Essay topics:

People nowadays put more emphasis on social skills. Some people believe that social skills
are more important in addition to good qualification for job success. To what extent do you
agree or disagree.
Nowadays, psychologists discover that the people who have decent social skills can
achieve their goals easily since they have confidence to do their duties even if have high
risk because thanks to social skills they have different kinds of friends who have different
kinds of skills that can help whenever they run into problems which would never happen if
these people had not decent social skills.
Moreover, these days not only the parents try to reinforce their children social skills but
also the education system make effort to increase these skills among children from early
age because they aware of the main skills that are so important during the life for
instance when the people who are graduated from university and they try to find
appropriate jobs one of the main characteristic that are need to have is social skill.
It is clear that the people who have social skills can get along with their peer easily and
make synergy to achieve their goals which are lead to achieving company goals and
increasing productivity. These people who have decent social skills can cooperate with
each other and reap the benefits of these skills for both of themselves and their societies.
It can be seen that the companies that have appropriate numbers of these persons can
count on them as a competition advantage and they can improve their profits by these
good human resources that would not be if they were not.
In conclusion, I think it is noticeable that people who have decent social skills are ten
times as successful as the other people who have not these skills. Emphasizing on social
skills which is something that I absolutely agree with and it is undeniable that the
governments try to invest on by broadcasting several education programs about
reinforcing these skills via the social media.
TopicUniversity students need to spend a lot of time on studying, but it is also essential
for them to be involved in other extracurricular activities. to what extent do you agree or
disagree

The relative importance of academic study and extracurricular activities for a university
student is a typical topic of discussion in most countries, including my own, in recent
years. Many parents assert that their children dedicate too much time and energy to
extracurricular activities like sports and art competitions. Consequently, they have less
time to study. In my opinion, academic study and other extracurricular activities are both
significant for students, and they need to maintain a balance between them.

Students will benefit greatly from their academic knowledge. Firstly, it is more likely for
those who obtain useful knowledge to have a successful career. This is because most of
todays jobs are specialized, demanding potential employees to be equipped with
professional knowledge. In other words, employers tend to hire excellent students with
outstanding academic performances which can be an indicator of being proficient in a
particular area. Logically, those who focus on studying and acquire specialized knowledge

will find a reasonable job and be easy to get promotion after graduation. In addition,
spending plenty of time on studying is also beneficial for students to get further
education. It is relatively easier for hard-working students to apply for a better university
to study for a postgraduate or a doctors degree.

Reaching the conclusion that academic studying is important for college students is not
the same as assuming that they can neglect extracurricular activities. Actually, those
activities also positively contribute to students development. Students are able to learn
many useful social skills when joining in those activities (e.g., basketball contests,
volunteer works, speech contests, etc.). These social skills enable them to get well along
with others and help them cope with tough interpersonal problems. Therefore, students
should also allocate some time to extracurricular activities.

To conclude, spending time on both studying and taking part in extracurricular activities is
beneficial for college students. They should also learn time management skills and keep a
balance; otherwise they will find it hard to adapt to the society in the future.

In many countries, the proportion of older people is steadily increasing. Does this trend
have more positive or negative effects on the society?
What is your opinion on that?
You should write at least 250 words.
Model Answer :
With the advancement of modern science and medical science, people are enjoying a
longer life than before and in many countries people are well aware of the population
growth and as a result having only one kid or two. These reasons lead the fact that in
many countries, the proportion of older people is growing faster. This has both the positive
and negative effects.
At first, older people are more experienced and can contribute largely by counseling the
young generation. There are some professions like teaching where a experienced teacher
can be more benevolent than a young teacher. Again, older people are the witness of the
history and they can reviles the past to us more practically than others. Finally, since
young members of a family are busy at outside and can't manage time to share with kids,
so the older people can be very good companion to those kids and can help them to raise
in a family environment rather than in a day-care- centre.
On the contrary, in some society older people are considered to be burden especially in
those areas where people suffer from extreme poverty. Older people require more
attention and extra care and the touch of relatives. But because of generation gap and
poverty, they are often ignored and that's a horrible experience for them. Again, naturally
aged people can't do physical labor and that's why they have very practical contribution to
the society compared to their young counterparts.
Considering all the issues , though it might seem little harsh but I think that a
considerable portion of older people can be helpful for all of us but if it's reach to an

extreme proportion then it's a bad omen both for the new generation and the old people
themselves.
Some people think that young people should follow traditions from their society; other
people think that young people should be free to behave as individuals. Discuss both
these views and give your own opinion.

