39. Some people argue that companies and private individuals, rather than governments, should pay for pollution. To what extent do you agree or disagree Environmental pollution is a burning issue these days and to save our planet Earth, it has to be tackled on a war footing. Some individuals are of the opinion that businesses and individuals should pay for the bill of pollution rather than the governments. Although it seems reasonable to ask them to do so, it would not be easy. Therefore, I disagree with the above statement. In the following paragraphs, I shall put forth my arguments to support my views. First of all, it may not be possible to say who is to blame. For instance, in my hometown, there is a sugar mill, a starch mill and a textile mill All are adding to pollution in their own way. It would be very difficult to pinpoint the extent to which each one has to pay for pollution. Such businesses will find loopholes to avoid heavy bills. Therefore, the government should take the onus of handling the pollution costs.
Secondly, the big companies maybe unwilling to accept the responsibility of paying the additional bill of pollution by saying that they are already paying heavy taxes to the government. They could also argue that they are assisting the governments indirectly by aiding many charity organizations. Moreover, in places where governments have tried this policy and successfully prosecuted the companies who violated the law, it took years to get the result. Therefore, it would be very unpractical to make companies and it mandatory for companies to setup effluent treatment plants and subsidize them greatly so as to increase compliance of the companies to set them up. In conclusion, I believe that, pollution is a serious issue and the government should not leave it to the individuals and companies to pay its bill. It can however, make it mandatory for the companies to setup effluent treatment plants so that pollution is minimized. 40. Some scientists believe that studying the behavior of 3-year-old children can tell which children would grow up to be criminals. To what extent in your opinion is crime ab bproduct of human nature or is it possible to stop children from growing up to be criminals? Some scientists are of the opinion that hereditary characteristic are responsible for the person's temperament and hence future career. I disagree with this notion. I believe that genes do play a role but the primary determinant is nurture - education and bringing up. It is definitely possible to mold a child into any direction by proper bringing- up j If we adopt the mindset that if parents are criminals so will the children be then we are limiting or even damaging an individual's basic rights to achieve his very best. Children can rise above the gene pool and rise to great heights. Even if a child is born to criminal parents but brought up away from that environment and provided quality education, he will not be a criminal. The debate on nature versus nurture has been raging forages and no clear cut answer has come forward. A child prodigy can be born to ordinary parents and many intelligent parents can have ordinary children. A talented person can go unnoticed in the absence of the right environment and
upbringing and an ordinary person can reach great heights with proper training. So, interplay between hereditary and environmental factors must be there. It has been seen that children born to intelligent parents also are intelligent and successful. But it is also possible that such parents provide an environment which nurtures the development of their children. When we see some programs such as 'India's Got Talent' and 'Little Champs, we notice some extremely gifted children who are born with talent and also some who have accomplished with great perseverance and proper coaching. In conclusion, I believe that, both nature and nurture play apart in determining the character of a person. It can also be concluded that both are inextricably linked with each other. But nurture weighs over nature and it is definitely possible to prevent children from growing up to be criminals. 41. Children who grow up in families which are short of money are better prepared with the problems of adult life than children who are brought up by wealthy parents. To what extent do you agree or disagree Role of family atmosphere in a child's development is a cause of concern. However, I disagree with the notion that children of poor families are better equipped in dealing with the challenges of adult life than those of rich families. No doubt, adversity is a good teacher of life, but rich parents can also prepare their children to confront the problems of adult life by good education and good nurturing. A child of poor family has more situations to solve a problem or make a decision as both parents are working to make both ends meet and children have to look after themselves. They realize the value of money as they have to live with the barest minimum and as a result they find it less difficult later on in life, when they encounter financial challenges. In contrast, the children of wealthy families are born with a silver spoon in their mouth. They are completely ignorant of the value of money as everything is provided for them in their youth and expect the same situation in adulthood.
