Happiness is considered very important in life. Why is it difficult to define? What factors are important in achieving happiness?
Happiness is very difficult to define, because it means so many different things to different people. While some people link happiness to wealth and material success, others think it lies in emotions and loving personal relationships. Yet others think that spiritual paths, rather than either the material world or relationships with people, are the only way to true happiness.
Because people interpret happiness for themselves in so many different ways, it is difficult to give any definition that is true for everyone. However, if there are different kinds of happiness for different individuals then the first step in achieving it would be to have a degree of self-knowledge. A person needs to know who he or she is before being able to know what it is that makes him or her happy.
Of course, factors such as loving relationships, good health, the skills to earn a living and a peaceful environment all contribute to our happiness too. But this does not mean that people without these conditions cannot be happy.
Overall, I think an ability to keep clear perspectives in life is a more essential factor in achieving happiness. By that I mean an ability to have a clear sense of what is important in our lives (the welfare of our families, the quality of our relationships, making other people happy, etc.) and what is not (a problem at work, getting annoyed about trivial things, etc.)
Like self-awareness, this is also very difficult to achieve, but I think these are the two factors that may be the most important for achieving happiness.
In many countries schools have severe problems with student behavior.
What do you think are the causes of this? What solutions can you suggest?
Poor student behavior seems to be an increasingly widespread problem and I think that modern lifestyles are probably responsible for this.
In many countries, the birth rate is decreasing so that families are smaller with fewer children. These children are often spoilt, not in terms of love and attention because working parents do not have the time for this, but in more material ways. They are allowed to have whatever they want, regardless of price, and to behave as they please. This means that the children grow up
without consideration for others and without any understanding of where their standard of living comes from.
When they get to school age they have not learnt any self-control or discipline. They have less respect for their teachers and refuse to obey school rules in the way that their parents did. Teachers continually complain about this problem and measures should be taken to combat the situation. But I think the solution to the problem lies with the families, who need to be more aware of the future consequences of spoiling their children. If they could raise them to be considerate of others and to be social, responsible individuals, the whole community would benefit.
Perhaps parenting classes are needed to help them to do this, and high quality nursery schools could be established that would support families more in terms of raising the next generation. The government should fund this kind of parental support, because this is no longer a problem for individual families, but for society as a whole.
In some countries young people are encouraged to work or travel for a year between finishing high school and starting university studies. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages for young people who decide to do this.
It is quite common these days for young people in many countries to have a break from studying after graduating from high school. The trend is not restricted to rich students who have the money to travel, but is also evident among poorer students who choose to work and become economically independent for a period of time.
The reasons for this trend may involve the recognition that a young adult who passes directly from school to university is rather restricted in terms of general knowledge and experience of the world. By contrast, those who have spent some time earning a living or travelling to other places, have a broader view of life and better personal resources to draw on. They tend to be more independent, which is a very important factor in academic study and research., as well as giving them an advantage in terms of coping with the challenges of student life.
However, there are certainly dangers in taking time off at that important age. Young adults may end up never returning to their studies or finding it difficult to readapt to an academic environment. They may think different from a university course. But overall, I think this is less likely today, when academic qualifications are essential for getting a reasonable career.
My view is that young people should be encouraged to broaden their horizons. That is the best way for them to get a clear perspective of what they are hoping to do with their lives and why. Students with such a perspective are usually the most effective and motivated ones and taking a year off may be the best way to gain this.
Research indicates that the characteristics we are born with have much more influence on our personality and development than any experiences we may have in our life.
Which do you consider to be the major influence?
Today the way we consider human psychology and mental development is heavily influenced by the genetic sciences. We now understand the importance to inherited characteristics more than ever before. Yet we are still unable to decide whether an individual’s personality and development are more influenced by genetic factors (nature) or by the environment (nurture).
Research, relating to identical twins, has highlighted how significant inherited characteristics can be for an individual’s life. But whether these characteristics are able to develop within the personality of an individual surely depends on whether the circumstances allow such a development. It seems that the experiences we have in life are so unpredictable and so powerful, that they can boost or over-ride other influences, and there seems to be plenty of research finding s to confirm this.
My own view is that there is no one major influence in a person’s life. Instead, the traits we inherit from our parents and the situations and experiences that we encounter in life are constantly interacting. It is the interaction of the two that shapes a person’s personality and dictates ow that personality develops. If this were not true, then we would be able to predict the behavior and character of a person form the moment they were born.
In conclusion, I do not think that either nature or nurture is the major influence on a person, but that both have powerful effects. How these factors interact is still unknown today and they remain largely unpredictable in a person’s life.
Successful sports professional can earn a great deal more money than people in other important professions. Some people think this is fully justified while think it is unfair. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
As a result of constant media attention, sports professionals in my country have become stars and celebrities, and those at the top are paid huge salaries. Just like movie stars, they live extravagant lifestyles with huge houses and cars.
Many people find their rewards unfair, especially when comparing these super salaries with those of top surgeons or research scientists, or even leading politicians who have the responsibility of governing the country. However, sports salaries are not determined he or she holds. Instead, they reflect the public support that successful stars can generate. So the notion of “fairness” is not the issue.
Those who feel that sports stars’ salaries are justified might argue that the number of professionals with real talent are very few, and the money is a recognition of the skills and dedication a person needs to be successful. Competition is constant and a player is tested every time they perform in their relatively short career. The pressure from the media is intense and there is little privacy out of the spotlight. So all of these factors may justify the huge earnings.
Personally, I think that the amount of money such sports stars make is more justified than the huge earnings of movie stars, but at the same time, it indicates that our society places more value on sport than on more essential professions and achievements.
Some people prefer to spend their lives doing the same things and avoiding change. Other, however, think that change is always a good thing. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Over the last half century the pace of change in the life of human beings has increased beyond our wildest expectations. This has been driven by technological and scientific breakthroughs that are changing whole way we view the world on an almost daily basis. This means that change is not always a personal option, but an inescapable fact of life, and we need to constantly adapt to keep pace with it.
Those people who believe they have achieved some security by doing the same, familiar things are living in denial. Even when people believe they are resisting change themselves, they cannot stop the world around them from changing. Sooner or later they will find that the familiar jobs no longer exist, or that the ‘safe’ patterns of behavior are no longer appropriate.
