1. Do you agree that the advantages cars bring outweigh the disadvantages?



Download 457.19 Kb.
View original pdf
Page2/6
Date08.09.2020
Size457.19 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6
general workings
of the business. Moreover, employees feel that they will be rewarded for their extra effort and
hard work. So, an employee who has been tested and excelled at a lower level can be shifted to
an upper level.

On the other hand, there are some disadvantages of hiring from within. Sometimes, the established
policy of hiring from within makes some employees feel that they are entitled to promotion just because they have spent time with the company. Secondly, this can hurt the feelings of other employees who are not promoted. They may feel that they deserve the position better. In my opinion, a manager or business owner needs to remember that all the hiring decisions need to be made with the idea of strengthening the business. This means that sometimes a person from within can be moved up and sometimes a highly qualified person can be hired from outside. In conclusion, I believe that, each promotion needs to be done on a case-to -case basis and at all times the HR manager needs to do what is in the best interest of the company.
From within (phrase) inside the company
In-house hiring (phrase) hire somebody inside the company
Special training (phrase) teach them how to do it in the beginning
General workings of the business (phrase) how the business is done
Rewarded for their extra effort and hard work (phrase) get some benefits if they try harder and harder
Shifted to an upper level (phrase) move to a higher position
The established policy (phrase) the policy made by the company
Be entitled to promotion (phrase) have the chance to get to higher positions
Strengthen the business (phrase) make the business better
Be moved up (phrase) moved to a higher position
On a case to case basis (phrase) depend on a person’s situation
In the best interest of the company (phrase) the best thing for the company

9. Some people think that animals should be kept in men made cells. What are the
disadvantages of keeping animal in zoos?

I disagree that animals should be kept in manmade cells. I feel that zoos are an unsuitable environment for animals and therefore should be abolished. Firstly, zoo animals are kept in very confined areas compared with their vast natural habitat. Due to this, zoo animals develop unnatural habits like pacing back and forth or swaying from side to side. For example, polar bears are given about 10 meters of walking space whereas in their arctic home they roam for hundreds of kilometers. Similarly, lions and tigers are confined in cages where they lack exercise and stimulation. What is more, it is very common for visitors to tease
and provoke caged animals. This also leads to unnatural behavior in animals. Secondly, the breeding programs taken up by zoos are not very successful. For instance, the Panda Breeding Program' has been very costly and unsuccessful. Also, zoo life does not prepare
animals for the challenges of life in the wild. They are provided good food in the zoos, but if left in the jungle, they may die of starvation because they cannot hunt for themselves. Finally, the zoo is an unnatural environment that exposes animals to many dangers. Diseases often spread between species that would never live together naturally. For example, many Asian elephants have died in African zoos after catching herpes from African elephants. In conclusion, I believe that, zoos are unnatural habitat for the wild animals and there is nob bjustificationb in caging these marvelous creatures of God.

Confined area (phrase) narrow places
Develop unnatural habits (phrase) do something unnaturally
Lack exercise and stimulation (phrase) don’t have enough exercise and feel bored
Unnatural behavior in animals (phrase) animals become strange in the way they behave
Prepare animals for the challenges of life (phrase) make them ready to deal with difficulties
Die of starvation (phrase) Die because they have food to eat
Expose animals to many dangers (phrase) make animals face a lot of dangers

There is no justification: There is no reason why we should do something
Marvelous creatures of God (phrase) wonderful animals


10. It is more important fora building to serve a purpose than to look beautiful. Architects
shouldn't worry about producing building as a work of art. Do you agree or disagree
It is true that buildings should be more utilitarian than beautiful. However, I disagree that architects should not make efforts about making artistic buildings. I believe that today's architects have the expertise and the resources to design buildings which are both - beautiful and useful. A good building should satisfy the three principles of durability, utility and beauty. It should stand up robustly and remain in good condition. It should be useful and function well for the people using it. It should delight people and raise their spirits. A good architect should strive to fulfill each of these three attributes as well as possible. To begin with, the burgeoning population and, he scarcity of land today have raised the debate whether he buildings of today should only be useful and not beautiful. However, the skyscrapers of today are the answers to both these problems. They accommodate a lot of people in the least amount of space and these skyscrapers are architectural marvels in terms of beauty. Secondly, the natural resources are limited and it is the need of the hour to make energy efficient buildings. For example, using solar panels and other energy saving measures are the need of the day. Today's architects have been successful in designing aesthetically appealing solar panels which needless space. The climate change that is taking place because of global warming need buildings that needless air conditioning and yet remain cool. In conclusion, I believe that, it is commendable for architects to understand function, and aesthetics both. It is a big responsibility to have buildings which are both useful and beautiful and architects of today have the capability to do so.

