19. Money for postgraduate research is limited. Some people think that financial support from governments should be provided for scientific research. Do you agree or disagree There is no doubt that postgraduate research can provide a lot of wealth to country. However, it is a matter of debate whether all these researches should be funded by governments. 1 agree with the statement that government should fund only scientific research and the less useful research should be sponsored by some private agencies. There is a strong argument why only scientific researches should be done by the government. Government has so many other responsibilities on its shoulders. It has to provide infrastructure such as transportation, hospitals and education institutes to the citizens. Then it has to support the defence services and even maintain law and order in the country. It is, however, important to identify areas where only the government should carryout and control scientific research. Firstly, researches into nuclear technology and national defence are very crucial. They cannot be left into the hands of private companies. Secondly, some researches are
only for the advancement of knowledge. In such research the private companies have no incentive. So the government should take the leading role. There are many benefits if private companies participate in postgraduate researches. To begin with, researches are done more efficiently by private companies because they are profit driven. Every dollar is spent wisely on sure maximum benefits and every resource is used effectively to avoid waste. Also, researches by private companies are closely associated with market needs. Private companies are market oriented so they always come up with inventions that have practical values that can increase productivity and improve life. For example, researches in cosmetics and cough medicines. In conclusion, I believe that, governments should identify areas of scientific research which cannot be left in the hands of private companies and leave the other less important researches in the hands of private companies. 20. Television has changed the quality of life for the ordinary person. Do you agree orb bdisagree There is probably no greater influence on social issues and society itself than the television. It has become arguably the greatest invention of the past century. There is no doubt that it has significantly changed the life of an ordinary citizen. The point to be pondered over is that as television has saturated our lives, has it always resulted toward our betterment With TV, we have witnessed countless historical events inaugurations of presidents man's first stepson the moon even disasters as they happen. We watch TV in the morning to receive the daily news. We eat watching it. We watch it before they go to bed. While enjoying the entertaining programs aired on television, we hardly give thought to its detrimental effects, especially on young children. The box has made us get rid of courtesies. When we have a guest, we cannot even conceal our lack of interest and attention in what they are saying, let alone fuming the volume down or switching it off altogether. We never think twice before turning the TV on at about 12:30 in the morning at a
high volume. The half-literate domestic helper watches TV serials when she is free, whereas she would try hard to read the newspapers had it been a few years ago. And the list can goon. In earlier times women spent their idle afternoons visiting their neighbors and men socialized with their friends and colleagues. In today's competitive world people are willing to work for longer hours fora better future. It's already hard for the modern urban Indian to spend time even with their family. But in spite of that, the television eats up from the few hours one gets to stay at home. Such meager interaction increases the distance between spouses, and more importantly, between children and their parents, which has been found to harm the way they grow up and form relationships. What is more, the advertisements succeed in giving rise to strong materialistic wants in people, which must be one of the reasons why our society is becoming increasingly consumerist. Therefore, moderation is quite important to ensure that the television is used as a source of healthy entertainment and for Enhancing knowledge. So, it is better to set a time limit for watching television. Children should be encouraged to participate in activities like playing and reading books. Before allowing children to watch television programs, the parents should take into account the program reviews and television ratings. They should be encouraged to watch programs that reinforce family values. As parents re the role models for their children, hence it is equally important to limit your own television watching, to set an example for them. To sum up, it can be said that television has changed the life of the ordinary man beyond recognition both negative and positive ways. We must ration our TV viewing hours in order to escape from its cons. 21. Some people think the government should pay for health care and education, but other people claim that it is the individual's responsibility. Discuss both views and give your opinion? Nowadays, health care and education have become the focus of the people's concern. It is ab highly debated issue as to who should pay for these services. There are those who argue that the government should pay for them while others think the costs should be shouldered by