However, reaching the conclusion that change is inevitable is not the same as assuming that ‘change is always for the better’. Unfortunately, it is not always the case that new things are promoted they have good impacts for the majority of people. A lot of innovations are made with the aim of making money for a few. This is because it is the rich and powerful people in our society who are able to impose changes (such as in working conditions or property developments) that are in their own interests.
In conclusion, I would say that change can be stimulating and energizing for individuals when they pursue it themselves, but that all change, including that which is imposed on people, does not necessarily have good outcomes.
It is generally believed that some people are born with certain talents, for instance for sport or music, and others are not. However, it is sometimes claimed that any child can be taught to become a good sports person or musician.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
The relative importance of natural talent and training is a frequent topic of discussion when people try to explain different levels of ability in, for example, sport, art or music.
Obviously, education systems are based on the belief that all children can effectively be taught to acquire different skills, including those associated with sport, art or music. So from our own school experience, we can find plenty of evidence to support the view that a child can acquire these skills with continued teaching and guided practice.
However, some people believe that innate talent is what differentiates a person who has been trained to play a sport or an instrument, from those who become good players. In other words, there is more to the skill than a learned technique, and this extra talent cannot be taught, no matter how good the teacher or how frequently a child practices.
I personally think that some people do have talents that are probably inherited via their genes. Such talents can give individuals a facility for certain skills that allow them to excel, while more hare-working students never manage to reach a comparable level. But, as with all questions of nature versus nurture, they are not mutually exclusive. Good musicians or artists and exceptional sports stars have probably succeeded because of both good training and natural talent. Without the natural talent, continuous training would be neither attractive nor productive, and without the training, the child would not learn how to exploit and develop their talent.
In conclusion, I agree that any child can be taught particular skills, but to be rally good in areas such as music, art or sport, then some natural talent is required.
Some people think that parents should teach children how to be good members of society. Others, however, believe that school is the place to learn this.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
A child’s education has never been about learning information and basic skills only. It has always included teaching the next generation how to be good members of society. Therefore, this cannot be the responsibility of the parents alone.
In order to be a good member of any society the individual must respect and obey the rules of their community and share their community and share their values. Educating children to understand the need to obey rules and respect others always begins in the home and is widely thought to be the responsibility of parents. They will certainly be the first to help children learn what is important in life, how they are expected to behave and what role they will play in their world.
However, learning to understand and share the value system of a whole society cannot be achieved just in the home. Once a child goes to school, they are entering a wider community where teachers and peers will have just as much influence as their parents do at home. At school, children will experience working and living with people from a whole variety of backgrounds from the wider society. This experience should teach them how to co-operate with each other and how to contribute to the life of their community.
But to be a valuable member of any community is not like learning a simple skill. It is something that an individual goes on learning throughout life and it is the responsibility of every member of a society to take responsibility for helping the younger generation to become active and able members of that society.
Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems.
To what extent do you agree or disagree? What other measures do you think might be effective?
There is no doubt that traffic and pollution from vehicles have become huge problems, both in cities and on motorways everywhere. Solving these problems is likely to need more than a simple rise in the price of petrol.
While it is undeniable that private car use is one of the main causes of the increase in traffic and pollution, higher fuel costs are unlikely to limit the number of drivers for long. As this policy would also affect the cost of public transport, it would be very unpopular with everyone who needs to travel on the roads. But there are various other measures that could be implemented that would have a huge effect on these problems.
I think to tackle the problem of pollution, cleaner fuels need to be developed. The technology is already available to produce electric cars that would be both quieter and cleaner to use. Persuading manufacturers and travelers to adopt this new technology would be a more effective strategy for improving air quality, especially in cities.
However, traffic congestion will not be solved by changing the type of private vehicle people can use. To do this, we need to improve the choice of public transport services available to travelers. For example, if sufficient sky trains and underground train systems were built and effectively maintained in our major cities, then traffic on the roads would be dramatically reduced. Long-distance train and coach services should be made attractive and affordable alternatives to driving your own car for long journeys.
In conclusion, I think that long-term traffic and pollution reductions would depend on educating the public to use public transport more, and on governments using public money to construct and run efficient systems.
Some experts believe that it is better for children to begin learning a foreign language at primary school rather than secondary school.
Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?
Traditionally, children have begun studying foreign languages at secondary school, but introducing them earlier is recommended by some educationalists. This policy has been adopted by some educational authorities or individual schools, with both positive and negative outcomes. The obvious argument in its favour is that young children pick up languages much more easily than teenagers. Their brains are still programmed to acquire their mother tongue, which facilitates learning another language, and unlike adolescents, they are not inhibited by self-consciousness.
The greater flexibility of the primary timetable allows for more frequent, shorter sessions and for a play-centred approach, thus maintaining learners’ enthusiasm and progress. Their command of the language in later life will benefit from this early exposure, while learning other languages subsequently will be easier for them. They may also gain a better understanding of other cultures.
There are, however, some disadvantages. Primary school teachers are generalists, and may not have the necessary language skills themselves. If specialists have to be brought in to deliver these sessions, the flexibility referred to above is diminished. If primary language teaching is not standardised, secondary schools could be faced with a great variety of levels in different languages within their intake, resulting in a classroom experience which undoes the earlier gains. There is no advantage if enthusiastic primary pupils become demotivated as soon as they change schools. However, these issues can be addressed strategically within the policy adopted.
Anything which encourages language learning benefits society culturally and economically, and early exposure to language learning contributes to this. Young children innate abilities should be harnessed to make these benefits more achievable.
Some people say that the best way to improve public health is by increasing the number of sports facilities. Others, however, say that this would have little effect on public health and that other measures are required.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
A problem of modern societies is the declining level of health in the general population, with conflicting views on how to tackle this worrying trend. One possible solution is to provide more sports facilities to encourage a more active lifestyle.
Advocates of this believe that today’s sedentary lifestyle and stressful working conditions mean that physical activity is no longer part of either our work or our leisure time. If there were easy-to-reach local sports that could be offered would cater for all ages, levels of fitness and interests: those with painful memories of PE at school might be happier in the swimming pool than on the football pitch.
However, there may be better ways of tackling this problem. Interest in sport is not universal, and additional facilities might simply attract the already fit, not those who most need them. Physical activity could be encouraged relatively cheaply, for example by installing exercise equipment in parks, as my local council has done. This has the added benefit that parents and children often use them together just for fun, which develops a positive attitude to exercise at an early age.
