0% Complete
0/21 Steps

Miscellaneous Topics

Most of the world’s problems are caused by overpopulation. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

Many people consider overpopulation as the main cause of most problems in the world. From my point of view, while many of the world’s issues are caused by overpopulation, I believe that most problems that people are facing already existed before the world’s population explosion.

It is a proven fact that many problems exist due to overpopulation. Firstly, overpopulation puts a strain on the planet’s natural resources. As people need fuel for their cars, an increasing number of people has increased the demand for fossil fuels, such as oil and gas. These resources are non-renewable, and therefore overpopulation will inevitably lead to the depletion of such resources quicker, potentially causing an energy crisis. Secondly, a dense population means a decline in the quality of people’s lives. Life in big cities, such as Beijing, is a good example of this as there is not enough space to accommodate everyone, with lower-class families having to live in very cramped housing.

 

On the other hand, many issues are inherent in human society, regardless of population size. War, for example, has existed since humans lived in tribes with only a small number of people. Nevertheless, war brings strife and destruction to societies. In addition, discrimination based on race, gender and social standing has plagued millions of individuals, even though these issues are unrelated to the size of the population. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that over-population is the main culprit behind most of mankind’s problems.

In conclusion, overpopulation can cause many problems to society and individuals, however, there are other factors involved as well.

Competitiveness is a positive quality for people in most societies. How does competitiveness affect individuals? Is it a positive or negative trend? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

People tend to be more competitive in modern society. In my view, being competitive has a major influence on many aspects of a person’s life, which can be considered both beneficial and harmful in certain situations.

A highly competitive person is often considered to be conceited and self-absorbed. Their relationships with the people around them, especially relatives or romantic partners, usually suffer as they are unwilling to compromise when a conflict occurs. Additionally, an intense level of competition in a company caused by highly competitive employees can create an unhealthy work environment. This type of environment does not promote productivity, but makes some workers feel uncomfortable working together and may bring them closer to leaving the organization in search of a better workplace.

However, being competitive can be a positive attribute in many other instances. Competitive people always strive to be better than other people, and they usually persevere until they achieve their goals. For example, a sense of rivalry can boost a student’s study performance and encourage them to work harder. People with a competitive personality are also resilient and unlikely to give up when faced with setbacks. Furthermore, many competitive people are often competing against themselves and always putting themselves in a state of constant learning so they can achieve better results.

In conclusion, being competitive may sabotage a person’s relationships with the people around them and negatively affect the workplace. However, being competitive can motivate people to work hard to reach their desired goals. I think a person should find a balance and avoid being too competitive, otherwise the consequences can be severe.

Some people are born to be leaders, while others believe leadership can be learnt. Discuss both views and give opinion. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

Some people think that great leaders are born and not made. Others, however, feel that leadership skills are developed over time through training, experience and mentoring. In my opinion, good leadership is a combination of both natural abilities and persistent practice.

Those who feel that leadership is a characteristic that some people are born with might argue that good leaders possess optimism and energy that will encourage others to work together effectively. In fact, some studies have shown that these characteristics are genetic, as are certain individual talents that one may be blessed with at birth. Furthermore, people such as Barack Obama, have a certain charisma that allows them to inspire passion and energy in others, and this particular trait is also believed to be innate.

Nevertheless, many people consider that leadership is a skill that can be learnt. There are other elements that make someone a great leader, such as discipline and resourcefulness, which can definitely be developed through one’s childhood up-bringing. Furthermore, the credibility of a true leader is built on his self-confidence and mastery of his area of expertise which only emerge after a great deal of time and experience. Without these qualities, a leader’s capability may be questioned, and as a result, people are unlikely to heed the leader’s direction.

Personally, I think the skills and attributes of a good leader are both genetic and enhanced through training, experience and a lot of persistent hard work. There are many people born without natural leadership skills that can still become good leaders in the future.