On the other hand, children of rich families study in the best schools and get the best quality higher education. They can learn problem solving in such academic institutes. What is more, a wealthy child maybe well trained by a parent who himself has a lot of knowledge of money. Such parents themselves know money management better and can pass on those skills to their children. Life experiences also play a role. Children can have an innate ability to face problems of life. They may have personality traits such as being optimistic, outgoing, confident and open-minded. Due to these abilities they can solve problems in a better way. In conclusion, I believe that, a poor child may learn to get along without wealth land a wealthy child maybe well trained by a parent to face hurdles of life by effective education. Therefore, I disagree that the economic situation of the family has a role in problem solving skills. 42. The only way to improve the safety on our own road is to have stricter punishment for driving offenders. To what extent do you agree or disagree It is irrefutable that careless driving and violation of traffic rules certainly result in a large number of accidents and stricter forms of penalties are necessary to reduce them. However, there are also certain other measures that have equal or more effectiveness in ensuring road safety. In the first place, there are certain accidents that occur not because of traffic violations. To explain it further, poor road condition considered a major reason for road casualties. For example, narrow roads and sharp curves often force even law-abiding drivers makes mistakes. Therefore, it should be noted that drivers alone cannot be blamed for such mishaps and giving them stricter punishments in these cases is no solution. A more effective strategy by the government would be to straighten accident-prone curves and widen narrow roads. Larger number of road signs and proper traffic signals can also be effective in diminishing accidents on roads. Furthermore, poor climate condition can be a major cause of accidents. For instance, poor visibility due to dense mist and rain slippery roads on account of snowfall cause make driving difficult and cause serious accidents in many countries. Stricter punishment for drivers is a futile exercise in
handling such problems. Modern technological innovations should be used to deal with such emergency situations. On the other hand, reckless driving speeding and breach of traffic rules by careless drivers have caused many accidents. Moreover, drunken and drowsy driving have also resulted in serious traffic mishaps. While we admit that more stringent punishment for drivers would bean effective measure to an extent. It should not be considered the only way towards road safety. In summary, there are certain situations where drivers are not responsible fora particular accident. Hence apart from punishing drivers with heavier penalties other effective measures should also betaken. 43. The speeding up of life in many areas such as travel and communication has negative effects on society at all levels—individual, national and global. Evaluate the effects It is irrefutable that the IT revolution and faster means of travel have affected society at all levels. However, I disagree that all these effects are negative. The society has also benefited enormously from this speeding up of life which in other words we can say globalization. At the individual level, we have more choices, more opportunities travel, better job prospects and more awareness and tolerance of other cultures. Due to better communication, people are connected with their near and dear ones and distances are no longer a barrier. There has been a fall in face-to-face communication, but the social network of friends that the young generation of today has is far more than ever before in the history of mankind. At the national level, countries are getting closer and the boundaries are vanishing. Because of this fast era of today nations redeveloping strong bonds doing successful trade with each other. The rich nations are opening Multi-National Companies in developing countries and thus providing job opportunities to millions. This is narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor. No doubt the people working in such companies are underpaid, but it is definitely better than being unemployed. Because of this, the economies of the poor countries are improving.
At the global level, nations are joining hands to fight evils such as poverty, disease, terrorism and global warming. Who has not heard of the Kyoto Protocol. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In conclusion, I believe that, the accelerating pace of life has both negative as well as positive effects. However, the positive effects are much more than negative effects. 44. As global trade increases between different countries, many daily necessities are produced in other countries. Such goods are usually transported along distance. Do the benefits of this trend outweigh its drawbacks Globalization has revolutionized our world in many aspects. Now, we don't belong to a big planet Earth. We belong to a small global village. Everything is available everywhere. There are many advantages and disadvantages of transporting goods over along distance. In my opinion, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. On the positive side, transporting goods over along distance gives us a lot of choices. We can taste a variety of fruits and vegetables from all parts of the world. For example, about ten years ago, we hardly saw kiwifruit which is from New Zealand. But, now it has a place on every fruit stand. Earlier, we had very few shoe brands like Bata and Carona but now the market is flooded with Reeboks, Nike, Adidas and other foreign brands. Secondly, many people get employment in this field. Small businesses have a chance to expand globally and it increases the overall economy of the country. Finally, it helps in developing good relations between countries which helps in international cooperation and peace. If countries re dependent upon one another's economic success then armed conflict would be less likely. On the downside, importing goods can have a negative effect on the local culture. This can be seen in countries such as Japan where imported food has become more popular than traditional, local produce, eroding people's understanding of their own food tradition A second major disadvantage is pollution. When goods are transported thousands of miles byroad, sea and air, it increases pollution from exhaust fumes.