As well as physical activity, high tax penalties could be imposed on high-fat food products, tobacco and alcohol, as excessive consumption of any of these contributes to poor health. Even improving public transport would help: it takes longer to walk to the bus stop than to the car.
In my opinion, focusing on sports facilities is too narrow an approach and would not have the desired results. People should be encouraged not only to be more physically active but also adopt a healthier lifestyle in general.
It is important for children to learn the difference between right and wrong at an early age. Punishment is necessary to help them learn this distinction.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
What sort of punishment should parents and teachers be allowed to use to teach good behaviour to children?
One important stage in a child’s growth is certainly the development of a conscience, which is linked to the ability to tell right from wrong. This skill comes with time and good parenting, and my firm conviction is that punishment does not have much of a role to play in this. Therefore I have to disagree almost entirely with the given statement.
To some extent the question depends on the age of the child. To punish a very young child is both wrong and foolish, as an infant will not understand what is happening or why he or she is being punished. Once the age of reason is reached however, a child can be rewarded for good behaviour and discouraged from bad. This kind but firm approach will achieve more than harsh punishments, which might entail many negative consequences unintended by the parents.
To help a child learn the difference between right and wrong, teachers and parents should firstly provide good role modelling in their own behavior. After that, if sanctions are needed, the punishment should not be of a physical nature, as that merely sends the message that it is acceptable for larger people to hit smaller ones- an outcome which may well result in the child starting to bully others. Nor should the punishment be in any way cruel.
Rather, teachers and parents can use a variety of methods to discipline their young charges, such as detention, withdrawal of privileges, and time-out. Making the punishment fit the crime is a useful notion, which would see children being made to pick up rubbish they have dropped, clean up graffiti they have drawn, or apologize to someone they have hurt. In these ways responsibility is developed in the child, which leads to much better future behaviour than does punishment.
Countries are becoming more and more similar because people are able to buy the same products anywhere in the world.
Do you think this is a positive or negative development?
It is said that countries are becoming similar to each other because of the global spread of the same products, which are now available for purchase almost anywhere. I strongly believe that this modern development is largely detrimental to culture and traditions worldwide.
A country’s history, language and ethos are all inextricably bound up in its manufactured artefacts. If the relentless advance of international brands into every corner of the world continues, these bland packages might one day completely oust the traditional objects of a nation, which would be a loss of richness and diversity in the world, as well as the sad disappearance of the manifestations of a place’s character. What would a Japanese tea ceremony be without its specially crafted teapot, or a Fijian kava ritual without its bowl made from a certain type of tree bark?
Let us not forget either that traditional products, whether these be medicines, cosmetics, toys , clothes, utensils or food, provide employment for local people. The spread of multinational products can often bring in its wake a loss of jobs, as people turn to buying the new brand, perhaps, thinking it more glamorous than the one they are used to. This eventually puts old-school craftspeople out of work.
Finally, tourism numbers may also be affected, as travelers become disillusioned with finding every place just the same as the one they visited previously. To see the same products in shops the world over is boring, and does not impel visitors to open their wallets in the same way that trinkets or souvenirs unique to the particular area do.
Some may argue that all people are entitled to have access to the same products, but I say that local objects suit local conditions best, and that faceless uniformity worldwide is an unwelcome and dreary prospect.
Leaders and directors in an organization are normally older people. Some people think younger leader would be better. Do you agree or disagree?
It is true that higher positions are prevalently held by aged members in many organizations these days. While some people believe younger people would demonstrate better leadership, it is in my opinion that senior managers possess more advantages over the young in leading a company.
To begin with, it is usually difficult for the young to compete with the old in terms of experience. Those who have gained adequate experience can more effectively manage to lead the individuals of an organization than those who do not. The reason for this is that business matters often require the people in charge to have not only the knowledge of coping with problematic situations but also strong nerves to calmly find a feasible solution. As a result, years of experience in a relevant position tend to make the elderly better candidates than those who are relatively young and new to the tasks.
Another advantage belonging to aged people is that they are likely to receive more support from the people in an organization. As the time spent working with the staff of the senior is often longer, they can understand their colleagues better, achieving more popularity. It is interpersonal communication skills and approval of other people that can tremendously affect the success of a leader. Younger members, on the other hand, will need more time to make contributions over time to prove themselves worthy.
In conclusion, I believe that critical positions of authority should be given to senior staff members for the certain reasons mentioned rather than the young.
Some people think that there should be some strict controls about noise. Others think that they could just make as much noise as they want. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
People have different views about whether noise should be limited. While some individuals believe the level of noise being created should be strictly controlled, I would argue that people should have the right to produce noise if they want to.
On the one hand, there are several reasons why the government should control the amount of noise produced. The first reason is that too much noise can significantly affect people's health. Living in a place that is too noisy can cause problems such as headaches, which can decrease the health levels of people, especially old ones. Additionally, noise can disturb people's work or study. For example, a university student will not be able to concentrate on his preparation for exams if his neighbours keep singing too loud.
However, I believe people should be allowed make as much noise as they want because of some reasons. Firstly, producing noise is sometimes considered a type of recreational activities. For instance, singing or cheering for a football club can be relaxing, and everyone has the right to do those things. Secondly, as the world is becoming more modern, people have found ways to deal with the problem of noise. Scientists have invented walls and windows that can block out the noise, which allows individuals to focus on their work without being disturbed. Therefore, the problem of noise can be reduced and there is no need for people to keep quiet.
In conclusion, while many people believe there should be controls about noise, I believe we have the right to create noise when we want to.
It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environment, such as the South Pole. Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages?
As technology has developed, people can now travel to remote natural areas. While this trend is beneficial to some extent, I would argue that its disadvantages are more significant.
On the one hand, visiting isolated natural places has some benefits. Firstly, this is a newer and more interesting type of travelling. Since going to other cities or countries has been too common for most people, it might be more exciting for them to explore new places such as the South Pole or the Amazon rainforest. This gives them valuable experiences and unforgettable memories. Secondly, when visiting remote areas, people, especially scientists, might acquire more knowledge about the natural habitat. For example, when coming to the North Pole, scientists can learn about the life of polar bears which live far away from humans.
On the other hand, I believe this development has far more drawbacks. The first one is that travelling to remote natural areas can be risky if the travellers are not sufficiently prepared. For instance, the temperature at the South Pole is usually very low, which adversely affects people's health. Travelling to forests can also be dangerous as people have to face the risk of being attacked by animals. Also, since visiting isolated places often requires a large amount of investment in researching and ensuring the safety of travellers, the costs of travelling tend to be high. Therefore, it seems like only scientists and rich people can afford this activity, so this development is likely to benefit only a small group of individuals.