People have different views on whether the younger generation should follow traditions or
they should be given the freedom to behave as individuals. Personally I believe this is not
an either-or situation. While good traditions should be passed on and young people should
respect these traditions, I believe they should also be allowed to behave as themselves.

On the one hand, many traditions are worth following. There are many kinds of traditions,
from national traditions such as celebrating the Spring Festival and the Moon Festival in
China, to family traditions or even school traditions. Traditions are often linked to delicious
food, arts, bright clothing, family reunion, happiness, cultural heritage, cultural identity,
and so forth. They are what make one nation, one family, or one group of people distinct
from the other. It is important for young people to follow these traditions so as to make
sense of their cultural identity, remember where they are from and have a sense of
belonging.

On the other hand, I also believe that young people should be allowed to behave as
themselves and be different. Young people are at their most energetic and creative age,
and they are in the process of finding out who they are. Therefore, instead being asked to
watch their every step and follow the code of traditions, they should be encouraged to
express themselves freely, choose their own paths, visit different parts of the world and
learn new things. In this way, young people can explore and develop their true potential.
In fact, many innovations take place because some young people are not satisfied by
simply following traditions.

In conclusion, I believe that many traditions should be kept and followed, but at the same
time, young people should have the right to behave as themselves while they are still
searching for their own personal identity.

The spread of multinational companies and increase in spread of globalization have

positive effects for everyone. Do you agree or disagree.
It is true that globalization is requisite for the economic growth of the country. The inflow
of new technologies from multinational companies has made lives easy. The spread of new
technologies and globalization indeed have positive impact on the society.
The three major components of international market integration are trade, multinational
production and international finance. The spread of international companies has definitely
increased job opportunities in the market. Moreover, it is the best way to communicate

with people across the globe, learn usage of new technologies, and understand the work
ethics of other companies. Due to globalization, resources from other countries can be
used to produce goods, consumers get much wider varieties of products, companies get
access to new markets, consumers can buy good at much competitive prices, and
businessman and investors get broader opportunities for investment.
However, the negative impacts should not be overlooked. Adverse effects in agriculture at
one place shall affect the production of goods in other. The economic depression in one
country shall trigger the adverse reaction in other. In addition, spread of communicable
diseases is certain. All these disadvantages can be prevented by not completely being
dependent on multinational companies. The spread of diseases can be controlled by
following proper diets. The attempts should be made to educate people about the
prevention and consequences of dreadful diseases like flu, malaria, AIDS etc.
In a nutshell, globalization shall be fruitful to the growth of people across the globe, if the
adverse effects of the same are solved.

Some people think that developing countries should invite large foreign companies to
open offices and factories in order to help foreign to boost their economy while others
disagree , they say that government should help to local companies instead of inviting
foreign companies to boost their economic growth. To what extent do u agree or disagree
with both views.
In this rampant age of globalization, some people think that developing companies must
invite foreign companies to offer job opportunities to unemployed people therefore, a
massive number of people would get job which would help them to upgrade the quality of
life. Opposite wind is also there. Here, I would like to incline in the favour of statement
that invite foreign companies.
To set in, there are several points to support my view for about invite foreign companies.
It will be lucrative idea to get jobs as well as boost up our economic level through taxes
and sallery from foreign companies. Moreover, innovative equipments are being used by
foreign companies it will enable the workers to gain new management skills and they can
come to know about advance technology which is use by the overseas companies.
Consequently, they could survibe in the world very easily because they have wide range of
skills and knowledge about work.
Further emohasizing on my point of view for foreign companies, it will allow us to
exchange our culture and stregthen our social bonds which would helps them to business
dealing much better. Furthermore, it will offer vintage products such as clothes, cars,
advanced feature electronic gadgets and so on. therefore, we can lead a wealthy life.
On the contrary, foreign companies badly influence our local companies which will damage
the local business entirely and some people think that they adopt western culture.
Consequently, our culture will an alarming rate due to emergence foreign companies.

In a nutshell, after doing a great deal of thought and deliberations of my point of views
both companies must be equally supported by government for employment and improve
economy.

