In the modern world, schools are no longer necessary because there is so

much information available through the internet that children can study just
as well at home. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
In the age of globalization and, technologization the Internet has become an
inseparable part of our lives, and even more so in child’s education. Some people
argue that schools may be substituted by online homeschooling. I disagree to some
extent that it’s impossible. In this essay, I will try to explain my position with
sufficient arguments and examples.
First of all, not all school students are ready for homeschooling. Children must
receive an approach and mentoring to avoid a lack of motivation and discipline.
Researchers compared pupils’ performance before and after COVID-19. This
statistic illustrated the negative correlation, where students studying online
received lower grades, than before the lockdown. Offline learning increases the
responsibility of the child and consequently increases the effectiveness of the
studied material, while during online learning, the student and even the parent are
more responsible for the result.
Secondly, it seems to be that schools provide a community where children grow
as a part of society. Students become more confident and socialized since they
study working in teams, collaborating with classmates. This is a fact: home
education does not fill this gap. Pupils who generally spend most of their studying
hours within the four walls are likely to become sociophobes and suffer from
internet addiction.
To conclude, school can not be replaced by online studying, even though
nowadays the distance education industry is increasing. Moreover, online learning
can do more harm than good. Students must be surrounded by a social
environment where they can study and develop productively.
In some countries, many children are becoming overweight and unhealthy. Some
people say it is the responsibility of governments to solve this problem.
Nowadays, children's obesity is an ongoing issue in different countries all over the world,
and this belief has been accepted by a vast majority of people that governments should
take action and face this current predicament. In my opinion, governments play a crucial
role in tackling this problem.
It is my view that governments should provide healthy programs for children in the media
to increase awareness of parents and their children instead of supporting the
advertisement for unhealthy and sugary products. It is an undeniable fact that when
children and parents see only the fancy face of products and meals, they cannot realize
how harmful and risky these are. Thus, they do not know about the devastating effects of
the high amount of fat and sugar on their bodies. For example, it is a beneficial idea to
make an educational program on TV to explain the calories and amount of fat and sugar
which every nutrition contains.
In contrast, some people claim that families are responsible for children's overweight, and
they have to change their high-fat diet and unhealthy lifestyle. They firmly insist that if
parents removed sugary and fast food from their meals, they could control the overweight
problem among youngsters. However, I do not find this argument convincing, as if
people had the basic knowledge to understand and check the ingredients on food labels.
Therefore, they could control the intake of foods that are high in fats, sugar, and salt, it
could be a remedy, and it is not necessary to eliminate all their favourite foods. Hence,
with an educational program, the government can control the overconsumption of
unhealthy foods.
In conclusion, I completely agree with this argument that the government should have
plans to overcome children's obesity. Increasing the basic knowledge and awareness of
people about nutrition and healthy diet and the impact of every portion of them is the
government's duty.
Some people think that good health is a basic human need, so medical services
should not be run by profit-making companies.
This is true that medical service should not be run by profit-making companies, because
of good health is very important to every person and no-one can guarantee the morality of
private healthcare. However, private healthcare may help progress the economy and fulfil
the needs of the people that have an abilities to access the service, hence, the advantages
of private healthcare may outweigh the disadvantages and make it become more
acceptable to the most of the public.
Follow an original instinct, individuals often seek for better medical service with less
waiting time and they also want to have their own personal doctor, good quality
medicine, better hospital equipment, that is the first advantage of private healthcare,
because of it's offer an opportunity to a person that have enough money to access a
premium medical service. This advantage will fulfil the need to be a well-being of the
people that have an abilities to access the service, as a result, it's will help increase the
happiness of these people.
The second advantage it is why medical service should be run by profit-making
companies because of the companies usually invest most of their revenue on research and
development of new medicines and technologies such as; anticancer medicine, hospital
equipment, medical care technique. As a result, this will lead to an improvement of
medical service and will make it less expensive and will be reachable by the poor.
Finally, even a result of these advantages may lead to temporary social inequality with
many problems such as; instability, unemployed, robbery, extreme capitalism, these
advantages of private health care may help the economy to become more progressive and
with a broad vision the advantages will make the society more equal in the near future.
Some people believe teenagers should focus on all subjects equally, whereas other people think that
they should concentrate on only those subjects that they find interesting and they are best at.