In conclusion, I believe the disadvantages of people being able to travel to remote areas outweigh its advantages.
Some people say that too much attention and too many resources are given in the protection of wild animals and birds. Do you agree or disagree about this opinion?
The protection of wildlife has become a frequent subject of debate with strong arguments for and against. Personally, I believe that humans are paying too much attention and allocating too many resources to this issue, as will now be explained.
Firstly, if we allow any species to disappear, this is actually not a disaster. Some people may argue that the biology will be seriously affected if birds and wild animals are on the verge of extinction, but this is an exaggeration. Fossil evidence suggests that the mass disappearance of the dinosaur did not cause any harm to other species on the Earth but merely triggered the emergence of others such as the mammal. Therefore, we should not devote too much attention to the protection of wildlife.
Secondly, public money is limited. This means that the national budget should be allocated to more urgent issues rather than expending too much in the conservation of wild animals and birds. For example, more resources should be diverted to medical research to find out remedies for fatal diseases such as HIV and cancer, which may help to save thousands of lives in society.
Finally, the government can simply protect wildlife by continuing campaigns to raise public awareness of the protection of wildlife habitats, or impose stricter punishments on activities that may harm wild animals. Any individual who hunts wildlife for food or for pleasure should be given a heavy fine, and this may discourage them from threatening the life of wild animals.
In conclusion, while I do not refute the argument for the conservation of wildlife, I believe that it should attract less attention and fewer resources from the public.
Many museums and historical sites are mainly visited by tourists but not local people. Why is this the case and what can be done to attract more local people to visit these places?
There are a number of factors that explain why many museums and historical sites fail to attract the attention of the locals. However, this issue can be resolved by adopting a number of solutions, as will now be discussed.
Perhaps the primary reason is that local inhabitants often do not have interest in visiting these places as they tend not to be attracted by places and objects that are familiar to their cultural backgrounds. For example, many museums in Ho Chi Minh City welcome thousands of travelers from Hanoi annually, in contrast to the number of local residents who visit the museums and historical sites here in my home city of Hanoi.
Another reason stems from historical attractions themselves. They are often poorly conserved due to a low budget for operation while the authority does not make an attempt to improve the situation. Take the Air Defense museum in Hanoi as an example. For years, there has been no change for the better, at least visually, to attract the locals, and this is the reason why most of its visitors are tourists.
However, a range of available options can be taken to tackle the problem. The simplest one is that the authority should continue campaigns aiming at encouraging local people to visit these attractions. They could also consider rearranging and redecorating historical places to make them more interesting and attractive for all visitors. To achieve this, the government ought to allocate more public money to the conservation of these places.
In conclusion, various measures need to be taken to gain back local residents’ interest in museums and historical sites.
Some people think that the best way to increase road safety is to increase the minimum legal age for driving cars or riding motorbikes. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some individuals believe raising the minimum legal age for driving cars or riding motorbikes is the most effective method of increasing road safety. While I accept that this policy is good to some extent, I believe it is not the best because there are much better measures to reduce traffic accidents.
It might be a good idea to increase the minimum age required for driving because of some reasons. Firstly, since younger people are usually less mature and less responsible with their manners, they might not be aware of the importance of following the rules. Therefore, it is reasonable to ban them from travelling on the street to prevent them from breaking the law and causing accidents. Secondly, as older people are more experienced, they can know how to react quickly to handle dangerous situations on the road, while younger ones might not be able to. To illustrate, if the brakes of a car suddenly stop working, a young driver might panic, and accidents are more likely to occur.
However, I would argue that there are much better methods of ensuring road safety. The first one is to have stricter punishments for driving offenders. For example, people who break traffic rules should be required to pay huge fines or be banned permanently from commuting on the street. This makes commuters more likely to respect the law, and traffic accidents can be limited. Another solution is to encourage people to use public transport rather than private vehicles. This can be done by reducing the price and increasing the frequency of buses and tubes to make it more convenient for users.
In conclusion, I believe apart from increasing the legal age for driving, there are more effective ways to make sure that travelling on the street is safe for everyone.
Many people believe that social networking sites( such as Facebook) have had a huge negative impact on both individuals and society.
To what extent do you agree?
Social networking sites, for instance Facebook, are thought by some to have had a detrimental effect on individual people as well as society and local communities. However, in my opinion ,while I believe that such sites are mainly beneficial to the individual, I agree that they have had a damaging effect on local communities.
With regards to individuals, the impact that online social media has had on each individual person has clear advantages. Firstly people from different countries are brought together through such sites as Facebook whereas before the development of technology and social networking sites, people rarely had the chance to meet or communicate with anyone outside of their immediate circle or community. Secondly, Facebook also has social groups which offer individuals a chance to meet and participate in discussions with people who share common interests.
On the other hand, the effect that Facebook and other social networking sites have had on societies and local communities can only be seen as negative . Rather than individual people taking past in their local community, they are instead choosing to take more interest in people online. Consequently, the people within local communities are no longer forming close or supportive relationships. Furthermore, society as a whole is becoming increasingly disjointed and fragmented as people spend more time online with people they have never met face to face and who they are unlikely to ever meet in the future.
To conclude although social networking sites have brought individuals closer together, they have not had the same effect on society or local communities. Local communities should do more to try and involve local people in local activities in order to promote the future of community life.
The growing number of overweight people is putting a strain on the health care system in an effort to deal with the health issues involved. Some people think that the best way to deal with this problem is to introduce more physical education lessons in the school curriculum. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Owing to the problems which a growing population of overweight people cause for the health care system, some people think that the key to solving these issues is to have more sport and exercise in schools. In my opinion, I completely agree that this is the best way to tackle the issue of deteriorating public health in relation to weight.
Firstly, dealing with the issues surrounding obesity and weight problems is best solved by taking a long term approach and introducing more sport and exercise in schools. This method will ensure that the next generation will be healthier and will not have such health problems. At the moment ,the average child in the West does sport possibly twice a week, which is not enough to counteract their otherwise sedentary lifestyle. However, by incorporating more sports classes into the curriculum as well as encouraging extracurricular sports activities, they will undoubtedly become fitter and more active.
