students are
often far away from their families and
friends, and may experience loneliness and
homesickness. Both may also be facing new
challenges in their studies. Sharing
offers
companionship to people who might otherwise have
to face these problems
alone. Furthermore,
since college is not just about academic learning,
sharing is an
opportunity to develop
communication skills so that a good atmosphere is
established. Both students can learn from each
other about new interests and
explore new
activities. However, it is important to realize
that your roommate does
not have to be your
best friend. In fact, the most desirable feature
when living with
someone else is respect for
the other person's needs. Neither you nor your
roommate will be right all the time.
In
conclusion, I think that there are more benefits
than disadvantages in having a
roommate, but
it depends on both dealing with concerns honestly
and sensitively in
order to make student life
as happy as possible.
Should children be educated at home or
in school?
In most countries in the world,
governments require children to attend schools in
which trained teachers are responsible for
educating the children using an approved
curriculum. However a significant number of
parents believe that it is much better
for
their children to be educated at home by the
people who know them and their
needs best.
This essay will examine the question of home
schooling and discuss
which the best option
for the child is
An increasing number of
parents are deciding that home schooling is the
best option
for their children. They are
unhappy with the quality or depth of education
offered in
the schools, or have other reasons
why they feel that traditional schools are not
suitable for their children. One reason is
social factors. Parents worry that their
children will suffer from bullying or will be
forced into antisocial behavior by peer
pressure. They believe that the good behavior
they have taught the child will be lost
in
school. Another reason is concern over the quality
of schooling available. Schools
frequently
have large classes. They are often under-funded,
and staffed by teachers
without sufficient
knowledge of their subjects. Subjects such as the
family’s religion
or language may not even be
available in the school. Other parents may
disagree
with the aims of the school
curriculum, preferring for academic, social or
cultural
reasons to keep their children
separate. Finally, some children with special
needs
may need particular parental care.
However, there are many arguments in favor of
sending children to conventional
schools. The
first is that the children will be exposed to
other children. These
children may represent
either a cross-section of society or a narrow
group, but in
either case the children will
interact with each other and develop social
skills. A
second point is that the children
will learn to function outside the family. They
will
not be dependent on their parents for
their educational, emotional and social needs.
A third point is that the children will find
it easier to integrate when they finish school,
as they eventually will, when they start work
or college.
Overall, while many parents work
hard to teach their children at home, conventional
schools are still the right choice for most
children. Schools are not perfect, but they
seem to be a proven way of preparing our
children for the real world.