Should children be free?

Posted on February 27, 2012 by Mr Writefix

Some people say that younger children should follow their instincts and be allowed to behave as freely as they want, while others disagree. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

How people treat children varies from society to society and from family to family. Some children seem to be almost wild, while others are expected to follow strict rules, almost like miniature adults. In this essay I will say why I think children benefit from freedom but need some guidelines.

We often think of childhood as a time of freedom. This is very strange, since, as children, we have no choice over who we live with, what we eat and or generally what we do. However, in the care of a good family, children are free to play, learn, run, fall, talk, shout, cry or be happy. They know that they are loved and that whatever they do they have someone to turn to.

However, very few parents, whether in traditional or modern societies, allow their children to follow their instincts completely. They are trying to get their children to succeed into society, and as a result, try to make their children learn acceptable social behavior. People are often quick to criticize the way other people raise their children, and there is a lot of pressure on parents to produce perfect children.

Parents of course have to set some limits. Sometimes the limits are for the children’s safety: they are not allowed to play here, go there, or sit in the front of the car. There can be limits on the kind of food or the time for bed. There can also be social limits: children have to act a certain way with parents or older family members or with people outside and they have to learn to share, to play with other children, to go to school. There is a constant negotiation of these limits, but it’s often said that children are happier knowing that there are limits.

It’s impossible to set a rule that will work for all children, all families, or all societies. However, childhood should be a time of learning and exploring, and that means pushing boundaries and finding how far you can go. If children don’t have some limits, they will not have a structure in their life and a framework for the future.

Being Rich

Posted on December 11, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Some people say that the best thing about being rich is being able to help other people. What do you think?

What does being rich mean? Does it mean having the most expensive cars, the biggest houses and the most luxurious holidays? Or does it mean being able to use your money to do what you want, enjoying yourself and helping others at the same time? In this essay I will discuss if rich people have a responsibility to help others, and if only rich people can help others.

To begin with, I think being rich is a very relative term. If I have 20 dollars and my friend has only 5, then I am richer than him, even though to a millionaire we are both poor. But I can still help him: we have enough for a meal or two.

Almost all of us, rich or poor, are able to help others. Some people give publicly, while others give without expecting anything in return- not publicity, not a payback, not even gratitude. Some people give time, which can be more valuable than money. Others give expertise or knowledge. Some just give a hand, literally.

Although their time may be limited, rich people also can do all of these, but they can also help in other ways. They are often powerful, and can help change opinions or laws. They have rich friends and together their money and connections can make a difference to an entire society, not just an individual person.

We often hear millionaires say that they want to ‘give something back’- to the community, to their old school, to their sport, or sometimes even to poor people. Bill Gates has his Foundation, fighting malaria and other diseases. But often these gifts come with strings – the rich person is promoting him or herself, saving money on taxes, or just fooling himself that a few million out of a billionaire’s fortune is really helping others. Rich people therefore have to examine their reasons for helping other people to see if they are really just helping themselves.

Perhaps we should be slower to criticize people who help, and quicker to help others ourselves. There will always be poor people in the world; equally, there will always be rich. But whether rich or poor we can all choose to help each other in different ways.

Economic development: A solution or cause of poverty? (Long)

Posted on November 28, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Some say that economic development is the solution to poverty: others say it is the cause of poverty. What is your opinion?

Despite levels of wealth one side and development unparalleled in history, billions of people on our planet are still uneducated, poorly housed Other side, sick, inadequately fed or even starving as a result of poverty. Is this a result of economic development, or can a rising tide of economic development give all humans a basic standard and dignity of life? In this essay, I will ask if economic progress is only for one group Thesis: what the essay will do in our society.