The food travels thousands of miles from farm to consumer. Some people think it would be
better to our environment and economy if people only ate local produced food. What
extend does the advantage outweigh disadvantage?
Nowadays, supermarkets are stocked with food products from around the world. Some
individuals are of the opinion that this imported food has detrimental effect on our
economy and culture and it would be better if people ate only the local produce. Certainly,
the disadvantages of imported food outweigh the advantages.

On the positive side, transporting goods over a long 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 kiwi fruit which is from New Zealand. But, now it has a place
on every fruit stand. Secondly, many people get employment in this field. Small farmers
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 are dependent upon one anothers
economic success then armed conflict would be less likely.

On the other hand, importing food can have a negative effect on local culture. This can be
seen in countries such as Japan where imported food has become more popular than
traditional, local produce, eroding peoples understanding of their own food traditions.
Although some would claim that this is a natural part of economic development, in an
increasingly global world. I feel strongly that any loss of regional culture would be
detrimental.

A second major reason to reduce imports is the environmental cost. Currently, many food
imports such as fruit, are transported thousands of miles by road, sea and air, making the
produce more expensive to buy and increasing pollution from exhaust fumes. Despite the
fact that trade in food exports has existed for many years, I am convinced that a reduction
would bring significant financial and environmental gains.

In conclusion, I am certain that if people ate locally produced food, it would have
environmental benefits. It would also benefit the local economy because, in time, people
would prosper commercially as the demand for local and regional produce would remain
high resisting the competition from overseas.
Some shops are open 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. Do you think it is a good thing for
the customers, shop staff and company as a whole?
Keeping shops open the entire week and all day and nigh seems convenient for customers
at first glance. Unfortunately, in my view there are some side-effects for most customers,
shop staff and the businesses that make long hours not sustainable in most store
locations.
From a customers perspective longer shop hours potentially come with higher prices and
less staff present in the store at any time to compensate for increased costs. Most likely
only a few customers would actually shop in the middle of the night regularly. Generally

speaking, the convenience of longer store hours comes with higher prices and less service
for all consumers.
For store staff longer opening hours may lead to longer working hours and working in
shifts. Both is known to be neither healthy nor family-friendly. To offset the higher costs of
longer opening hours shopkeepers are likely to cut the pay off their staff, employ less
qualified staff or make less staff do the same work. The later will make the work more
stressful and store stuff has less time to spend advising customers. As a result, working
conditions are likely to deteriorate with longer store hours.
For shopkeepers it can be challenging to make the increased costs of longer opening hours
back. Unless
a store is located in a location with lots of passer-by during late hours sales are unlikely to
increase significantly through prolonged hours. Therefore, either prices have to be risen,
which is only possible if completion permits this step or staff costs have to be reduced.
Longer store hours increase the costs of running a store and can affect profits.
To sum up, the higher costs of longer opening hours will have to be offset in some way.
With most stores unable to make to make them back through increased sales either profits
drop, prices rise or wages for store stuff is reduced. Overall, in my view the disadvantages
of longer store hours clearly dominate for all parties involved.

According to a survey, people involved in certain occupations and professions are seen to
be honest. What is the situation in your country? Why?

Honesty is the cornerstone of all success, without which confidence and ability to perform
shall cease to exist. --Mary Kay Ash
It is well-known that some professions require people to demonstrate extra levels of
honesty than other professions. For instance, those working in the medical and the
teaching profession are seen to be more honest than advertisers and insurance agents.
The situation is the same all over the world and my country is no exception. In the
following paragraphs, I shall put forth some reasons for this phenomenon.

In some professions being honest is the best way to maximize profits in the long run. Let
us take the example of a businessman. The most effective way for a businessperson to
maximize profits over a long period of time is to follow the highest standards of ethics.
Ethical conduct will gain a company the kind of good reputation that earns repeat
business. Treating suppliers, customers and others fairly is likely to result in their
reciprocating.

Moreover, in some professions there is no room for dishonesty. For instance, in the medical
profession you have to tell the correct diagnosis to the patients. A lawyer has to stick to
facts and cannot afford to distort them based on his judgements. Similarly, journalists
must provide news based on facts and cannot afford to present ill-founded news.

On the other hand, there are some professions such as the insurance agents and
advertisers, who are seen to be less honest than others. This dishonesty may not apparent
as they may not be lying about their products or services; they may just be hiding facts.
Thus, undue concern with honesty in these cases might result in lower profits and perhaps
ultimate business failure.

However, it is difficult to generalize professions based on honesty. For instance, in the

medical profession, some doctors may be prescribing an un-necessary battery of tests just
for their benefit and some insurance agents may be telling all the positive and negative
points of their insurance plans to their clients.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, some occupations seem to be more honest
than the others. The situation is the same all over the world. However, to survive in the
long run, honesty always pays.

Plan followed in the essay

Intro: Start with a quotation. Acknowledge the statement and tell about the situation in
your country.
Para 1: One reason for honesty beneficial in the long run
Para 2: Another reason some professions have no room for dishonesty
Para 3: Reason for dishonesty in some professions with example
Para 4: Difficult to generalize honesty individual variation
Conclusion:

Although there are more and more women police officers in reality, are they really suitable
for this job?
Increasing numbers of women are choosing to work in the police force nowadays and have
showed their mettle in this field. The issue raised is whether women are actually suited for
such jobs. I believe that not only are women suited for such jobs, they are in fact better
than men in many areas of police jobs.{jcomments on}

In many of the areas of police activity, women are especially adaptable and can even
perform better than men. For example, policewomen are especially suitable for working
for special police prostitution groups, dealing with trafficking in women within the larger

cities. They are also better in dealing with domestic violence and juvenile affairs.
Policewomen are generally more acceptable to women and children who have been the
victims of the misdeeds of men. Girls and young children have more confidence in women.
What is more, the field of crime prevention is becoming more important to police agencies
and here policewomen play their greatest role. They are also gifted in gaining the
confidence of small children and in determining whether behaviour is normal or antisocial.
The employment of policewomen offers the best method of finding out the real problem,
and then determining the best course of action to pursue.
Research conducted internationally clearly demonstrates that women officers use less
physical force and are therefore better at dealing with violent confrontations with citizens.
Additionally, women officers often possess better communication skills than their male
counterparts and are better in obtaining the cooperation and trust required in their job.
They are considered at least equal to male officers in most areas of police work. They have
shown no differences in the quality of their performance in street patrolling. Those
skeptical about their role of police officers base their argument on womens lack of
physical strength. However, with proper training even this factor can be overcome.
To conclude, female officers are equally capable as their male counterparts. In some
situations they have even proved themselves better than men. No wonder, we are seeing
more and more women in police force.
Plan followed in the essay
Intro: Give your opinion and write a thesis statement. I have said women are suitable for
these jobs and are even better at places.
Para 1: Give examples where women are better than men Prostitution, juvenile crime
Para 2: More examples of where they are better crime prevention
Para 3: Better communication skills as good in street patrolling. Opponents view less
physical strength negate it
It is better for children if the whole families (e.g. aunts, uncles and grandparents) are
involved in the children's upbringing, rather than their fathers and mothers only. Do you
agree or disagree with this opinion?
(disagree)
It is a highly debatable issue whether children should be raised in joint families in which
aunts, uncles and grandparents contribute in bringing up children or by parents alone as
in nuclear families. Although a joint family has many advantages, I firmly believe that a
nuclear family is better in raising children. A number of arguments surround my opinion.
{jcomments on}
To begin with, in a nuclear family, parents can bring up their children with their own set of
values and principles, without any interference. This is something that can be easily
established in a nuclear family, wherein the child has to follow only one set of rules, and is
not confused with varying opinions. For instance, if a persons values are not that
traditional, and he wants his child to be more broad-minded, he may not be able to do so
in a joint family, if his independent values don't match with that of the majority.
Secondly, there is more space for individuality and self-expression in a nuclear family setup. Nuclear families make the child more self reliant and decisive as he/she is not as

interdependent on a large number of family members to make decisions and take action.
This independent streak can come in handy, as the child grows into an adult and has to
make many decisions himself/herself.
Finally, communication channels between the child and parent can also be more open and
transparent, in a nuclear family, as parents have their attention focused on their child,
without having to divide their time with too many household responsibilities and between
other members of the household.
To conclude, in a nuclear family a child is reared by the parents alone. Therefore, they can
instill whatever values they want in their child. The child is also more independent and has
better relations with parents. Therefore it is better to raise a child in a nuclear family.
Plan followed
Intro: Disagree. Nuclear family is better in raising children.
Para1: parents can bring up their children with their own set of values and principles,
without any interference.
Para 2: Nuclear families make the child more self reliant and decisive as he/she is not as
interdependent on a large number of family members to make decisions and take action.
Para 3: communication channels between the child and parent can also be more open and
transparent, in a nuclear family

Some people think if students are afraid of the teacher it is better. Others say that having
a friendly relation is better. What do you think?
Is it good for student to be afraid of teacher or teacher should be friendly with student.
Discuss both points and give your opinion? (7/1/2012 Australia)
Young children are buildings under construction and teachers are the builders. It is a
highly debatable issue whether teachers should be friendly or strict. In my opinion,
extremes of both approaches are bad. I good teacher should know when to be friendly and
when to be strict and also know the degree of friendliness and strictness required.
{jcomments on}
There are many advantages if teachers are strict. To begin with, discipline can only be
maintained if teachers are strict. For example, if students are afraid of the teacher, they
will attend classes regularly and complete their work in time. But, if the teacher is too
strict, then the students may lose interest in the subject and may not come to the teacher
with their problems.

On the other hand, a friendly teacher is like a good mentor with whom students can share
their problems. Students also take more interest in the subject. Students bloom under the
guidance of such a teacher. The disadvantage, however, is that a too friendly or partial
attitude results in diversion from studies.

In my opinion, a good teacher should be like a friend, philosopher and guide for his
students. But, from time to time, he should pull the reins so that the students do not go

out of hand. After all, he is shaping the future of the nation. There is a well known saying
in Sanskrit that Acharya Devo Bhava which means that a teacher is like a God.

To conclude, it has to be decided by the teacher when to be friendly or strict and how
much degree of friendliness or strictness is required because extremes of both approaches
are detrimental for the future of a student and ultimately for the future of a nation.

Plan followed
Intro - highly debatable issue whether teachers should be friendly or strict. In my opinion,
extremes of both approaches are bad.
Para 1: Adv of teacher being strict and disadvantages of being too strict
Discipline
Students attend classes regularly and complete their work in time
Para 2: Advantages of teachers being lenient and disadvantages of being too lenient
a friendly teacher is like a good mentor with whom students can share their problems
Students also take more interest in the subject
Para 3: Teacher should know when to be strict and when to be lenient
Some people believe that students work better if they are a little afraid of their teachers.
Others believe that it is better if they have friendly relationships with their teachers.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
In todays world of high competition and big opportunities importance of good education is
difficult to overestimate. In their debates how to achieve the best level of education some
people suggest that teachers should be as strict to their students as possible. Others, on
the contrary believe that friendly relationships with teachers would lead children to better
results. In this essay I shall try to look at both points of view and decide which one is more
preferable nowadays.
To begin with, it should be mentioned that in all times strict rules led to better discipline.
Being afraid of punishment gives a strong motivation to prepare a lesson or work harder
at class. This type of behaviour is deeply rooted in human psychology and always works.
Secondly, studies conducted by strict teachers are more likely to happen in the
atmosphere of discipline and order. Therefore these courses are taken completely, without
any delays and right on schedule.
On the contrary, teachers who use friendly style of education create more free atmosphere
that results in childrens love for the subject. Indeed, good relationship with a teacher
helps students feel themselves involved in the process of education. They realize that they
are not computers with some information to be written on their hard drives, but active
participants of the world of new discoveries.
In addition, teachers who are friendly to their students often earn much respect and
become good advisors. Children find a new friend and a person who can be trusted. As a

result, teachers of such type contribute to kids better and faster adaptation in the
modern world.
To conclude, I should say that in my opinion although strict classic way of teaching has
some undeniable advantages, only those teachers who manage to establish worm and
friendly relation to their students, can achieve best educational results.
Some people say that to become a good teacher, you should acquire enough training, while
others say that teaching capabilities can be developed with experience. Discuss both
views and give your opinion. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant
examples from your knowledge or experience.

Sample Essay

>Being an effective teacher is about having knowledge from training and experience from
practice. While teaching capabilities can be developed with experience, it is also
important that you should learn professional skills through special training in the first
place. In general, school children are expected to benefit from those teachers who have
enough pre-job training as well as on-job practice.