Some people believe that teenagers should give equal attention to all school subjects,
while others argue they should focus on the subjects they like and do well in. This essay
will discuss both views and explain why I support the idea of prioritizing all disciplines
equally.
On one side, concentrating on favorite subjects can be helpful for students. Firstly, it can
make them passionate about learning. In other words, they'll be more motivated to learn
deeply about a subject they enjoy, instead of feeling unhappy about studying something
they don't like. For instance, a student struggling with math might get frustrated and
approach other subjects with a negative attitude, affecting their overall performance.
Allowing students to focus on their favorite subjects can motivate them to reach their full
potential and get better grades. Additionally, this approach can help teenagers figure out
what careers they might be interested in based on their favorite subjects.
On the other hand, some people argue that giving equal attention to all subjects is better
for various reasons. One main reason is that this approach provides a well-rounded
education. Learning different subjects helps teenagers build a wide knowledge base and
various skills, contributing to overall development. For example, skills learned in math,
like logical thinking, and skills gained from literature, like critical thinking, are essential
for solving real-life problems. Another good reason is that studying various subjects
helps students understand their strengths and weaknesses. This self-awareness allows
them to develop critical thinking skills, enhance their strengths, and work on their
weaknesses to improve themselves.
In conclusion, while both viewpoints make sense, I believe it's more important to focus
on all subjects for a comprehensive education and personal improvement. It's advisable
for teenagers to distribute their time equally among different subjects to become
knowledgeable and well-rounded individuals.
Many students find it harder to study when they are at university or college than
when they were at school.
It's true that many students find it harder to cope with their studies when they move from
school to college or university. This essay looks into why this happens and suggests ways
to solve the problem.
There are various reasons why students face more challenges in higher education. One
big factor is that college or university studies are tougher. The courses require a deeper
understanding and more self-directed learning. In high school, assignments are usually
more structured, and there are regular assessments. But in college, students may have to
handle complex research projects with less guidance. Also, classes are often larger,
making it difficult to connect with professors and get personalized support.
To tackle these challenges, universities and colleges can take proactive steps. A crucial
move is to provide thorough orientation programs that get students ready for the
academic and social aspects of higher education. These programs could include
workshops on study skills, seminars on time management, and guidance on setting
realistic academic goals. Additionally, institutions can invest in smaller class sizes or
create opportunities for students to participate in smaller group discussions or seminars
along with larger lectures. This can build a sense of community and give students more
chances for one-on-one interactions with professors and peers. Encouraging professors to
have regular office hours and an open-door policy can also make individualized support
more accessible.
In conclusion, the shift from school to college or university can be tough for many
students because of the higher academic standards and bigger class sizes. However, by
having orientation programs, promoting smaller learning groups, and encouraging active
student involvement, both institutions and students can work together to make this
transition smoother and improve the overall learning experience
Some people think scientific research should focus on solving world health
problems. Others think that there are more important issues. Discuss both views
and give your opinion.
While some adopt the view that scientists ought to put more emphasis on handling global
health conundrums, others believe that there is room for more significant issues. I will
discuss both views of the essay before my point is drawn at the end.
On one hand, it is generally believed that worldwide strength had better be taken priority
because of global growth. Initially, human beings will be the key factor behind this. Only
when their energy is improved, are people able to lengthen their longevity, contributing
more to society and facilitating other development. For example, paying so much
attention to vaccines against Covid 19 is far superior during a pandemic. Without
vaccines, individuals would have suffered from ailments and even increasing death tolls,
leading to the decline of the economy over the world. Additionally, the appearance of
new diseases these days such as monkeypox or various virant of Covid 19 virus has urged
carry out more experiments.
On the other hand, however, others think that environment and climate change are more
pivotal. Firstly, the polluted environment has been alarming. This would enable citizens
to suffer from the spreading of viruses or severe pollutants, which would harm human
well beings. Therefore, research on this issue should be taken into consideration. Besides
higher temperature is another factor. That would cause some negative impacts on the
environment, sabotaging the habitats of animals and freshwater sources. If the
government have merely prioritized fitness issues, surrounding climate change will
suffer, resulting in the downsides relating to fitness.
In conclusion, there is a widely held view among people that conditions should top the
list of consideration whereas others deem that there are still more alarming topics. I
strongly believe that all issues are worth equally considerating due to their reciprocal
influences.
Some cities have vehicle-free days when private cars, trucks and
motorcycles are banned from the city center. People are encouraged to
use public transportation such as buses, taxis and metro on vehicle-free
days. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

Today, people have a variety of vehicle options to go anywhere. However, these vehicles
lead to some environmental problems such as air pollution, global warming, climate
change and so on. Therefore, people need a comprehensive plan to address the results of
using vehicles. Some cities have vehicle-free days to promote the use of public transport.
In my opinion, despite some obvious drawbacks which should not be overlooked, I think
the benefits of a vehicle-free day outweigh.
The advantages of using public transport should be taken into consideration. The major
benefit of using public transport which should be initially referred to is that people can be
more healthy and problems in the field of environment reduce sharply. Vehicle pollutants
harm our health and contain greenhouse gases that cause climate change. If people are
unaware of climate change possibility, they will face its results which are famine,
drought, and flooding. For instance, a survey found that more than 45% of people living
in cities which are not used public transport have more risk to be asthma and breathing
difficulties because of toxic gases.
Another significant advantage of using public transport is that it helps to protect
nonrenewable energy resources which as oil. Due to the ever-increasing number of
people, nonrenewable energy resources reduce dramatically. However, people need these
energy resources because they are energy-rich and relatively cheap to process. For this
reason, thanks to vehicle-free days, people can be aware of the detrimental effects of oil
consumption.
To sum up, vehicle-free days are beneficial to prevent mentioned above adverse effects of
using private vehicles.