individuals. Personally, I think that basic healthcare and primary education should be on the government but advanced health care and higher education should be borne by the individual. It is irrefutable that it is the government's responsibility to make basic health care and primary education accessible to everyone. The reason is that ab nations prosperity very much depends on the contribution made by its well- educated citizens who are in good health. After all we all pay taxes and so web are entitled to get something back in return. Private schools and private hospitals can be available for those who want and can afford it but the free schools and free government hospitals should always be there. On the other hand, individuals should be responsible for their advanced health care. Actually, the advanced medical and surgical treatments are very expensive. So, instead of depending on government we should take some health insurance or save in any other way with the tomorrow in mind. Higher education, too, benefits the individual more than the nation. So it is quite reasonable to pay for it from one's pocket. There are, of course, some sections of society who cannot afford their own healthcare. The government should have some system of knowing their financial status and provide free healthcare so that nobody dies for want of treatment. As far as higher education is concerned, the government can have some system of interest free loans for the needy and meritorious students. To sum up, basic education and primary education should be borne by the government but advanced health care and education should be paid by the individual from his pocket. The focus of the people's concern (phrase) make people really concerned The costs should be shouldered by individuals: people should pay them It is irrefutable that clause: We can’t deny that… Make basic health care and primary education accessible to something (phrase) make sure people have access to healthcare and education Nation's prosperity (phrase) the growth or success of a nation Well-educated citizen (phrase)good citizen
To be in good health(phrase) healthy To be entitled to get something back in return (phrase) have the right to receive something because we give something to others Cannot afford their own healthcare (phrase) cant pay for the care Financial status (phrase) whether they have a lot of money or have no money Die for want of treatment (phrase) die because they can’t receive the treatment System of interest free loans(phrase) lend them money without too much interest The needy (n) poor people Meritorious student (phrase) excellent students 22. Some people think typical teaching of a teacher and students in the class will not exist by the year 2050. Are you optimistic or pessimistic about this view Technology is progressing at an exponential pace and this makes it very difficult to predict what the schools and the teacher-taught relation of 2050 will be like. However, I do agree with the given statement that the typical teaching of a teacher and students in the class will not exist by 2050. Education will be driven by technology and learning will be able to happen anytime and anywhere. Students will also be able to make choices inflow they learn the content. Learning will be based on individual interest and need It will no longer be the 'one size fits all' approach. Technology will serve as a means to access the resources that students will be able to utilize in order to broaden their learning. Teachers will become facilitators of knowledge and no longer the only experts because of the rapid and constant changes and additions to information that can be found. For example, the amount of medical knowledge doubles every eight years it is said that half of what an engineering student learns in their first year is obsolete or revised by the time they graduate. The teacher will still guide students through learning but it will be impossible for teachers to have all the knowledge with technology that is capable of finding more than can be learned. The teacher
will still be needed to help students learn whereto locate information and help students evaluate sites and resources for validity. Specialists in technology will need to be part of the educational environment to constantly enrich the learning environment for students. Each child will have a portable computer and textbooks will not exist. Teachers will use tablet PCs and projectors to call up image sat the front of the classroom at the touch of a button with the old sound of chalk on a blackboard being replaced by the hum of desktop computers. To sum up, I believe that, despite all the new technology in 2050, school would still remain a study environment and teachers would still be there even if their way of imparting knowledge would be driven by technology. 23. In several years many languages die out. Some say it is not important because if we speak fewer languages life would be easier. Do you agree or disagree The United Nations estimates that approximate 6,500 languages are spoken in the world today. By the end of this century, many linguists estimate that over half of those 6,500 languages will begone. Some opine that it is futile to save these languages because it is more convenient to have fewer languages today. I agree with this view. The reason why the possibility of a language dying raises so much concern for sociolinguists is that language is directly related to culture. It is said that, "When a language dies, a culture dies. Secondly, these languages area significant part of their speaker's identity. Beyond preserving culture and using language as apart of the speakers' identity, a very practical reason for wanting to save a dying language is that archaeologists and anthropologists can get a wealth of information about a society from its language. If a language dies out so does our access to direct knowledge about its customs, folktales, and vocabulary for describing the world. However, languages that lose their communicative purposes and are abandoned by speakers should disappear from the public arena. The truth of "when a language dies, a culture dies" does not imply the truth of when a language is saved, a culture is so saved. The change of culture is a normal part