11. Some people believe they should keep all the money they have earned and should not
pay tax to the state. What is the purpose of taxes Why do some people refuse to pay
taxes and explain the effects on society
I disagree with the statement that individuals should not pay taxes to the state. The government runs the country from the taxes it collects. Taxes are collected only from those who earn above a certain minimum limit. It is our moral duty to pay taxes. Tax money collected by government is used to fund basic amenities, provide various services to citizens and for government administration and projects running of jails and defense system and many other operations. It is not wrong to say that taxes run a country" Thus, it is very important fora government to make people pay taxes. Let us analyze why people do not want to pay taxes. The main reason is their dissatisfaction with government in serving them. They blame government for things like alack of infrastructure, poverty and unemployment, but they are not completely wrong as tax revenue is misused in some or the other way in every country. In developed countries, however, because of higher satisfaction from government's functioning, citizens maybe more willing to pay taxes. Another factor generating dissatisfactions the tax structure itself. Often the tax system is complex and it drives people away from paying taxes, it is also felt that the tax rates are high and tax slabs are unequal. So they feel it is not unethical if one goes for tax avoidance or tax evasion Not paying taxes can drastically affect a country's revenue generation, my own country, India, for that matter. But then, it is desired that government come up with a fair tax structure and also make people aware where the taxes are being diverted. Even lowering the tax rates can help a country increase its tax collection as it would increase compliance among the taxpayers. Tax reform should also be fast so that no public grievance or noncompliance remains for long A proper tax system backed up with strict tax laws can produce the best results. In conclusion, I believe that, it is the duty of every citizen to pay tax and the duty of every government to use it appropriately in public interest

12. Some people claim that public museums and art galleries will not be needed because
people can see historical objects and works of art by using a computer. Do you agree orb bdisagree with this opinion

It is irrefutable that nowadays, because of technology, armchair tourism through which we can see historical objects and works of art on a computer, has gained popularity. However, I disagree, that public museums and art galleries will no longer be needed. In fact, I believe that their popularity will grow even further. First of all, computers can never replace real public museums and art galleries. No matter how real and vivid computer images are, they are only images and can never be likened to the historical objects and works of art that we see in real or even might be allowed to touch with our fingertips. The difference can be compared to seeing the picture of a mango rather than actually eating it. Secondly, visiting real museums and art galleries is a rewarding experience many respects. For one thing, it is a good exercise. While we are Snaking the trip to a museum or art gallery and then strolling about on the site, we get some exercise which does a lot of good to our health. We generally go with family and friends and enjoy a lot. We also learn about the culture and tradition of the place. All this broadens our horizons which can never be done by the passive activity of seeing something on the computer screen. Finally, I believe that after seeing these objects and museums, our craving to actually see these increases even more and so we make efforts to go and see these places. This can be proved by the overwhelming number of tourists to these places that has been increasing ear after year. At certain times, especially when it is temporarily impossible for us to visit museums and art galleries in person, we can get a rough picture of what are on display on site. However, what we see from a computer screen is, after all, not exactly the same as what we see and feel with our own eyes on site. In conclusion, armchair tourism is there today but museums and art galleries will still be needed.


13. An American film actor once said, Tomorrow is important and precious. Some people
think individuals and society should pay more attention to the future than to the present.
Do you agree or disagree