It’s important to realize that economic activity alone is not enough Topic Sentence: Economic development does not always mean the end of poverty. to end poverty. In many poor countries, natural resources such as copper, oil or even land are being exploited Idea 1: companies are exploiting land and other valuable resources by local or foreign companies but with little benefit for the local people. Nigeria’s oil wealth and Zimbabwe’s diamonds are examples where money leaves the country or does not help the majority. Secondly, economic activity can have devastating consequences on the environment Idea 2:Economic development can mean environmental problems. Dam projects in India or the clearing of the rainforest can mean local people lose land and livelihoods. Furthermore, multinational companies are not tied to any country. Idea 3: multinational companies have no moral obligations to any country. Businesses move overnight and outsource to find even cheaper labor or resources, leaving unemployed people behind them.

However, we can’t go back to a Stone-Age existence Topic sentence: We cannot live without developing our economies of barter and living in huts. More people than ever have access to electricity Idea 1: benefits of development, clean water, good schools, and medicine than ever before. Clothes, electronic luxuries such as phones, televisions and computers are cheap. All these things have come about through business and trade. They have provided income for governments to improve the life of their people. Secondly, other systems have failed: Idea 2: Communism and protectionism have not worked very well when India and China opened their markets and allowed people to do business, millions of people were lifted out of poverty. And even in countries where companies pay low salaries or do not look after the environment, Idea 3: Even a poor salary is better than no salary there are more opportunities for workers. What seems like a sweatshop in China or Mexico may be a first step in building a modern economy.

In conclusion, we can’t live without economic progress. Conclusion One side (Opinion) All that we and our governments can do is try to make sure that it is in the interests of our society and our environment. Conclusion, future or recommendation.

373 words. The info below is not correct.

Should bright students be taught separately? (1)

Posted on October 29, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Is it fair to students to have different abilities in one classroom?

In some schools, students are divided into classes with different levels of ability. In other school systems, students are taught together, regardless of ability. In this essay, I will discuss if students benefit from being educated together.

In many countries, students are educated together regardless of ability for a variety of reasons. Political correctness is one: some policymakers believe that ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ are more important than meeting the needs of individual students. Another reason is ease of administration. Schools just randomly assign teachers and students to classes. The results, however, are that bright students are bored because they are not challenged. Weaker students stay weak and demotivated, and the country is deprived of the opportunity to create an elite group of students in arts, engineering or other disciplines who will go on to excel in university.

There are some arguments for educating students of different ability together. One claim is that students will learn to cooperate with other students of different abilities. It’s also suggested that few students are good at everything: they can learn from being in classes with students with different skills. These situations are similar to work and real life. However, the main reason against having separate classes is often political: some people fear that it leads to the development of an elite or favored group, with weaker students or schools being left with inferior teachers and fewer resources.

In conclusion, instead of being an educational debate about how to serve students well, it is often a political one. We need to find out which system works best for our students and give them the best chance to succeed.

Violence on Television (short)

Posted on October 23, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Television news shows many scenes of disasters and violence. What effect can this have on individuals and society?

It’s almost impossible to avoid seeing images of famine, war, natural disasters, and violence on our screens. These graphic images can encourage us to act, or leave us cold. In this essay I will discuss the effects of these constant powerful pictures.

It’s natural to respond to other people’s suffering. When we see hungry children or frightened refugees on our televisions, we want to send money or support. Huge relief efforts such as Live Aid or Action for Haiti have resulted from ordinary people’s reactions. Another natural response is anger. We ask our leaders to act to change the political or economic situation that causes the pain. Some people also take action themselves. They volunteer time in their home communities to raise funds, or even work or fight in the affected region.

Have a look at a longer (400-word) version of this essay

However, the frequency of these painful and violent scenes can also have opposite effects. First of all, it doesn’t seem right to watch tsunamis or other disasters while we are eating breakfast. Some people become obsessed with bad news on the television or internet. Second, it’s also natural to protect yourself and those around you. To reduce the impact on ourselves or our families, we change the television channel or make a joke about the conflict or continent affected. Finally, because the images seem never-ending, we get fed up sending money which does not seem to have any effect. Many people feel powerless and therefore do nothing, until an even more powerful image is forced on them.

In conclusion, these scenes can motivate us to act and help others, or they can discourage and depress us. It’s probably better to think carefully about what we watch and our reasons for watching.

How many subjects in secondary school?