In conclusion, I believe that, importing goods has both merits and demerits but the pros outweigh the cons. 45. The main purpose of public libraries is to provide books and they shouldn't waste their limited resources and space on providing expensive hi-tech media such as computer software, videos and DVDs. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement Since centuries libraries are in the service oilman. These libraries are the Repositories of never ending knowledge known as books. Some people opine that libraries should only provide books and not other hi-tech media such as computer software, videos and DVDs. I, however, believe that such hi-tech media should not be treated as a rival to books. Rather, it should complementary role. Because of technology, books are now being converted into disc forms such as CDs and DVDs. Even the availability of books in the form of electronic media on NET is putting in danger the importance of the libraries. Moreover, a person can sit comfortably in his study as the availability of reference books in the form of CDs and DVDs makes him reluctant to leave his study for library. However, one should keep in mind that a person goes to a library not only to search and get information from books but also to sit and study there. The Ambience and the peaceful and scholarly atmosphere of the library help one to concentrate more on one's work and study. Thus, libraries will never become redundant. They will always be thereto indicate the presence of a well- read and educated society. Another important point is that it is very difficult to always read books from the computer monitor. Traditional books can be issued from the library and read in the comfort of your bed. Hi-tech media can be accessed only by those who are computer literate. The access to such media can be affected by power cuts and network failures. Moreover, in a traditional library you are guided by the librarians if you need any help in searching for the book.
In conclusion, I believe that, advancement should be welcomed in every field but the importance of the libraries for their fundamental role cannot be put aside. This tendency will add more crowns of success to the importance of libraries. 46. Some people believe that air travel should be restricted because it causes serious pollution and uses up the world's fuel resources. To what extent do you agree orb bdisagree It is irrefutable that air travel causes pollution and uses a lot of fuel, but I disagree that air travel should be restricted. Restricting air travel would solve some problems but would lead to many other problems. At a time when people allover the world worry about the decreasing level of fossil fuels and global warming, it is right to take action to save the planet earth. However, to simply discourage flights is not the answer, international countries are earning from tourism. Many people are employed in this industry. Many businesses like hotels and leisure centers are dependent on tourists. So, if we discourage international tourism, it would create new and even worse problems. Many businesses would go broke and many people would be without jobs. Air flight also enables intercultural exchanges between countries. The advent of cheap airfare makes it possible for people the world over to travel regularly, regardless of the purpose of the trip. Therefore, people have the opportunities to learn from different cultures and have a better understanding of countries they used to be unfamiliar with. This, in turn, enhances cultural communications between countries. It is true that air travel consumes oil, but other modes of transportation are also causing pollution and using fuel. Discouraging private cars and encouraging people to use public transport could help save the environmental resources in a big way. Therefore, it would be a very unpractical decision to restrict air travel at the cost of people's mobility, or worse, at the cost of the development of the economy. Technology could also be used to produce more environmentally friendly and fuel efficient engines.
In conclusion, I believe that, instead of restricting air travel, we should develop more efficient engines that produce more energy output with less fuel and fewer major air pollutants. We should also focus on limiting private vehicles and encouraging public transport. 47. One long-distance flight consumes fuel which a car uses in several years' time, but they cause the same amount of pollution. So some people think that we should discourage non-essential flights, such as tourist travel, rather than to limit the use of cars. To what extent do you agree or disagree It is irrefutable that the fuel consumed by one long-distance flight is consumed by a car in several years' time, and the amount of pollution it produces is also more. Therefore, some people suggest that nonessential flights, including international travel, should be discouraged. I totally disagree whit this statement. I feel that even though cars produce less pollution and useless fuel, still we should focus on limiting the number of cars. Discouraging flights would lead to many other problems. At a time when people allover the world worry about the decreasing level of fossil fuels and global warming it is right to take action to save the planet earth. However, to simply discourage flights is not the answer, international tourism has become the backbone of many economies of the world. Many countries are gaming from tourism. Many people are employed in this industry. Many businesses like hotels and leisure centers the dependent on tourists. So, if we discourage international tourism, it would Create new and even worse problems. Many businesses would broke and many people would be without jobs. Air flight also enables intercultural exchanges between countries. The advent of cheap airfare makes it possible for people the world over to travel Regularly, Regardless of the purpose of the trip. Therefore, people have the opportunities to learn from different cultures and have a better understanding of countries they used to be unfamiliar with. This, in turn enhances cultural communications between countries.