Another point to consider is that having more sports lessons for children in schools will probably result in children developing an interest in exercise which might filter through to other members of their of their family and have a longer lasting effect. In other words, parents with sporty children are more likely to get involved in sport as a way of encouraging their children. By both parents and children being involved, it will ensure that children grow up to incorporate sport into their daily lives. This is certainly a natural and lasting way to improve public health.
In conclusion, to deal with an increasing population of unfit, overweight people, changing the lifestyle of the coming generation by introducing sport in schools is the easiest and most effective method to use.
The development of tourism contributed to English becoming the most prominent language in the world. Some people think this will lead to English becoming the only language to be spoken globally.
What are the advantages and disadvantages to having one languages in the world.
It is thought by some people that English, which is now the most widely spoken language in the world, may one day predominate over all other languages and result in their eventual disappearance. Having one language would certainly aid understanding and economic growth but there will also be some drawbacks.
One evident benefit to having one global language is that it would enable greater understanding between countries. In other words, if everyone spoke one language, there would be complete understanding between not only countries but all people throughout the world which would promote learning ,the flow of information ,and ideas. Another reason that one languages would be advantageous is that it would help economic growth. With all people speaking the same language, there will be less barriers and therefore trade would flourish between countries, resulting in a healthier world economy.
One the other hand, there are obvious disadvantages to having only one global language. Firstly, it would mean that all other languages would eventually disappear and ,along with them, their cultures. The diversity of cultures is one of the joys this world has to offer. Each culture is unique with its own way of life and own perspectives of the world which would all be lost if there were only one language. Secondly, it would result in the collapse of tourism because there would be no reason to travel for pleasure and interest if all countries had the same language and similar cultures. Thus would devastate many countries economically that rely on tourism as a source of income.
In conclusion, while there are plus points to having one global language, too much would be lost as a result. Maintaining local languages and cultures should be prioritised to ensure a rich world heritage for future generations.
Many offenders commit more crimes after serving the first punishment . Why is this happening and what measures can be taken to tackle this problem?
A large number of criminals who serve their prison sentence, leave prison only to reoffend. This is mainly because of the lack of rehabilitation and difficulty finding regular employment once released. There are a number of solutions which should be implemented to deal with criminals who reoffend.
Firstly, the reason for most first-time offenders committing crimes again, once they have been released from prison ,is due to the lack of rehabilitation whilst in prison .In other words, offenders are not given a chance to retrain and learn new skills for their future or develop a deeper understanding of correct moral behaviour and instead mix with other criminals , which only strengthens their criminal intentions.
Secondly, repeat offending is also owing to the problem of repeat offenders, One way to tackle this is to ensure that all criminals entering prison are given the chance to retrain with useful skills which will hopefully ensure them a job after they have served their sentence. By doing this ,it will help them reintegrate back into society and give them some means of supporting themselves financially. Another method of dealing with criminals who reoffend is to have more supervision and checks in place when they are back in society .This solution would hopefully prevent them from taking any chances and deter them from reoffending because they are being so closely watched.
In conclusion, having training in prison and also close observation when first time offenders are released are effective in dealing with the issue. If governments implemented these solutions, crime figures would soon drop.
Successful sports professionals can earn a great deal more money than people in other important professions. Some people think this is fully justified while others think it is unfair. Discuss both these views and give your opinion.
The world of sports is a multimillion dollar industry. Around the globe, people flock to sporting events or watch their favourite teams faithfully each week on television. As a result, professional sports athletes receive huge salaries – well above, for example, those of doctors, lawyers, teachers or social workers. There is some debate about whether such outrageously high salaries are justified.
On the one hand, sport is viewed as a professional career, in which the top players should rightly earn high salaries. Athletes train rigorously from an early age to become peak performers in their field. They face tremendous pressure in each and every game, match or competition. Their personal lives are compromised and they lose all privacy. At the same time, their strong achievements bring honour and attention, not only to themselves, but also to their teams, schools, cities or countries.
On the other hand, various professions contribute to making our world run smoothly. Doctors put in at least ten years of grueling study and internship; their work saves lives. Teachers educate and inspire young people to be responsible citizens: their efforts produce the citizens of tomorrow. Social workers rescue individuals facing physical, mental and psychological challenges: their intervention creates safer societies.
Yet, professionals in the fields above usually struggle to get by, despite their meaningful and critical contribution to the world.
In my view, paying enormous salaries to sportspeople is unnecessary. We need to reconsider our social priorities and eliminate the great disparity in income received by diverse professionals. By doing so, we can build societies in which each one feels valued, appreciated and appropriately compensated for their own vocation or specialization.
Fossil fuel is the main source of energy. In some countries, the use of alternative sources of energy is encouraged. To what extent do you think is it a positive or negative development?
In several parts of the world, fossil fuel plays a primary role in producing energy. However, governmental leaders also promote the utilization of nontraditional sources of power. I believe that this policy could generate both advantages and shortcomings.
There are various benefits of putting renewable power sources into practice. Firstly, when the exploitation of the non-conventional energy sources gains more popularity, followed by a decrease in the utilization of fossil fuel, natural renewable resources, which are being overexploited at an alarming rate and in danger of being exhausted, can be saved with a view to being preserved for later generations. Secondly, non-traditional sources of power like solar energy or wind power are considered to be environmentally friendly. In other words, they may discharge almost no toxic chemical emissions or pollutants. Consequently, the environment can be protected. Finally, factories or corporations generating renewable power can make contributions to supplying more job opportunities for the community and satisfying the increasing requirements for energy for daily social life and industrial production.
Nevertheless, in my view, countries can be confronted with several problems when making use of these kinds of energy. In various cases, when nuclear power plants could leak radioactive substances, the community health will be endangered and the living environment may be poisoned. Additionally, national authorities are obliged to allocate a huge amount of state budget for constructing nuclear power factories, installing windmills or purchasing solar panels, followed by a shortage of national fund for other key sectors like educational systems or health services. Another trouble is that on days with little wind or sunlight, wind power or solar energy can hardly be produced. Moreover, in dry seasons, there is nearly no rain, leading to a lack of water for turbines to produce power. All the above mentioned matters may give rise to a deficiency in electricity for community life and manufacturing.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that it is beneficial and problematic for nations to exploit renewable sources of energy.
Topic: Some people think studying from the past offers no benefits to today’s life, while others believe that history is a valuable source of information for us. Discuss both views and give our own opinion.
There has been considerable debate about the values of studying history. While it is argued that there are no advantages of learning history, I believe that history can bring more benefits.
It is claimed that it is not beneficial to learn from the past. At various schools, students may put exam-based learning methods into practice to satisfy the requirements of exams and tests. Consequently, they are obliged to make every effort to memorize historical developments and events. In several cases, they get stressful and overloaded with history-related knowledge which does not provide foundations for their doing research into scientific fields like engineering or medicine. For example, in my hometown, most school students apply test-oriented approaches in historical lessons, causing students to be bombarded with historical knowledge, which is not beneficial in supplying background knowledge for them to realize their dream to major in computer engineering or medical sciences at university.
Nonetheless, from my viewpoint, history should become a more precious informative source. Thanks to history classes or museum artifacts related to past wars, there is every likelihood of young generations accumulating a profound knowledge of the sacrifice and contributions of their ancestors in the resistance war against foreign invaders, followed by cultivating their national pride and patriotism. As a result, they may have a tendency to be supplied with motivation and inspiration to put almost every effort into perfecting themselves and making contributions to national development. Another explanation may be that no sooner are students exposed to history lectures than they could enhance their understanding of valuable lessons about successes and failures in the process of predecessors’ national construction and defense. Hence, they might reach higher maturity and greater confidence in avoiding the same mistakes and making wise decisions for their future careers and life.
In conclusion, although people think history lessons can be of no importance, I am of the opinion that there are more benefits of studying history as a huge reservoir of knowledge.
Some people think that everyone has the right to have access to university education, and that government should make it free for all students no matter what financial background they have. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
It is unquestionable that every citizen has equal opportunities to follow higher education. I believe that the government should allow students to attend university free of charge. However, I disagree with the policy of providing free higher education for all students regardless of their financial background.
Supplying free tertiary education for students is a sensible national investment. Numerous students, if not obliged to pay tuition fees can afford to cover their living costs; thereby concentrating on academic performance or cultivate their professional skills. Therefore, they may be well qualified for future employment. Additionally, university graduates who have received governmental grants for all university tuition fees can become productive citizens contributing to social betterment. More specifically, after graduation from university, some graduates may become loyal and strong-willed soldiers who could ensure national security and sovereignty or teachers serving to raising people’s intellectual levels and shaping young generations’ behavioral patterns.
However, I oppose the idea of providing tuition fees subsidies for all students irrespective of whether they are rich or poor. Several learners who live in poverty are entitled to free tertiary education although they have no desire to enrich academic knowledge or professional skills. In this case, this policy proves to be a waste of money. Another explanation is that no sooner do national leaders pay all tuition fees for university education than there is high likelihood of a deficiency in state budget for community health services or public transport services which also require a huge amount of fund investment from the government for the benefits of the whole society.
In conclusion, in my view, there are several benefits of free education at university level. However, I disapprove that all students have free higher education opportunities no matter how rich or poor they are.
Some people think that men and women have different qualities. Therefore, some certain jobs are suitable for men and some jobs are suitable for women. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is natural that both genders possess distinct features. While it is believed that several occupations are appropriate for men or women on the basis of their own qualities, I partly approve of this viewpoint because each sex can expose equal performance at work to the opposite gender in various cases.
On the one hand, several respective characteristics of each gender may enable them to be compatible with certain jobs. As regards males, they are blessed with good physical stamina, decisiveness or strong will, allowing them to be well qualified for armed forces. For example, men can perform military service or enter the security force because they are able to be confronted with aggressive robbers or combative foreign invaders. Similarly, women, considered to be the weaker sex, tend to be emotional, considerate or meticulous, which makes it possible for them to become prominent at doing household chores or taking responsibility for childcare.
Regardless of the above-mentioned explanations, I accept that males and females can work equally effectively and hold the same social status. At home, there is likelihood of men becoming outstanding at doing the work which is usually given to women. More especially, various males are skilled chefs and a large number of husbands in modern families are excellent at childcare skills compared with their wives. By contrast, various modern women can become breadwinners instead of men. Additionally, in the modern society, women may undertake the same important social positions as their male counterparts. For example, like other male elite members, Angela Markel was elected as the prime minister of Germany, permitting her to reveal her leadership talents and powerful influence on national development policies.
In conclusion, although it is argued both genders have their own separate qualities making them become suited for several jobs, I believe that they are capable of having the same type of jobs irrespective of whether they are male or female.
Advertisements are becoming more and more common in everyday life. Is it positive or negative development?
Advertising is gaining more popularity in the marketing of products or services. While advertisements are considered to be advantageous, they can have numerous negative influences .
It is unquestionable that there are several benefits of advertising. By dint of the large-scale expansion of advertising in almost every kind of mass media and nearly all hoardings, this sector is likely to generate a diversity of employment opportunities. In other words, it provides occupations for artists, painters or copywriters in designing and preparing logos, contents or ideas for advertisements. Another advantage is that advertising may enable the massages involved in products and services to reach potential customers, followed by an increase in sales for businesses. Additionally, only thanks to advertisements, can customers be kept informed about newly-launched products. Therefore, they have more choices to make about their beloved products, contributing to the enhancement of their comforts and standard of living.
However, advertising could cause several disadvantages for customers . No sooner might companies or business exaggerate or even distort the facts related to their products for commercial purposes than the customers can experience feelings of confusion about these items, making them have troubles in selecting the products to their taste. Furthermore, the facts show that the more advertising expenses increase, the higher the product price is. The reason can be that the high cost of advertisements is covered by the selling price of advertised items. As a result, the advertised products can cost more than they should. Finally, when customers cannot resist the temptation of products which are advertised beyond customers’ expectations, there is every likelihood of them purchasing products which may be unnecessary. This trend could be seen as a waste of money.
In conclusion, based on the above mentioned explanations, individuals may gain both considerable benefits and drawbacks through the growing prevalence of advertisements.
In schools and universities, girls tend to choose arts while boys like science. What are the reasons for this trend and do you think this tendency should be changed?
It is undeniable that scientific domains of study seem to be preferred by schoolboys whilst schoolgirls are inclined to show fancy for ones related to arts. From my perspective, several reasons could explain this tendency and it should undergo a change.