Posted on October 11, 2011 by Mr Writefix

In some countries, secondary education focuses in depth on two or three subjects, while in others students take a large number of subjects. Which system do you think is better?

If you had a medical problem, would you rather go to a specialist or to a general practitioner? There are times when both are needed. In this essay, I will discuss whether studying a wide range of subjects is better than concentrating on one or two areas.

First of all, it’s not surprising that many countries have opted for secondary school systems with a large number of subjects. For one thing, having many subjects helps young people to become more balanced They learn about the world through science, art, music, literature, sport, cooking, woodwork, design, or computing, and they learn skills in each area. A second point is that there is plenty of time to specialize. Now that more people go on to college and futher degrees, there is no need to begin to concentrate too early. In addition, specialization does not allow people to change. As we grow, our tastes may change, and someone who is interested in math at 12 years may suddenly prefer to study music when she is 17.

However, many countries prefer fewer skills in secondary school. In the UK for example, students take only a couple of subjects at A level. This can have several advantages. First of all, it leads to excellence in each subject. Students can learn much more than when they are taking 9 or 10 subjects. Secondly, it makes it easier for students to get into university and to do well. The student already knows the subject in depth, and does not have to make difficult choices. But an important point to remember is that studying one or two subjects in depth does not mean students know nothing about other topics. Doing A-Level chemistry does not mean that you cannot play the violin or excel in Russian.

In my opinion, students should be able to choose between these two options. For some, a wide range of subjects is a better choice, but for others, it’s more interesting to dig deep and specialize in only one or two areas. I believe it depends on the student’s personality, and while most students are adaptable, one or other approach will suit most students better.

Are Parents the Best Teachers?

Posted on October 8, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Are parents always the best teachers?

Throughout my life, I have been lucky enough to have a very good relationship with my parents. They have supported me, given me necessary criticism, and taught me a great deal about how to live my life. Parents can be very important teachers in our lives; however, they are not always the best teachers.

Parents may be too close to their children emotionally. Sometimes they can only see their children through the eyes of a protector. For example, they may limit a child’s freedom in the name of safety. A teacher might see a trip to a big city as a valuable new experience. However, it might seem too dangerous to a parent.

Another problem is that parents may expect their children’s interests to be similar to their own They can’t seem to separate from their children in their mind. If they love science, they may try to force their child to love science too. But what if their child’s true love is art, or writing, or car repair?

Parents are usually eager to pass on their values to their children. But should children always believe what their parents do? Maybe different generations need different ways of thinking. When children are young, they believe that their parents are always right. But when they get older, they realize there are other views. Sometimes parents, especially older ones, can’t keep up with rapid social or technological changes. A student who has friends of all different races and backgrounds at school may find that his parents have narrower views. A student who loves computers may find that her parents don’t really understand or value the digital revolution. Sometimes kids have to find their own ways to what they believe in.

The most important thing to realize is that we all have many teachers in our lives. Our parents teach us, our teachers teach us, and our peers teach us. Books and newspapers and television also teach us. All of them are valuable.

Should boys and girls attend college together?

Posted on October 3, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Should male and female students be allowed to study together in college? What are some of the possible problems and benefits of studying separately or together?

In some colleges in the UAE, men and women are educated together. However, in most colleges, male and female students study separately. In this essay I will ask if having men and women together in class is always a good thing.

There are some reasons why male and female students should be educated separately. First of all, one reason why it’s good to teach them separately is because men and women think differently. If they are taught in the same class, the men or women may not understand the topic fully. Another reason that some people give is that young men and women will not be able to concentrate on their studies. They claim that the students will be focusing on each other instead of learning. Finally, some people say that women suffer in mixed environments. The women don’t get heard as much and the women’s participation drops.

However, there are many strong reasons why college should be coeducational. In the first place, it’s good preparation for the real world. When people start working, they will work side-by-side with women. Secondly, it allows us to learn different ways of thinking. Men and women have complementary learning styles, and the result can be better project work. Finally, while it’s true that young men and women will be interested in each other, this does not mean that their grades will suffer or they they will stop concentrating: In fact, they may even be more interested in college.