I certainly support the view. One should most definitely keep the future in mind and not fritter away everything to enjoy the present. One should always remember that the present would one day transform into the future, and when it eventually does, it should be safe and secure. The same holds true for societies. Let us consider why it is so important to be prepared for the coming time. The mortality rate has comedown and the span of life is generally longer, but the period of earning is comparatively limited. Nobody knows how long he would live, but the age of retirement is generally fixed. One cannot work indefinitely. Therefore, during his earning span, he has to make sure that he puts aside enough money that will hold him in good stead in his later years, when he will be able to work no more. Further, the requirements in old age sometimes exceed a person's needs during the period of his youth. Deteriorating health translates into higher medical bills and hospital charges being weak and infirm, one needs to spend more on commuting. He will need to hire assistants to help in the house. Next come the needs of the family. One has to provide for the education and marriage expenses of the dependent members of the family, like children and even grandchildren. One has to pay one's insurance premiums, and even for the day-to-day needs of the younger members of the family, till such time as they are employed and earning. Moreover, one may incur extra expenditure on leisure activities. People generally travel more after retirement to meet their relatives and friends who maybe settled and staying faraway from them. There would also be the visual expenses on house maintenance and repair, and the payment of personal and property taxes. The societies should also think about tomorrow. Neighborhood should be planned nicely. Everyone should participate in community projects. Good educational institutes and health centres should be therein all areas. If only today is looked into and no planning is done for tomorrow then crime and violence would increase in society and everyone would suffer. Therefore, it is imperative that people and societies plan wisely for the future. If one has saved enough, one can sit back and enjoy peace and comfort in ones later years and even witness the
smile of joy on the faces of one's children. If he has saved not, then the journey ahead would be dreary and dismal indeed.

14. Teachers used to convey information, but now with wide resources of information. Some
people think that there is no role for teachers to play in modern education, others
disagree. Discuss both views and give your opinion
I disagree with the view that teachers have lost their importance in education because of the abundant resources such as the internet. 1 firmly believe that teachers areas important as before and even more so. Both sides of the argument will be explained. It is irrefutable the computer and internet have made possible distance education and online education, in this regard computers area boon for the handicapped, those living in remote areas and those in job. They can study anytime of the day or night with the internet access. This has made education approachable for many who cannot for some reason or the other attend a college or university. However, I still feel that teachers can never lose their importance. In learning and practice of more complex ideas, the computer is not adequate It can tell if the answer is right or wrong but it cannot tell where the student went wrong. Tasks involving reasoning cannot be taught using computers. Moreover, teachers add their own knowledge gained through experience that of books and other resources. Furthermore, teachers can stimulate students' interest and it is an undeniable fact that stimulated people tend to learn more. They can keep students focused on study. A student studying by himself may get bored and stop studying. Teachers can provide a faster and simpler way to present information to the students. They can comedown to the level of a student and so are definitely better than computers. What is more, teachers are role models for students. They are scholars inaction. They not only teach academic subjects, but also many social skills.
In conclusion, I believe that, there is no doubt that modern resources have changed education from a teacher-oriented one to a student-centred one, but teachers will always hold their importance and can never be replaced by any technology.
15. Sending criminals to prison is not the best method of dealing with them. Education and
job training are better ways to help them. Do you agree or disagree?


Opinions are divided as to the best way to reduce crime. The traditional solution is to punish
the criminals by putting them in prison. Some hold the view that education and job training are the long term solutions to cut crime. In my opinion, prison is the only answer in a few situations, but inmost cases education, vocational training and rehabilitation are better. Prison is the only answer in case of criminals who are a dire threat to the society, such as murderers. They cannot be made to mix with society. Some people also say that people would not be afraid of committing crime if fear of imprisonment is not there. But I still feel that in the majority of cases can do without prisons. In traditional prisons, people learn a lot about crime and so when they leave prison they will commit even more crime. In other words, prisons act as universities of crime. Sob petty offenders
like shop-lifters and pick-pockets should be given some vocational training and education. It is a well-known fact that the basic causes of crime are poverty, illiteracy and unemployment. So, if we provide education and job training then we would be removing the causes of crime. If
criminals are rehabilitated by some forms of employment, then they would certainly not reoffend. Furthermore, the prisons are expensive to maintain. The government can spend that money on other important matters such as education and healthcare. This would ease some burden from the
government's shoulders. The petty and minor criminals can also be employed in some
community service projects after providing education and vocational training. In conclusion, I believe that, we should hate the crime and not the criminal. To fight crime, we should focus on the causes of crime. Education and job training help to rehabilitate the

criminals. So, people who commit less serious crimes should not be sent to prison. Focus should be on reforming them.