There are two main causes responsible for the difference in subject selections between boys and girls. First and foremost, it derives from natural strengths of each gender. It is an inescapable fact male students are better at rational and logical thinking in science; hence, they reveal preference for mathematical and physical realms while the other sex may be more emotional and sensitive to have advantages in perceiving arts or languages. Equally importantly, the traditional belief is another contributing factor deciding that divergence. In fact, a number of parents orientate their girls towards the choice of artistic fields to become elegant and their sons to pursue science subjects for their future career.
I believe that there is a necessity to change the aforementioned trend. Both male and female children should be encouraged to find the right balance between arts and science subjects. Several scientific studies prove that learning arts could boost children’s creativity and imagination power, enabling them to get insight into scientific subjects with greater efficiency; meanwhile, majors namely maths or physics also generate opportunities for female learners to develop their left brain and enhance problem-solving competences. Furthermore, as regards numerous female students who have a flair for maths and engineering, forcing them to specialize in artistic scopes may produce counterproductive outcomes. This compulsion is likely to cause resentment and negative attitudes towards their study, followed by low levels of academic performance.
To conclude, that girls prefer arts but boys tend to choose science subjects for education could be justified for several above-mentioned reasons. Nonetheless, I argue for a change of this situation.
Due to the new technologies and the internet radio is going to disappear in a few years. Do you agree or disagree with the statement?
We have made a rapid advancement in the field of technology and managed to even surpass our own expectations. Gone are the days when pigeons were used for communication. Mobile phones and the internet are the new dimensions of our space and time. While new technologies are heading towards us with a jet speed, the old ones are disappearing even faster.
Just after its invention, the radio was used primarily for communication in the armies and the navies. However, in recent times, radio is being used in wireless technology like mobile communication etc. We are at a time when the internet has made information easily accessible. From news to songs, one can easily get whatever they like on the internet in an instant. Whereas, they have to wait if they want to hear something on the radio.
Although the internet provides everything instantaneously, there is much more fun in listening to the RJ in the local language, giving news and other fun talks. There is a personal connection while talking with the RJ and explaining problems. And then, there is always a surprise element. Radio is also the best thing you can turn on sitting in your car.
Overall, in my opinion, even though various new technologies have taken over, radio is still a very tough contender and will take a long time to become dormant. People in this fast paced life often look out for personal connect, which radio provides.
Some people believe that students work better if the teacher is strict, others think it is better for students if the teacher has a friendly approach. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
School years are the formative years for a child and the way the child is dealt with during those days defines his or her personality. Although parents are the most important people in the life of a child, teachers play an equally vital role in a student’s life. Most people believe that it is better for the teachers to be strict while others have the opinion that it is beneficial if the student has a friendly teacher.
A strict teacher always brings along the qualities of well-organized class, motivated students and maximum respect from students. A well-organized class helps the students to understand and grasp the material in a better way. It has been seen that students of such class tend to be more responsible and self-disciplined. Besides, it is very important for a teacher to have his or her children to respect. Often students don’t respect teachers who are polite, having strict teachers help in maintaining the decorum of the class.
However, sometimes the strictness also has a negative impact on the students. The teacher is more likely to become less approachable and students may rebel. Also, the students might not be very active in answering questions in class. Strict guidelines often discourage students from attending classes. They start making excuses which harm the studies.
Overall, although strict teachers help in having organized classes often it makes them less approachable. In my opinion, teachers must choose different teaching styles depending on the type of student.
Today more and more young children have mobile phones. Critics say that this is a negative development. Do you agree or disagree? What is your opinion?
Cell-phone texting has become a preferred channel of basic communication between teens and their friends, with cell calling being second. There is no denying that technology has evolved over a period of time and has become easily accessible across the globe. One such technology advancement, that has swept the world and made people stick to it, is the mobile phone technology. More and more youngsters are inclined towards it. But, there are some opinions that mobile phones have more negative impact on younger generation than positive.
With so many features being available to them, most of them have dedicated their lives to a five-inch screen. A recent study showed that the people aged between 15-30 years are addicted to phones and are more likely to face depression, anxiety, and heart palpitations. Furthermore, the young people using phones tend to have a negative impact on their studies and job. Most of them lose out on connecting with people in real life because of their over indulgence in the technology at large.
However, mobile phones also have a positive impact. With the crime rates in young people increasing phones make sure they can be tracked. For example, in a recent kidnapping case, police was able to track down the victim using the GPS on their mobile phones. Moreover, many young people have used their mobile phones in fighting corruption.
The latest mobile phones are embedded with powerful tools and there is no denying that. However, most people tend to have compulsions to it leading to a depressed and often anxious individual. So, in my opinion, the mobile phone is a power that needs to be used with equal responsibility.
It is necessary for parents to attend parenting training courses to bring their children up. Do you agree or disagree?
It is the 21st century and with globalisation and an upsurge of youth around the world there has been an increased competition for jobs and building a career. Gone are the days of limited hours of working, in present times people have added workaholic to their personality trait. Some people believe that it is important for parents to attend parenting schools in order to bring their children up efficiently. In my opinion, given the state of our times, attending parenting schools should not be discarded completely.
Firstly, a person learns more in company of peers. It is not necessary to entirely go by the rule book being taught in the parenting school but learning from the troubles of the fellow parents can be helpful. Every child is unique but sometimes the solution to the problems is same. Even more, this helps in building confidence amongst parents.
Secondly, with technology ruling over the world there has been a dramatic change in the way world behaves. We have got problems like never before, peer pressure, sexual harassment and identity crisis. It is important for parents to understand how to deal with such problems in their kids especially because for most of them they have not dealt with such issues.
In conclusion, overall it is possible for an individual to give up everything and raise their children. However, giving up on oneself to raise children can take a toll of lives. In my opinion, taking help from parenting schools and yet doing everything unique for their children is what is required to raise healthy kids.
Many people argue that in order to improve educational quality, high school students are encouraged to make comments or even criticism on their teachers. Others think it will lead to loss of respect and discipline in the classroom. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Finding ways to improve educational quality is often one of the top priorities in every education system. In some cultures, high school students are encouraged to give their opinions about teachers, but I believe that this can also give rise to lack of respect and discipline in the classroom.
On the one hand, it is true that feedback from learners may contribute to an improvement in educational quality. In many cases, the level of comprehension of students relies very much not on the content of the lesson but on the way teachers conduct it. If, for example, the class is slow, it will be ineffective for teachers to teach too fast so that most students fail to retain the information. Without the comments of students, it would be difficult to know whether the speed of the lesson is appropriate for the class, which may eventually impair the quality of the lesson.
