In some countries, younger people are neglecting their right to vote.

What problems does this cause and what are some of the possible solutions?

It is argued that in certain nations youth are not using their right to vote. This would hinder the political change, and it would also result in policies made that are not beneficial for these young people. The most viable solutions would be to create awareness among the younger generation and promote them to participate in politics. 

Not participating in elections would mean that it would be difficult to change the government which is necessary for some countries across the globe. This is because, in any functional democracy, the only way to change the ruling party is by casting votes in the electoral process. Furthermore, if young individuals forge their right to vote, it would result in policies made that do not benefit them. As a result, they would feel that the state is not addressing their concerns and end up leaving the country. For instance, every year thousands of young adults from developing countries immigrate to Europe and North America because they are unhappy with their government’s performance.

One way to tackle these issues is to inform these people about the power of vote. Campaigns should be held in universities, and colleges to educate youth about their political rights. Another solution is to promote these young people to come into politics. Doing this it would ensure their representation and their voices being heard. For example, Nelson Mandela was a young political activist who successfully fought against racism and became the first black President of South Africa.

In conclusion, neglecting to vote by the young generation would delay the necessary government change, and laws made that are not in their favor. However, encouraging youth participation in politics and awareness campaigns can be possible solutions to tackle these problems.

Some people think that all university students should study whatever they like. Others believe that they should only be allowed to study subjects that will be useful in the future, such as those related to science and technology. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Some would argue that all students in universities have to study the subject they like, while others think that they have to only study something useful for their future, for example, those related to science and technology sectors. Although learning about the latter subjects is crucial to secure a good job and salary, I believe that enrollment in whatever subject they favor leads to students being successful in their fields.

Studying science and technology during third-level education makes students able to easily find a job that pays high wages. That is to say, working in the majority of modern workplaces requires up-to-date technological information aiming to improve the quality of work and to compete with others, and, in turn, those employees will earn good remuneration. For instance, many IT graduates from the University of Toronto were able to have high positions and good wages in many renowned business companies. However, I think that the passion for what students study is more important than how much their earnings are in the future.

It is very important for university students to study the subjects they like because this is the reason behind a successful career. That is because the love for this particular subject allows them to go beyond their limits, be creative, and be eager to improve, and, thus, they might be promoted. For instance, many well-known musicians decided to study music because they were passionate about it and this positive spirit helps them climb their professional ladder. Therefore, I support this school of thought because studying a favorite subject is more important.

To conclude, despite the fact that a course in science and technology can provide postgraduates with a good future career and enough income, in my view, studying whatever they prefer is better because this leads to success in their field.

Some say that music, art and drama are as important as other school subjects, especially at the primary level. Do you agree or disagree?

Some people believe that arts education is as significant as the study of other subjects, especially for primary students. I completely agree with this viewpoint because some educational content could be better illustrated in the forms of arts, and the study of arts is one key consideration which fosters all-rounded growth of young students.

The arts could deliver information to students, especially to those attending primary schools, in a way that words in textbooks sometimes cannot. Children may become bored and tired if they have to read or listen to too much educational content in textbooks. A colorful painting or a catchy song, on the other hand, can be much more appealing and thus more effective in conveying information to these children. For example, the Ghen Covy song has been taught at most schools in Vietnam and has become one of children’s favorite songs. This song has effectively highlighted the importance of hand washing as a means of disease prevention, and has made it easier for many children to remember every step of hand sanitization for its catchy melody and appealing dancing moves.

Furthermore, the study of arts is one factor that contributes to a comprehensive development of young students. While academic subjects focus on children’s cognitive development, arts education help children to develop their social-emotional skills. By singing a song or drawing a picture, these children are likely to express their feelings and nurture their sense of community. For example, thousands of Vietnamese children, who were encouraged by their teaching staff, drew pictures of sunflowers to deliver messages of love and support for pediatric cancer patients.

In conclusion, the arts can sometimes be better at transmitting knowledge than textbooks, and the provision of both academic and arts education is necessary for an all-rounded growth of young students. I firmly believe that the study of arts should never be underestimated in any child educational institution.

There is an increasing trend around the world of married couples deciding not to have children. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages for couples who decide to do this.

An increasing number of married couples around the world choosing to remain childless. The main benefits of not having a child for couples are that they can focus on their careers and have more time for themselves. The main drawbacks are that they could not fit into their peers’ group and have no one to look after them when they get old. 

One primary advantage of remaining childless for married couples is that they can focus on their work. This is because they have less responsibility and distractions in their lives compared to the couples that have a child. Another advantage of this is that they have more spare time. Looking after a child is a full-time job for parents and taking most of their time, while child-free couples have lots of free time after work. For example, many couples stop going out late with their friends after having a child as they have to stay at home for looking after their children. 

One disadvantage of couples deciding not to have children is that they can struggle to hang with their peers after most of them have children. Most parents prefer to spend more time with other couples that have children as well. Moreover, do not have anyone to look after them in their elderliness is another disadvantage. Children are the ones who take care of their parents when they get old because their parents did the same for them when they were young. For instance, the vast majority of the people who live in care homes have no child. 

In conclusion, the main benefits of staying child-free for couples are that they can be more career-oriented and have more free time for themselves, and the main drawbacks are that they could have problems about fitting into their friends’ group and having no one to take care of them when they become older.

Details of politicians’ private lives should not be published in newspapers. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is argued that newspapers ought not to publish the details of private lives of politicians. This essay strongly disagrees with this view because politicians build a public image through such news and they could be held accountable for any wrongdoings.

On the one hand, politicians can gain public trust by building a positive image through newspapers. Being the focus of media, sometimes details of their personal interests end up on the front pages of newspapers, which allows them to gain popularity among masses, especially when their interests match with the general public. Recently, the pictures of a famous politician of Milan, while playing football with local school children were published in many newspapers, and he instantly became famous among school and college students. Hence, it helps them gain popularity by depicting themselves in a positive way. 

On the other hand, publishing details of private affairs disclose the corruption of politicians and make them accountable. Many politicians usually hold a public office and are entrusted with managing public funds. If they do not spend the money on the wellbeing of people and are involved in corruption, newspapers expose their private life and put them under accountability. For example, when details of the lavish spending of the Mayor of London, while on a vacation, were revealed in the SUN, it prompted questions from many sections of the society, eventually exposing his corruption with the public money. Therefore, it is important that newspapers publish these details.

In conclusion, private matters of politicians should be published in newspaper because it allows them to gain popularity and expose their corrupt affairs.

Details of politicians’ private lives should not be published in newspapers. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is thought that the information regarding politicians’ personal lives should not be shared in print media. This essay strongly agrees with this suggestion because publishing these details could be harmful to their families, and obtaining this type of information might require breaking the law.

First and foremost, what makes that the details related to private aspects of politicians’ lives should not be shared in newspapers is that it could be harmful not only to these individuals but also to their families. This is because revealing some details from their personal lives could expose them to unwanted comments or allegations, which might lead to a great deal of distress. In Poland, for instance, in 2015, the vice-prime minister committed suicide due to not handling the pressure caused by the paparazzi invading his and his family’s private life.

Furthermore, obtaining this type of information, in most cases, means breaking the law. This is because the right to privacy is one of the most fundamental policies in society, and anyone who wants to access the lives of politicians must obtain their consent. However, not only are paparazzi hired to invade properties belonging to politicians to take photos without their permission, but also politicians’ colleagues and relatives are bribed to share confidential facts from their lives. For instance, an accident in which Princess Diana was killed was partly caused by the paparazzi who followed her car, trying to take photos of her and her boyfriend against their will.

In conclusion, I strongly support the suggestion that politicians’ lives should not be subject to the interest of newspapers because revealing personal facts from politicians lives could destroy their family life and the process of obtaining these details often required wrongdoing.

In many professional sports, there is an increase in the number of athletes using banned substances to improve their performance.

What are the causes of the phenomenon and what are some of the possible solutions?

In many professional sports, it is becoming commonplace for athletes to abuse prohibited substances to boost their overall performance. This essay will discuss how stiff competition and lax testing systems are the main cause of this problem, and the most suitable solutions are imposing heavier punishments on violators and revamping testing facilities.

The main cause of this problem is the fierce competition that exists in any sports. In other words, most many professional athletes feel that they have to take substances like steroids to give themselves an advantage over other strong opponents. Another reason is the lack of strictness in testing procedures. Many athletes who take advantage of banned substances can still get off scot-free due to the holes in testing systems. For example, a high-profile mix martial artist named Jon John who is notorious for using PED described how easy it was to get away with cheating in an interview in 2015.

A viable solution is to heavily punish lawbreakers. If sports clubs and establishments raise the fine for using banned substances, many athletes will think twice before making attempt to cheat. Another the way to deal with this issue is to upgrade testing amenities. This will eradicate any holes existing in the system and ensure that the test result is highly accurate. For instance, after the UFC had made major investments to provide their staff with the latest testing equipment, many fighters in their organization got caught.

In conclusion, strong competition and ineffective testing systems are the main cause of this problem, and the most suitable solutions are enforcing harsher punishments on violators and reforming testing facilities.