On the one hand, some people say that an excellent teacher ought to be formally trained.
Based on this view, to be successful in the teaching career, it is necessary to go through a
series of training sessions for obtaining sufficient knowledge related to teaching strategy
and psychology that lead to a satisfactory job. For example, the making of a teacher is not
very unlike the making of a lawyer. Just as a qualified lawyer should require a great deal
of information about laws, so should a qualified teacher know much about teaching
methods. That is to say, training can make a difference in the teaching work. This is
probably why in many countries exist a range of Teachers' Colleges or Normal Universities.

On the other hand, others believe that a great teacher is born rather than trained, as if
being independent of experience. According to this opinion, even though pre-job training
is useful to some extent, what matters seems to be that kind of passion which is similar to
natural experience. So much so, teaching capabilities are not only powered by career
passion but also grow along with experience. Hence, there may be no absolute need to
acquire sufficient teaching techniques beforehand. In short, you can either do with or do
without training to become an outstanding teacher.

On the whole, it is debatable whether you think that a good teacher should acquire
enough training or that teaching capabilites can be developed with experience. There is
no easy answer to this question. The answer depends on who you ask, of course.
Some people believe that the best time for a person to learn a new language is when
he/she is a child.Others feel adults learn languages better and faster than children.
Discuss both of these views and give your own opinion.

Most would agree that individual's ideas, views, thoughts can be best communicated in a
good manner if that individual has a command over the language. It is believed that
language is an integral part of communication, however age to learn new languages is
arguable. Some people argue that children are quick and fast to learn new languages than
adults.In this essay, both sides of this debate will be analyzed before a reasoned
conclusion is reached.

On the one hand, many people support the notion that new languages can be learned
easily as a child. For example, a child born in a family where parents speak different
languages, will have a good understanding of the languages spoken by his parents. It is
clear and obvious that the child does not have to make extra effort to learn the languages.
This shows that, how easy is to learn new languages as a kid.

On the other hand, many believe that adults are better and quick learners. For example,
many adults join the language classes to learn new languages, which runs for a short
period from 3-12 months. It is considered that students from such short term classes will
be able to gain the language skills, working hard by memorizing words, phrases and
learning grammar. This proves that people believe adults are considered more quick
learners for new languages, however language expertise is arguable.

After analyzing both sides of this debate, it is evident that it is easy and quick to learn
new languages as a child.
Some people think that spending a lot on holding wedding parties, birthday parties and
other celebrations is just a waste of money. Others, however, think that these are
necessary for individuals and the society. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Throwing parties can be expensive. While some people do not find these fancy parties
worth what they cost, others believe parties are important to both individuals and the
society.
People choose to throw parties for a number of reasons. For starters, parties can make
better teams. Project kick-off parties are good opportunities to break the ice and help
team members to know each other better. Victory parties create a sense of success and
belonging. Companies do not see parties as wastes of money and allocate budget to
support such events. Moreover, parties often leave good memories. From our own
experiences, we all have happy memories of our birthday parties when we were little.
Every family has great photostook on family parties in their album. In addition, contrary to
what some people believe that spending on parties is a waste of social resources, parties
actually create value, either by employing people in the party planning business or by
offering people better party experiences.
The popularity of parties, however, causes some tension in the society. Parties are hard on
introverted people who find themselves uncomfortable in parties. This is a clinic symptom
which psychologists call it social anxiety disorder. There are other ways to celebrate
important events that may have greater value for their cost. For instance, companies could
send out gifts after successful projects and parents could take their children on family
trips to celebrate birthdays.

In my opinion, while a party is a form of social event that brings many benefits to
individuals and the society, other choices should also be considered, either to cut
spending or to relieve the stress of those who are not fond of parties.

Some people feel that entertainers (e.g. film stars, pop musicians or sports stars) are paid
too much money. Do you agree or disagree?
Which other types o f job should be highly paid?

My essay:

It is common to rouse a debate on whether celebrities deserve their payments whenever

we talk about them. Some people think these entertainers are significantly overpaid when
compared to people from other occupations. From my perspective, their massive
influences and immense contributions have made the high salary acceptable.

First of all, the leading factors of these idols' success and earnings are indomitable mettle
and painstaking practice. They have sacrificed their leisure time, personal relationship,
even health, to achieve the ultimate goal while others may just entertain themselves.
Usian Bolt, world's fastest sprint runner, had spent enormous time on his intensive
training before he gained the worldwide recognition and became the highest paid athlete..

Furthermore, whether the stars are overpaid or not should depend not only on their
incomings, but also on their outputs. They play a prominent role in cultural dissemination
and public relaxation; moreover, they have made considerable profits for the
entertainment companies. The music they created, the TV programs they produced and
the movies they filmed are indispensable parts of our daily life.

Admittedly the salary level is unfair to the professions which are important to society.
Policemen who risk their lives fighting criminals, doctors who fulfill their duties saving
lives, may receive extremely little money. But it is the government's responsibility to
regulate the opportunities, investments and attentions toward the less advantaged
people.

Base on the above argument, I concede that entertainers are paid reasonably, regardless
what the amount is. To preserve equality, harmony and stability in society, other
professionals like professors, nurses and policemen deserve more attentions and money.
Meanwhile, the stars should show their sympathy and benevolence through donations and
charity activities.

Some people believe that money brings happiness; others are of the opinion that having
too much money is a problem. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Sample response
Almost all of us are motivated by money. The only reason that most of us spend 8 to 10
hours at the workplace is to earn money. Money probably doesnt bring happiness, but not
having enough money to take care of our basic needs will seriously limit our happiness. No
one wants to live in poverty and no one will lend to the poor.
Money helps us lead a comfortable life. It helps us provide the best possible education for
our children. It ensures that our near and dear ones have access to medical attention
whenever they need it.
Having more money than you need is unlikely to increase your levels of happiness, but not
having enough will definitely destroy your peace of mind.
There is a limit to the amount of money that we can spend on ourselves. Still, the richest
among us have amassed wealth they or their progeny will never use in their lifetime. Still,
they arent satisfied. They want more. That is the lure of money. It never makes people
content. Those who dont have it want to have it. Those who have it want to have even
more of it. Unfortunately, in our pursuit of riches, we often forget to live. We forget to
appreciate the little joys that make our lives worth living.
Having a lot of money is definitely a problem. It even threatens our safety and security
and makes us the target of thieves. Look at the richest people. They cant move around
freely like you or I. They are always surrounded by their personal security guards and
often live their entire lives in constant fear of getting attacked.
To conclude, money is unlikely to make us happy, but we must still earn enough. However,
in our pursuit of riches, we must not lose our souls. True happiness comes from spiritual
awakening. Money has hardly anything to do with it.
Children have the responsibility to take care of their older family members, but some
people say that old people should not need to live with their families. What is your
opinion?
It is a highly debatable issue whether old people should live with family or old-age homes.
This is a very important issue because demographic trends suggest that we are part of a
graying society in which the population of the elderly is growing by leaps and bounds.
Although, it is the moral responsibility of children to look after their elderly, I have strong
arguments to suggest that they should live separately.{jcomments on}
Aged people should live separate because this will give them a feeling of independence.
Moreover, by doing so, they will command more respect in the eyes of their children. It is
irrefutable that relationships become strong and meaningful when people are not under
the same roof. Hence, if aged people are away from their children physically, both will be
closer to each other emotionally.

What is more, the mushroom growth of old age homes is ample evidence that they are a
boon for the society. They give the opportunity to the elderly to be in the comfort of
people of similar age and experience. They also remain healthy with timely day-to-day
activities. In such homes, the elderly also get a chance to do some social service activities
which in turn help the society.

Furthermore, the culture of the old age homes tends to refine some attitudes of the aged
such as short temper and negative thinking. Old age homes are also a boon for those
elderly who face social isolation in their own homes where their so-called loved ones
neglect them badly and have no time for them.

To conclude, the elderly should live with people of their own age group, in old age homes,
where they enjoy the retired period of their life nicely, comfortably and productively

Plan followed
Intro: Agree. Old people should live separately
Para 1: this will give them a feeling of independence. Moreover, by doing so, they will
command more respect in the eyes of their children.
Para 2: Advantages of old age homes
The elderly are in the comfort of people of similar age and experience.
They also remain healthy with timely day-to-day activities
also get a chance to do some social service activities which in turn help the society
Para 3: More advantages
the culture of the old age homes tends to refine some attitudes of the aged such as short
temper and negative thinking
Old age homes are also a boon for those elderly who face social isolation in their own
homes where their so-called loved ones neglect them badly and have no time for them.