What we should do is to limit the use of cars. The number of cars is increasing at a staggering pace. This is posing too many problems. Cars are using too much of fossil fuels they are creating a lot of pollution they are leading to traffic congestion on the roads and they are also causing accidents. In conclusion, I believe that, traveling by air should not be discouraged. Instead, the use of cars should be limited. 48. Housing shortage in big cities can cause severe social consequences. Some people think only government action can solve this problem. What is your opinion Big cities act as magnets for everyone. Therefore, it is increasingly difficult for ordinary people to have somewhere to call home in big cities due to housing scarcity, especially the lack of affordable housing. Some people think only government has the power to solve this problem. I completely agree with this statement. The main reason for housing shortage in large cities is the burgeoning urban population. The situation goes from bad to worsens each year millions of job seekers rush into the city to try their lucky break and the majority of them eventually get settled down, which makes housing shortage even more serious. Careful planning of cities is required to address the issue and obviously, only the government are in a position address this problem. Even if the population were indeed under control, we still need more apartment buildings to house people who have already worked and lived in the city without decent housing. Again, only the government can decide which old buildings should be demolished to make way for new ones and which area could be designated for residential housing development. Of course, individuals can have their voice heard, but the final decision has to be made by the government. Another reason that causes housing shortage is those in the real estate business raise the cost of housing exorbitantly. To stop those profit-making housing developers and real estate brokers from pushing up the prices of housing effective rules and regulations are needed, which can be done by the government. As for the housing projects for low-income families, we can only depend on the government, too.
In conclusion, I believe that, only the government action can solve the problem of housing shortage in big cities. 49. The best way to solve the world's environmental problem is to increase the price of fuel. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement Excessive traffic and increasing pollution are affecting every major city in the globe. To lessen the severity such problems, some people say that governments should raise the price of fuel such as petrol and diesel. It may help to some extent but I disagree that it is the best solution to solve the problem of the environment. To begin with, the number of cars in a country directly depends on the proportion of the population affluent enough to own cars. As a result, raises in gas price could invoke hard feelings among this segment of people cut would not drastically change their behavior in using cars. Even if the number of cars on road is reduced due to higher gas cost, this is not the best way to solve traffic problems. Such a policy would hurt the auto industry, place higher costs on current and prospective car owners, and be detrimental to the economy of a nation, in the long run , the final way out could be the construction of better roads and more effective use of available transport facilities. Secondly, there is evidence that waste gas from cars is not the leading cause of air pollution. The culprit maybe the discharge of polluting substances into the atmosphere due to the rapidly growing manufacturing industry. As a result, reduction of the number of cars would not return us a blue sky and fresh air. We could better handle this problem if we could increase control over industrial waste discharge and adopt more environmental friendly materials and production equipment. Finally, other measures like he application of cheaper and cleaner energy could also be a better solution. For example, we now have the ability to make cell-powered or even solar-powered cars. Such energy is completely clean and plentiful. In conclusion, I believe that, it is not the best way to control traffic and pollution by increasing gas price because such an action will hurt consumers and economy without achieving what it is aimed
for. Measures such as construction of better transport facilities and development of new energy resources could be more effective solutions. 50. It is better for students at university to live faraway from home than to live at home with their parents. What are the advantages and disadvantages, and give your own opinion? It is a highly debated issue whether it is better for university students to live faraway from home than to live at home with their parents. There are pros and cons of both approaches. It is necessary to look at both sides of the argument before forming an opinion. There are definite benefits of staying at home. To begin with it is much more economical to stay at home than to stay near the university. If you choose to stay at the university then you either stay at the university dormitory or rent your own apartment. Both university options are more expensive as compared to home. Then you have to do your own cooking and cleaning which is not the case if you stay at home where your mother looks after all these things. You do spend sometime commuting to and from the university but then you save your time on cooking and cleaning. The disadvantage of staying at home is that you maybe disturbed by siblings and you have to help in household chores. There are many advantages of staying near the university. University education is a time for you to mix with people of different backgrounds and cultures. This cultural exchange usually occurs after class hours. If you have to return home then you miss out on this golden opportunity. Secondly, there are good study facilities such as library, computer lab etc, if you are on or near the campus. You also get to experience some independence. The downside is that it is expensive and to cut the cost you may have to share your apartment with someone you might not like. In my opinion, it is definitely worthwhile to live at the university than with your parents even if you have to shell out some extra money for that because it is a golden opportunity to interact with people of different parts of the world and you get to enjoy the benefits of facilities like the library and sports stadiums and gyms.
In conclusion, I believe that, there are benefits and drawbacks of both approaches and the decision is purely subjective. However, in my opinion staying near the university is better.