of the law of change and we should welcome this change. The only thing that can be achieved by saving a language is or intra-linguistic studies and nothing more. Furthermore, it is irrefutable that what actually kills languages is the choices of the speakers. The moment the speakers of a language realize that their language does not have a global functionality, they begin to abandon it. In today's global village, it is far more convenient to have a few languages. There is better communication and also more promising job prospects worldwide with fewer languages. Even the technology of today is more comfortable to learn with fewer languages. So, such languages that have limited potential at the global stage, and they thus come under threat or even die, it would be better to let them die. There is no need to preserve them. In conclusion, I believe that, the idea of saving threatened languages sounds good but it is difficult to achieve because the speakers have aright to shift to another language. Once this happens, there is no logical basis for saving a past linguistic behavior. What is more, globalization will continually lead to language shift. This trend is not likely to abate. Therefore, it is not important to save endangered languages. 24. People find it very difficult to speak in public or to give a presentation before an audience. Do you think public speaking skill is really important Give reasons. Public speaking and oratory are the most valued skills that an individual can possess These skills can be used for almost anything. The most influential prophets and leaders were those who could sway their audiences verbally. The powerful oratory skills of many leaders have won wars, averted mass panic and saved companies from financial disaster. Unfortunately, speaking in public is one of the most feared activities today. In the following paragraphs, I shall delve into the importance of the skill of public speaking. I believe that it should definitely be apart of the school curricular. To begin with, public speaking is interrelated with communication skills and can be described as a form of communication. Public speaking does not always mean that you have to give a speech to a large audience. When you go for an interview, and speak to a group of interviewers or when
you are giving a class presentation all these are also a form of public speaking. In such situations, if you have the ability to communicate properly Jit can help you shape up your future. Secondly, it helps to overcome fear. Surveys have revealed that most people are afraid of public speaking more than their fear of death. The major reason is that one has to gather a thorough knowledge of the subject matter on which one has to speak. Once a person goes into the depth of any topic, he realizes that his anxieties and fears associated with it go down quite remarkably. Furthermore, this skill helps in personality development. When a person successfully delivers a good speech. It gives a sense of self-worthiness. A positive response from the audience can help a person feel more confident. Thus, it can bring about a lot of improvement in one's overall personality. Last but not least, the art of public speaking improves relationships. Once a person develops good public speaking skills, marked improvement can be seen in his interpersonal skills, which in turn, will help him maintain a healthy relationship with his friends and family. Even in one's professional life, an effective interaction with one's boss, clients or subordinates can help a person enhance the possibility of advancement in his chosen profession. In our present teaching system writing and reading seems to be the main focus of literacy. And oratory skills are not stressed. The system needs to be changed, so that it can focus more of its resources on teaching how to interact in the world. Almost all jobs require an interview, and if one does not know the working of a job interview, he will probably do poorly. But if the schools teach the skills of public speaking, appearing for an interview would be no longer a challenge. In conclusion, I believe that, the art of public speaking is very important in today's society. If today's children overcome gloss phobia or the fear of speaking in public, they would stand a much better chance in the highly competitive global village of today. 25. Wild animals have no place in the st century, and the protection is a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree I disagree with the notion that wild animals are redundant in the current century and therefore we need not waste our precious resources in protecting them. I believe that the conservation of these species should be our top priority as they are our most precious resources. In the following paragraphs I shall put forth my arguments to support my views.
The most important reason for saving wild animals is that they are part of our ecosystem. Every species of wildlife plays a role to maintain the balance of life on Earth. Thus, the loss of any species can effect us directly or indirectly. Let us consider species to be like a brick in the foundation of a building We can probably lose one or two or a dozen bricks and still have a standing house. But by the time we have lost 20 percent of species, we are going to destabilize the entire structure. That's the way ecosystems work. Secondly, wild animals provide many valuable substances such as medicine and fur. The horn of the rhinoceros has medicinal value and the fur of the mink is very valuable. The recreational viewing of animals at zoos is also a source of revenue. Thus, the financial value of wild species is important to the economies of many nations. Finally, wild animals have esthetic appeal They are beautiful creatures of nature and area part of our biodiversity Their beautiful and mysterious life has enchanted mankind since the dawn of evolution. Scientists have been awed by observing their behavior. Such study has helped scientists understand how the human body functions and why people behave as they do. Scientists have also gained medical knowledge by studying the effect of many drugs on these animals. In conclusion, the protection of wild animals in the st century is by no means a waste of resources. In fact it should be the most important global priority today. I pen down by a quotation Scientists know we must protect species because they are working parts of our life-support system. 26. Tobacco is a kind of drug. People have been free to use it. Some people think that it should be illegal to use it comparing with other drugs. To what extent do you agree orb bdisagree What is your opinion (Against banning) Every year, thousands of people worldwide die from both smoking tobacco and voluntarily breathing it in. Despite this, I do not agree that it should be made illegal. However, 1 also believe that there should be a regulation on its use, considering its harm to health. In the following paragraphs, I shall put forth my arguments to support my views.
It is irrefutable that tobacco products, especially cigarettes, could cause lung cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses. Drug abuse also has many potentially harmful effects not only on individuals but also on family, friends, work and society. Frequent drug users may turn to crime to meet the increasing expense for their habit, Continued drug use may cause personality changes. Some users lose interest in school or work, or have difficulty meeting the responsibilities of a job or family. Nonetheless, it costs society far more to prohibit a drug than it does to regulate it. And I'm not talking about just money. Prohibition creates organized crime, and with it you get street wars, and police corruption. With more violence comes more police, and that means more cost. Regulation the other hand, works quite well. The government should decide who gets to make it, who sells it, and who it is sold to. There should be controls on tobacco regarding potency, packaging, advertising, and a lot of other things. This is definitely better than banning a drug which leads to organized crime. Moreover, tobacco has long been a source of money for the governments in many countries. This income comes from taxes on the manufactured products Excise taxes also come from tobacco that arrives from other countries. Finally, I believe that it is better to educate people about the harms of tobacco. This approach has worked better in many countries and there has been a reduction in the sale of tobacco products. In conclusion, I believe that, banning tobacco is not a good idea. Drug prohibition has been the most failed social policy and banning tobacco is a step backwards. However, there should be control on the manufacturing and sale of tobacco. (For banning) Every year, thousands of people worldwide die from both smoking tobacco and involuntarily breathing it in. Therefore, I agree that it should be made illegal considering its harms to health. In the following paragraphs, I shall put forth my arguments to support my views. It is irrefutable that tobacco products, especially cigarettes, could cause lung cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses. Smoking tobacco kills more than alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides, and fires combined.
Worldwide some 3 million people die from smoking each year, 1 every 10 seconds. Smokers are more than 20 times more likely to developing cancer than nonsmokers, and smoking can lead to a host of other health problems, including emphysema and heart disease. The detrimental effects of cigarette smoke are not just on the active smoker but also on the passive smoker. Smoking tobacco not only gives the smoker a high chance of an early gravest gives those around him/her the same chances due to Secondhand smoke. What is more, a child born to a woman who has actively or passively smoked during pregnancy has chances of developing congenital defects Drug abuse also has many potentially harmful effects not only on individuals but also on family, friends, work and society. Frequent drug users may turn to crime to meet the increasing expense for their habit. Continued drug use may cause personality changes. Some users lose interest in school or work, or have difficulty meeting the responsibilities of a job or family. In conclusion, I believe that, one of the main responsibilities of any government is to ensure the safety of its population, that is why taking tobacco should be made illegal. 27. Some people believe that tourists should accept social and environmental responsibility while others believe that tourists should not accept any responsibility at all. What is your opinion? It is irrefutable that tourism industry has become the backbone of many of the world. No wonder all countries are opening their doors to tourists. The Negative social and environmental impacts of tourism have led many to suggest that tourists should accept the responsibility for this. I definitely agree with this notion. Eco-tourism, sustainable-tourism, responsible-tourism, modern-tourism or whatever name you may like to give it, is the need of the hour in the following paragraphs, I intend to put forth my arguments to support my view. The most important reason why tourists should be responsible is that many tourist destinations are endangered now because off the litter and pollution spread by the tourists. For example, the Sukhna
Lake in Chandigarh, which is a popular tourist spot, once got so badly damaged by the wrappers and plastic bottles which tourists threw that no boating could be done there and it smelled so bad that people stopped going there. It took months to get it cleaned up and restore tourism there. The local people and the governments cannot handle such a situation effectively unless the tourists themselves lend a hand by being careful. Secondly, there is over-consumption of resources by tourists such as of water and fuel and this is incompatible with sustainable development. Tourist demand for resources such as water and food may also compete with the needs of local people and may lead to injustice with the locals. For example, in Shimla, a popular hill station, tourists stay in five star accommodation and take two showers a day whereas the people outside are short of drinking water. To add to it many tourism activities such as skiing, boating, motorised water- sports, and trekking represent a stress to fragile ecosystems. Who will welcome the tourists to those places if tourists do not accept responsibility Instead of five star accommodation, they could live with the locals and be satisfied with one shower a day. Finally, if tourists do not respect the local people's culture and environment, then the natives would be hostile towards them and he whole purpose of tourism would be lost. For example, in our religious places, it is customary to cover our head and takeoff our shoes. If tourists fail to do so, they would not be welcomed by our people there. So, the onus is on the tourist to know beforehand the norms of the place and fortunately nowadays, everything is available on the net or one can get all information from the tour operators. Responsible tourism is everyone's responsibility. The well-being of the destination is not only the responsibility of the tourism sector- it is also the responsibility of the tourist. That is why it has rightly been said that - ' A good tourist is one who leaves behind nothing, but footprints and takes away nothing, but photographs.