Among Internet, radio, TV and newspaper, which has the greatest effect on the social
activity of people? Tell reasons.
In the last 50 years the media influence has grown exponentially with the advancement of
technology. Each of these four media - internet, TV, newspapers and radio - impacts the
social life of the people in different ways. All these media shape peoples opinions,
provides entertainment and information, is a link between the government and the people
and helps in providing justice at times. All these media have their own importance and
uniqueness. However, TV has the greatest influence on society as it is the most pervasive
of all media.{jcomments on}

Newspapers have better breadth which means that a large number of items, issues and
viewpoints can be covered. They also have better depth which implies news can be
presented in detail. Newspapers can also be read and re-read at one's convenience, as
opposed to being scheduled to run only during fixed time periods as is the case with TV
and radio. The disadvantage of newspaper is that the ability to comprehend news in print

depends on educational and literacy level which is a clear-cut advantage in case of radio
and TV.
Radio, can be accessed in a variety of situations. People listen to radio while they dress
and eat in the morning, commute to and from work, perform work or study, have meals
and so on. Radio news reporters can provide live, local coverage in a timely manner.
However, the television has an edge over radio as it combines both sight and sound, which
are the two major human senses for communication, and is therefore more appealing. With
the appearance of all-news cable television networks, it is now possible to bring news
coverage of important global events instantaneously.
The internet is the newest source of news and is fast becoming popular among the
computer literate sections of society. However, its usage depends on availability and
affordability. Theoretically, we can say that the Internet incorporates characteristics from
ALL of the traditional media, such as sight, sound and online versions of newspapers and
magazines. The youth are the most influenced by the Internet. The social network sites on
the internet have made it possible for the youth to have the widest circle of friends.
To conclude, all these media are not equivalent and interchangeable with each other, as
they have unique characteristics. It is very difficult to pin point which one is the best. The
television, however, is the most pervasive news media.
Plan followed
Intro: Tell how media affects people. TV has the maximum impact
Para 1: advantages of newspapers
Newspapers have better breadth
Newspapers have better depth
Newspapers can be read and re-read
Disadvantage
Need some level of literacy to read the newspaper
Para 2: Advantages of TV and radio with some comparison
Para 3: Advantages and limitations of the Internet especially on youth

In some countries, it is common for women to participate in the workforce when their
children are young. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this?
The mothers employment status does affect the families and children. These effects can
be both positive and negative which shall be discussed in this essay.{jcomments on}

On the positive side, two family incomes are very important to make both ends meet. So
women work and add to the financial status of the family. This additional income helps to
provide better education and other facilities to the children. What is more, it has been
seen that the children of working mothers do better academically, have better behaviour
and adjust themselves better socially. Another advantage is that, most families

accommodate to the mother's employment and in doing so provide a family environment

that works well. In two-parent families, the fathers take on a larger share of the household
tasks and child care and this seems to have benefits for the children.
Furthermore, employed mothers have a higher level of well-being than those who stay at
home and this, in turn, affects their parenting in positive ways. Therefore, the mother's
employment itself does not seem to have the negative effects on the children. The society
also has changed and today we have affordable and quality day care centres which are a
blessing for working mothers. Finally, women have proved their mettle in many fields and
the modern workplaces need their services more than anything else.
The disadvantages, on the other hand, are that children need the loving and affectionate
care of mothers in the early years of their lives and if mothers go to work then they are
deprived of this to some extent. Women also need some rest after childbirth as it a
physically and emotionally challenging time for them. Some people opine that juvenile
delinquency is on the rise because mothers do not give time to their children because of
going to work.
To sum up, it can be said that there are both advantages and disadvantages of women
going to work when their children are young. However, the pros far outweigh the cons.
Plan followed
Intro: Balanced intro as it is a discuss essay
Para 1: advantages
Two family incomes
it has been seen that the children of working mothers do better academically, have better
behaviour and adjust themselves better socially
most families accommodate to the mother's employment and in doing so provide a family
environment that works well
Para 2: more advantages
employed mothers have a higher level of well-being than those who stay at home and
The society also has changed and today we have affordable and quality day care centres
which are a blessing for working mothers
women have proved their mettle in many fields and the modern workplaces need their
services more than anything else
Para 3: Disadvantages
children need the loving and affectionate care of mothers in the early years of their lives
and if mothers go to work then they are deprived of this to some extent
Women also need some rest after childbirth as it a physically and emotionally challenging
time for them
Some people opine that juvenile delinquency is on the rise because mothers do not give
time to their children because of going to work