We cannot help everyone in the world that needs help, so we should only be concerned with our own communities and countries. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

Some people believe that we should not help people in other countries as long as there are problems in our own society. I disagree with this view because I believe that we should try to help as many people as possible.

On the one hand, I accept that it is important to help our neighbours and fellow citizens. In most communities there are people who are impoverished or disadvantaged in some way. It is possible to find homeless people, for example, in even the wealthiest of cities, and for those who are concerned about this problem, there are usually opportunities to volunteer time or give money to support these people. In the UK, people can help in a variety of ways, from donating clothing to serving free food in a soup kitchen. As the problems are on our doorstep, and there are obvious ways to help, I can understand why some people feel that we should prioritise local charity.

At the same time, I believe that we have an obligation to help those who live beyond our national borders. In some countries the problems that people face are much more serious than those in our own communities, and it is often even easier to help. For example, when children are dying from curable diseases in African countries, governments and individuals in richer countries can save lives simply by paying for vaccines that already exist. A small donation to an international charity might have a much greater impact than helping in our local area.

In conclusion, it is true that we cannot help everyone, but in my opinion national boundaries should not stop us from helping those who are in need.

In recent years, there has been growing interest in the relationship between equality and personal achievement. Some people believe that individuals can achieve more in egalitarian societies. Others believe that high levels of personal achievement are possible only if individuals are free to succeed or fail according to their individual merits. What is your view of the relationship between equality and personal success? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

In my opinion, an egalitarian society is one in which everyone has the same rights and the same opportunities. I completely agree that people can achieve more in this kind of society.

Education is an important factor with regard to personal success in life. I believe that all children should have access to free schooling, and higher education should be either free or affordable for all those who chose to pursue a university degree. In a society without free schooling or affordable higher education, only children and young adults from wealthier families would have access to the best learning opportunities, and they would therefore be better prepared for the job market. This kind of inequality would ensure the success of some but harm the prospects of others.

I would argue that equal rights and opportunities are not in conflict with people’s freedom to succeed or fail. In other words, equality does not mean that people lose their motivation to succeed, or that they are not allowed to fail. On the contrary, I believe that most people would feel more motivated to work hard and reach their potential if they thought that they lived in a fair society. Those who did not make the same effort would know that they had wasted their opportunity. Inequality, on the other hand, would be more likely to demotivate people because they would know that the odds of success were stacked in favour of those from privileged backgrounds.

In conclusion, it seems to me that there is a positive relationship between equality and personal success.

“Although abuse of the system are inevitable, social welfare payments are essential to protect the rights citizens have to a guaranteed minimum income in a democratic society” Discuss. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

Social welfare is an essential element of an advanced society. Good systems are always abused, but that does not mean they are faulty. In my opinion, the two main reasons why welfare payments are necessary are as follows:

First of all, critics forget that there are many forms of welfare besides payments to the unemployed. Their negative opinions harm those who are not capable of earning a wage, such as single-parent mothers, the disabled, and the sick. Moreover, the unemployed have the right to an income, too. They are not always at fault for not having a job, and in most cases the tax they have paid in the past entitles them to assistance.

The second reason is that crime increases when people have no means of support. The desperately poor inevitably turn to crime, which is not only dangerous but costly. Policing the streets is more expensive than providing welfare. A policeman’s wage is four or five times higher than a “dole” payment.

Certain members of society believe that people should look after themselves. They point out that welfare increases dependency on others and destroys dignity. This may be true, but in the case of the unemployed, the relief payments are usually temporary. It is surely the fault of the government if there are long-term unemployed. Welfare critics also believe that it is the responsibility of a victim’s family to provide financial assistance. However, it is too expensive to provide complete help for a severely disabled person.

To conclude, it is vital to understand the need for welfare in a modern democratic society. Without welfare payments the poor are destined to become poorer. The first duty of a government is to provide a financial safety net for all disadvantaged persons, and that includes those without work.

error: Content is protected !!