However, there are several drawbacks of allowing students to make comments and criticism on their teachers. Firstly, teachers can be vulnerable to the negative words of students. Many will feel that their efforts in delivering the lesson deserve praise rather than criticism or any form of feedback. This idea is commonly shared by teachers in the education systems of many Asian countries. Secondly, the classroom may be in chaos due to massive numbers of comments. Opinions vary from students to students, and it would be impractical for teachers to work out a way of teaching that can satisfy all students.
In conclusion, it seems to me that encouraging high school students to comment about their teachers does not necessarily mean an improvement in education quality.
Some people say taxes should be spent on health care. Other people say that there are more important priorities for tax-payers' money. Discus both these views and give your own opinion.
People hold different views about how taxes should be spent. Although I agree that medical care is a field that requires huge investments, I believe that the government should also allocate the money for other priorities, such as education and transport.
On the one hand, a certain amount of tax money has to go to healthcare services. Today, a number of particular diseases are on the rise in terms of popularity, and it would be costly to supply vaccines, medicines or treatments. For example, a large proportion of the population is now suffering from respiratory diseases or lung cancer due to exhaust fumes from vehicles and gas emissions from industrial factories. The remedies for those patients and the treatment facilities are often expensive, and the hospitals may find themselves in the struggle with financial problems without the assistance from the tax system.
On the other hand, healthcare is not the only industry that needs money to be kept running. Take education as an example. The quality of the schooling system is proportional to the competence of the future workforce. Therefore, a country can benefit from such skillful human resources in the long-term if they invest the tax budget to build schools, provide lecturers with training courses or hire native speakers to teach foreign language. In addition, the government should also spend money solving transport problems. Traffic congestion is a global issue these days, and the scenario can be handled only if new highways are opened, and narrow public roads are expanded.
In conclusion, I believe that the government should use tax-payers’ money to improve not only the healthcare services, but also the education and transportation system.
Some people believe that when choosing a job, the only thing to be considered is the salary it is offering, while others are of the opinion that you should do what you love. Discuss both views.
It is the cofounder of Apple that has inspired the generations to come to do what they love to do. However, in reality, often the things that we love tend to give us little money to be able to survive in the world. While there are people who believe that nothing is better than doing what makes them feel right, there are people of the opinion that one should be more practical when choosing a job. In my opinion, it must be a balance between the two.
Doing something that you love surely gives oneself a sense of achievement. When someone does a job that they like, it is more likely that people will finish it till the end. It is only when someone does what they are not very interested in, that they tend to give up. Even more, although some jobs pay less, if it feels right, the joy that one gets by doing something that their heart feels right, gives much more joy than something that is done purely for money.
However, it cannot be denied that money is equally important for leading a life. There have been people who felt in love with acting and when they tried pursuing their career in it, failed miserably. Some of them ended up being in mental asylums, others committed suicide. Keeping in mind such examples one needs to make sure that they are at least able to feed themselves before they go on to do something more closer to themselves.
Overall, it is important to be financially independent to be able to live in this world but it is equally important to be able to do things that are true to one’s nature.
Some people believe that people must do activities that develop mind during leisure time such as reading. However, others are of the opinion that it is important to give one’s mind rest during leisure time. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
With the advancement in technology, the world is moving at a faster pace than ever before. People are doing more things and juggling between different activities, leaving them with little leisure time. Some people believe that during this time, activities that involve mind work should be done, however others are of the opinion that one must relax and keep mind at peace during leisure time.
Doing less of any activity during leisure time makes sense to many for different reasons. Firstly, after working for so many hours or days, one needs some time to relax. For instance, a person who is may be working ten hours a day, during his/her rest time, prefers either to go to movie or massage, so as to boost energy for the next day. Secondly, everyone has their own choices and priorities. Like, a doctor who is already tired of working throughout the day might not prefer a five kilometers run.
However, doing mind work during leisure time is an effective way of relaxing for those who are involved mostly in physical work. For example, a footballer who is most of the time either practicing football or playing a game, might prefer reading a book during the leisure time.
Overall, in my opinion, what a person chooses to do depends entirely on the kind of work they do otherwise. Although reading or doing mind activity is right for some, others can very rightly prefer another activity.
Some people believe that education is the only critical factor to the development of a country.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Development of a country means making the country work their way up the ladder of economic performance, living standards, sustainability and equality. However, there are people of the opinion that the only factor responsible for the development of a country is education. In my opinion, education does plays a very important role in the advancement of a country, however it is not the only factor playing its role.
Education is very important for a country, the better the education system the better will be the future. For instance, a country having education for all would mean that it will have better skilled force, it might even be possible that out of them some would become entrepreneurs, others good politicians, may be great teachers. This enables in building up a strong foundation.
However, education is not the only factor playing role. It is important for people to be educated but it is more important that education is done in the right field. For instance, if in the present times, there is no teaching of computers in school or colleges, the country is less likely to benefit. Even more, factors such as poverty play a very important role. No matter a country has free education but if the children don’t have food it is less likely that they will study.
To sum up, educations surely plays a pivotal role in the development of country, but other factors such as better living standards, good health system also are essential.
Some people prefer doing the same things through out their lives and avoid changes. Others believe that change is always a good thing.
Discuss both sides and give your opinion.
Most people struggle with change even if it is for the better. Some people are of the opinion that changes always bring positive impact on our lives while others are of the opinion that changes involve high risk and taking them can even make us fall from the place we are at. In my opinion, not all the changes are successful but we learn from the failures too. It’s a great opportunity for those who would embrace the changes and a tough time for those who don’t.
If embraced rightly, changes are very helpful. Firstly, they make a person more flexible. Changes are an integral part of our lives. Being stubborn or resistant to new things make life more stressful. Changes teach that it is good to be like fluid and go with the flow. The next best thing about change is that it makes us smarter. It is only when things change that we learn new things. For instance, it was after the creation of android phones that people started using phones excessively for playing games or doing internet.
On the other hand, changes are not always good. For instance, if a child good in studies and sports changes himself or herself to be more like a terrorist, it is not the best thing happening. Even more, frequent changes are not acceptable by old. Old people are mostly the ones who have undergone many changes through out their lives and now tend to live a more steady life doing things that they life.
Overall, changes do bring instability in ones life, which might not be good for some. However, changes if taken with positive stride mostly either teach a lesson or push us towards something better.