Opinions are divided as to something: People have different views about something
Vocational training (phrase) teach criminals a job
A dire threat to someone (phrase) be dangerous to someone
Remove the causes of something (phrase) stop something from happening
Reoffend (verb) commit the crime again
Petty and minor criminals (phrase) those who commit small crimes
Ease some burden from the government's shoulders (phrase) make somebody less stressed and worried
Community service (phrase) work that someone does as a punishment, instead of going to prison
Rehabilitate (v) to help someone who has been ill or in prison to return to a healthy, independent, and useful life
Reform (v) change
16. Rich countries should not employ skilled labor from poor countries, as poor countries
need the workers more. Do you agree or disagree
Rich countries depend heavily on cheap imported labor to increase their profit margin. This demand for outsourcing increased further during recession faced by USA. Although poor countries may need their skilled workers to help them develop as a nation, it is felt that overall greater benefit is reaped when their skilled workers are employed by rich countries. This essay shall analyze how the employment of cheap foreign labor helps the developing countries also by giving them chances for skill development and economic growth.
Firstly, when developed countries outsource work, requiring skilled labor to developing countries, a demand is created in those poor countries which leads to higher education in those poorer nations. For example, in the late twentieth century, India saw a huge influx of software development work from the United States and this corresponded positively to an equal growth in the Indian tech- related education sector. This example shows that if developing countries make their skilled labor available for hire to the world, they also develop their internal infrastructure such as good educational institutes. Thus, developing countries also benefit when an openness to foreign employment is embraced. In addition to this, the economies of developing countries are given new avenues in which to grow when a working partnership with developed countries is established. Again, take the relationship between the United States and India as an example. Currently, English-speaking receptionists in India handle telephone support for many different American products. These employment options encourage more and more Indians to study English, which in turn creates all sorts of new opportunities for business relationships between the two countries. Thus, the idea that poor countries should close their doors to foreign interest in their skilled labor is not supported. It has also been seen that workers from poor countries earn more from rich countries than they would from employment within their country. Most of them invest that money in their own country and this improves the overall economy of the poor countries. In conclusion, I believe that, poorer countries are inmost cases better by making their skilled labor available to developed countries. This trend is in noway detrimental to their own development.
17. Individuals should not be allowed to carry guns. To what extend do you agree or disagree
with this statement
There are some who hold the opinion that gun ownership should be restricted, as it is in many countries, and that people in general should not be permitted to keep them. There area number of reasons to agree with this point of view, as will now be discussed.
A major reason why governments should not allow people to have guns is because of the potential for accidents. In America, for example, you can legally shoot people if you find them robbing your house, but this can lead to people dying over leases of mistaken identity. In addition, there are crimes where people act rashly or in anger, so guns that were intended for defence are often used aggressively. There is also the intentional damage caused by guns. It is statistically evident that the number of gun-related crimes is higher in countries where firearm ownership is legal. Countries like America, for example, suffer from a disproportionately high number of fatal shootings in comparison with most other countries. Some people, however, argue that shooting is a sport, thus being prevented from owning their own firearm is both unjust and violation of our rights. Yet this must be balanced with the overwhelming number of people who use guns for criminal purposes. To sum up, it is clear that the proliferation of guns leads to injury and death both intentionally and unintentional. Although there are points to support gun ownership, they are weak in comparison with the rising tide of gun crime, situation which will only continue to worsen.


18. The subjects and lesson contents are decided by the authorities such as the government.
Some people argue that teachers should make the choice. Agree or disagree
In almost all parts of the world, there is a Rational curriculum decided by the government which is followed in all schools. Some people however feel that it restricts the teachers freedom to respond to the students' needs and so teachers should decide the school curricula. I believe that the national curriculum is good enough and has withstood the test of time but some portion of the curriculum should be left in the hands of the teachers. Having a national curriculum merely standardises what is taught across the country, giving equal opportunity to all. If we Abolish the national curriculum, anything could be taught and students would have even less equal opportunities. This would also worsen the gap between the government
and private schools, it may also imply that religious schools could teach only religion and ignore science and therefore many students would not receive a well-rounded education. On the other hand, it is also true that the national curriculum does not allow for enough local variation. It is important for children to learn the values of things such as local history, accents and dialects. We are not all the same and school should reflect on that. The present problem is that the curriculum is too comprehensive. It tries to squeeze all children into the same mold. What is actually needed is a more flexible policy to allow for individual aptitudes and interests. However, there should still be a limited core curriculum which should be decided by the government. Then the teachers should be given some freedom to offer any other subjects which the pupils and their parents want. Young people of all ages would be much more likely to thoroughly enjoy school, learn effectively, develop their individual talents, and gain a love of learning which will illuminate their whole lives. Teachers would walk tall' in our society and establish their proper roles guardians of the future In conclusion, I believe that, a national curriculum should be there but there should also be room for teachers to have their say wherever needed.


Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6


The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2019
send message

    Main page