In conclusion, although some people are afraid that educating men and women together can lead to lower grades, especially for women, I believe it will be better for work and make college more enjoyable. If we allow our students to learn together, the result will be better graduates, workers and partners.

Do we need so many languages? (short)

Posted on June 11, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Many languages are disappearing every year. Is this a bad thing, or could having fewer languages help bring people together?

Will we all think the same way in future? Or will countries communicate better? In this essay I will look at a future with fewer languages.

Many people worry about threats to their native language. They think they will lose their identity, and fear losing their culture, or even their religion. They worry that we will lose diversity and instead begin to think and act in the same way worldwide. Some even worry about the increased danger of conflict in a world with just five or six major languages.

However, this is too simplistic. It is true that many languages have disappeared and will disappear. But it’s important to remember that languages are alive, not static. English people do not talk like Shakespeare, and Greeks do not talk like Aristotle. Arabic changes, and so do Mandarin and Thai. New languages are developing right now. Second, even if a language changes, ideas remain. Not many Europeans speak Arabic today, but six hundred years ago it was the language of science. No one speaks Latin or ancient Greek, but the ideas of their philosophers still survive. Third, sharing a language is no guarantee against war. Many countries have vicious civil wars where both sides share a language.

In conclusion, our native language is one way of expressing our ideas and worldview. If it’s useful, we should use it, but we should also realize that our identity and potential is not limited to the geographical accident of our birthplace and native language. What’s more important is that we learn to think, reflect, and genuinely communicate with others, regardless of what languages we use.

Do we need so many languages? (long)

Posted on June 11, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Many languages are disappearing every year. Is this a bad thing, or could having fewer languages help bring people together?

The world appears to be moving towards a smaller number of languages such as English, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese or Hindi, each with millions or billions of speakers. Unfortunately this means that smaller languages are in danger of disappearing. Some people fear the loss of culture and identity, while others believe a world with easier communication would be a better place. In this essay, I will discuss the dangers of both outcomes.

We are indeed losing a lot of languages. One language expert estimates that 60%-80% of all languages will disappear in 100 years, just three generations from now. This is a major loss. First of all, the way that people think is to a certain degree rooted in their first languages. A community’s language is bound up with its way of life, culture, religious beliefs and identity. A second point is the loss of diversity: different languages can contribute to different ways of looking at and solving human problems. Thirdly, fewer languages does not necessarily mean better communication: it could even mean a dangerous situation with billions of people fighting against each other, rather than smaller groups as in the past. This could be the most important drawback: as more people speak one language, it becomes easier for billions to be influenced by shallow media or aggressive politicians.

However, there might be a lot to be gained from having fewer languages and greater communication. First of all is today’s practical problem of translation: business is more difficult, travel is more complicated, and misunderstandings arise. Another current problem is marginalization: communities who do not speak a major world language fall behind in science and technology and their economies suffer. Third, having fewer languages might mean more shared ideas. Global collaboration could happen instantly rather than taking years. And finally, although some people are afraid of the loss of culture or identity, it seems that good ideas can survive. We don’t speak Latin or classical Greek anymore, but the ideas and values of the people who spoke those languages are still with us.

In conclusion, it seems inevitable that some languages will disappear: like animals or plants, they need a specific habitat and can be squeezed out by stronger competitors. The answer is not to hide and isolate ourselves but to be confident about our identity in whatever language we speak.

Writefix.com

Argument essays, graphs, other writing, and speaking for IELTS, PET, and TOEFL

Category: Society

Should children be free?

Related Posts:

Being Rich

Related Posts:

Economic development: A solution or cause of poverty? (Long)

Related Posts:

Should bright students be taught separately? (1)

Related Posts:

Violence on Television (short)

Related Posts:

How many subjects in secondary school?

Related Posts:

Are Parents the Best Teachers?

Should boys and girls attend college together?

Related Posts:

Do we need so many languages? (short)

Related Posts:

Do we need so many languages? (long)

Related Posts: