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.

Violence on Television (Long)

Posted on October 16, 2011 by Mr Writefix

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

Satellite television and 24-hour news channels mean that viewers are inundated with images of natural disasters, wars and conflict from around the world. While it’s important to know what is going on in our world, it can be depressing or counter-productive to watch repeated images of famine, fighting or fear. In this essay, I will ask if these scenes have a negative effect on us.

Have a look at a shorter, 300-word version of this essay

Most people agree with the need for news organizations to provide us with up-to-date and accurate information, and live pictures convey information in a way that words cannot. For one thing, live footage or pictures allow us to understand the situation very rapidly. People can grasp what is happening much more quickly than by reading long articles. A second point is that pictures allow us to form our own idea of the situation, without input from the reporter or journalist. A picture of a starving refugee baby or of riot police and tear gas does not seem to need explanation. Finally, graphic pictures force us to see the situation as it affects normal people, not the politicians at their meetings or in their expensive cars.

However, the constant barrage of images can be counterproductive. Instead of learning more about the starving baby and what led to the situation, we push the image from our mind. To protect ourselves, we group the images: another typhoon in the Philippines, another earthquake in China, another bomb in Gaza. As more and more images appear we feel more and more powerless and unable to contribute to solving the problem. A second point is that news organizations compete to make their images more graphic: greater carnage, more crying mothers, angrier protestors. We also have to question the reliability of some of the images: are they staged? Many television stations and journalists have their own bias and agenda. The result of this is that watching the news becomes harder and we respond less and less to the situation and to the human suffering.

In conclusion, we need to stay informed but we also need to limit our exposure to the constant tide of news and shocking images. Too much can wear us down or make us callous, and we need to get past the simplistic images and understand the story behind it.

Should foreigners pay more? (short)

Posted on June 11, 2011 by Mr Writefix

In many places, foreign visitors are charged more than locals when they visit cultural or tourist attractions. Do you agree or disagree with this?

Tourist attractions often have two admission prices: one for locals or residents, and one for foreigners or visitors from far away. Some see this as discrimination, while others accept it as being fair. In this essay I will say why I think it is reasonable for foreign visitors to pay more.

I don’t think locals should pay the same as foreign tourists. For one thing, a historical attraction in my country is part of my heritage. My ancestors built it, and I should have free or cheap access so I can know my history. Second, let’s face it : most tourists are rich – or at least richer than us locals. If they can afford to fly from Australia or China to see a castle or a rare animal, than they can pay a few dollars more. In addition, I pay taxes in my country, so I have already paid a lot more from my salary than the foreign tourist who is only here for a few days.

I think foreigners should pay more for several reasons. First of all, it raises money to maintain the attraction. The higher admission fees from foreigners are important in Egypt or Mexico to preserve world-class historical sites. Secondly, tourists pay far more for their flights, hotels, and cocktails. A few dollars extra to visit a museum is nothing. Third, most tourists only visit the attraction once in their lives. Who is not prepared to pay a little extra for a special occasion?

To sum up, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to pay a little extra when I am in a new country, and vice versa. In fact, I’ve already started to save for my next trip!

Should foreigners pay more? (long)

Posted on June 7, 2011 by Mr Writefix

In many places, foreign visitors are charged more than locals when they visit cultural or tourist attractions. Do you agree or disagree with this?

To visit the beautiful and remote mountain kingdom of Bhutan, foreigners (everyone without a Bhutanese or an Indian passport) have to pay up to $240 a day. This is an extreme example of charging visitors more than locals, but the country has many valid reasons for this policy. In this essay, I will say why I generally agree with foreigners paying more to visit cultural or historical sites.

It’s easy to see why some foreign visitors resent being charged more. First of all, nobody likes to pay more than other people for the same thing. It’s irritating to know that the person beside you in a queue or at a tourist attraction has paid much less just because of his or her nationality. A second annoying point is that you often don’t get any better service just because you have paid more to enter a historical site or entertainment venue. In fact, the place is often overcrowded with locals and your visit can suffer. Furthermore, knowing that you as a foreign visitor are paying more often makes you bad-tempered and therefore less likely to enjoy the experience. Finally, some think that places such as Cambodia’s Angkor Wat or Ireland’s Cliffs of Moher are world cultural or natural treasures and should be open to everyone. They are not the property of some money-grabbing ministry.

However, there are good reasons why overseas visitors should pay more. For one thing, foreign tourism is still a privilege of the well-off. Why should countries not charge rich visitors as much as the market will bear? Nobody is forced to visit these places. Second, the attraction or cultural site is part of the local community’s history and heritage. They should not have to pay to learn about their own history. A third point is that it is extremely expensive to maintain places like Istanbul’s Topkapi palace. Tourists who may be visiting once in a lifetime can and should contribute to the cost of maintenance. In fact, this is the most important point: if you have dreamed all your life of visiting Peru’s Machu Picchu or China’s Terracotta Army then surely you are ready to spend a little more for this experience.

In conclusion, we need to put things in perspective. The admission fees rarely add much to the cost of our visit, compared to hotels or travel, and we as foreign travelers help maintain and preserve the site for the locals and for future generations.

Travel and international understanding

Posted on May 17, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Does travel help to promote understanding and communication between countries?

Most people would agree that travel broadens the mind. Surely, visiting new places and meeting new people helps us to understand how others live? However, the history of travel has taught us that many misunderstandings and tragedies can occur when different societies meet. In this essay, I will discuss whether travel contributes to mutual respect and understanding.

The issue is probably not travel itself, but the purpose of travel. There are many motivations for travel. It can be to learn, as in a religious pilgrimage, a personal journey, or an expedition. Millions of Muslims meet on Haj each year, and are reminded of the scale and diversity of the faith. Exploration of remote jungles or islands has given us an appreciation of cultures very different from ours. Even the modern traveler, flying in hours from China to Australia or from France to Thailand, glimpses different ways of life and different histories.

However, travel is not always so innocent. Trade, for example, can begin as an equal exchange of crafts or commodities between small groups of traders, but it can also become the basis for massive exploitation, colonization or even extermination. If one group believes its cultural values, religion, or society are superior to the other’s, then friction or resentment can grow into conflict. And too often, travel is undertaken with no desire to meet or learn from the host country’s people: it is simply a change of scene or temperature. Such travel actually sets out to minimize all contact with the culture of the host country and instead surrounds itself with the food, drink and entertainment of its own.

In conclusion, while it might seem that travel can contribute to understanding, it depends on the intention of the traveler and the attitude of the host. Just because travel is easier than ever before does not mean we should bring our prejudices with us on the plane.

You can also find another essay on this topic on the external website www.urch.com

Does cheap air travel damage the environment?

Posted on April 19, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Some people say cheap air travel is good because it enables ordinary people to travel, while others argue that it is bad for the environment. Discuss both views, and include your opinion.

In the past air travel was only for the elite – the rich, the powerful, the privileged. Today, hundreds of millions of people are able to travel around the world for work or pleasure. As Air Asia’s slogan puts it: “Now everyone can fly.” However, the price to be paid for this easier travel may be damage to the environment. In this essay, I will examine some of the arguments for and against cheap air travel.

There are plenty of accusations against cheap flights. Critics of budget air travel claim that the emissions from jet fuel are damaging the atmosphere. This is particularly serious at the higher levels of the atmosphere where modern jets fly. A single short flight from Dubai to Mumbai can produce as much carbon dioxide as one month’s driving for a family. The environmental cost continues when the tourists land, as hotels, leisure and other facilities are very significant polluters and consume a lot of resources. A third point of course is that this travel is mostly ‘unnecessary’ and people would simply stay at home if the flights were not so cheap.

However, the proponents of cheap air travel, such as Ireland’s Michael O’Leary, have their own powerful counterclaims. First, they reject the allegation that jets contribute significantly to global warming. They point out that modern jets are much quieter and much more fuel-efficient than in the past. Secondly, many countries already have carbon taxes or levies included in the price of the airline ticket or aviation fuel. This can offset the carbon produced during the flight. In addition, most of the arguments against cheap flights are based on the belief that it is acceptable for certain people to fly, but not for ordinary people. In other words, the wealthy or powerful would like to deprive ordinary people of the right to travel, to see new places and meet new people.

In conclusion, cheap air travel is not a clear-cut issue, but a political, economic and environmental minefield. In my opinion, everyone should have the opportunity to travel, but we do need some monitoring of the effect on the environment, both in the air and on the ground.

Does tourism benefit a country?

Posted on April 19, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Tourism is big business. However, are there hidden costs, and does tourism always benefit a country?

Every year, millions of people travel to other countries for vacations, spending billions of dollars. This tourism can create jobs and improve lives, or it can lead to problems. In this essay, I will describe some of the effects of tourism and say why I think it is useful.

Tourism can have some benefits. One advantage is that it creates jobs. Work is available in hotels, restaurants, travel businesses, taxis, entertainment centers resorts and many other places which serve tourists. Secondly, tourism can increase awareness of culture. Foreigners who visit the UAE can learn about the Emirati culture and tradition and religion, and vice versa. Finally, tourism can lead to a better environment. The government will clean the streets and try to reduce pollution.

However, tourism can lead to many problems. First of all the income from tourism is not reliable. For example, last month in Egypt, there were some political problems, and suddenly it affected the tourism dramatically, which is very important for the economy. A second point is that the jobs from tourism are poorly paid. People working as waiters or cleaners do not receive high salaries. However, the most important point is that tourism can lead to problems such as lack of respect for the local culture, or even problems such as alcohol or prostitution.

In conclusion, tourism can have good or bad effects on the environment, the economy or even the culture. In my opinion people should enjoy travelling and visiting new places, but they should be careful to respect the local people and places.

Writefix.com

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

Tag: travel

Violence on Television (short)

Related Posts:

Violence on Television (Long)

Related Posts:

Should foreigners pay more? (short)

Related Posts:

Should foreigners pay more? (long)

Related Posts:

Travel and international understanding

Related Posts:

Does cheap air travel damage the environment?

Related Posts:

Does tourism benefit a country?

Related Posts: