Every year several languages die out. Some people think that this is not important because life will be easier if there are fewer languages in the world.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words. In today’s era of advanced Internet, we can communicate with people all over the world. English as a global language has strengthened our communication with the world. So some languages begin to disappear. Some people think our life will be easier if there are fewer languages in the world. But I think these languages should not appear, and they are playing an essential role in the world. There are many disadvantages about the disappearance of these languages.
The First one is that, language represents culture. The death of language also means the death of culture. Even some important scientific knowledge. For example, some plants only grow in a special government, and the information of these plants are recorded in a certain language, but this language is becoming disappearance. Botanists will not be able to acquire the knowledge of these plants. It is a huge loss for scientific research.
The second reason is that the death of language will lead to the occurrence of unrest events. Speakers of minority language have been discriminated against. Nowadays, many English-speaking Americans are still hostile towards non-English speakers. They are treated unfairly. They could not have equal opportunities for education and work. It is harmful to the peace of the world.
In conclusion, it is clear to reach that the negative effects of the death of language outweighs its positive effects. Language has the value of cultural studies. People who speak the same language will be much easier to unite. We should not think that it will be easier to our life if we have fewer languages. So, Language is a kind of wealth, it is vital to our world and everybody should save the dying language.
Some people believe that unpaid community service should be a compulsory part of high school programmes (for example working for a charity, improving the neighbourhood sports to younger children).
To what extent do you agree or disagree? It is debatable that volunteer service should be a part of compulsory courses in high school programmes. Some people think the community service will be beneficial to personal abilities of students. In my opinions, it is necessary for students to take part in unpaid community service, it can provide students with many advantages. I think it can be separated into the following reasons.
To begin with, students can be more patient and perseverance if they have worked for community service. For example, some students volunteered to teach in poor mountainous area. In the poor area, the students will face different difficulties. When they teach those yong students, they need enough knowledge and patience to teach them again and again until they understand. Though, this process is very boring and difficult, it is a meaningful activity that students can actually learn the value of being more patients which cannot be learnt from books if they do not give up.
Furthermore, community service can help students to develop their communication ability. With the development of science and technology, the ability of team working is playing a vitally important role in our society. During the service activity, students will learn to help others and ask other people for help. The volunteer service will encourage students to exchange their thoughts with people and express themselves in front of others. In short, community service is beneficial to students about the interpersonal skills by giving them an opportunity to meet different people.
In conclusion, I think community service is a better way to help students adapt to the social life. And it is beneficial to their growth. I am strongly of the view that, every student in high school should have a compulsory course about community service.
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. It is quite debatable that university students how to choose their subjects. Some people believe that they should choose whatever they like. Other people take the view that university students should study subjects which are useful in the future life like technology and Science. While both methods may have their advantages and disadvantages, they can be applied under different circumstances. Afterwards, I will explain my opinion about it.
To begin with, most of people prefer useful subjects to subjects which they interested in the era of rapid technological development. Science and technology disciplines have become the choice of most people. They think useful subjects will bring them more employment opportunities and can avoid the trouble of unemployment. Although this practice is embraced by many, others remain unconvinced of its merits.
Choosing the subjects which they interested in, on the other hand, also have many advantages. Interest is the driving force of learning. If university students are interested in this subject, they will be more willing to learn the subject actively. As a result, they will learn better in this area. Many parents worried that if their children choose the subject like philosophy, they will loose more employment chance than other children. Moreover, they will have more difficulties than others. Actually, diversified professional background is more attractive for a company. For example, the journalism industry often needs students who are majored in literature. Therefore, if students study the subject they like, they will be more likely to obtain a success.
In my opinion, the advantages of choosing the subjects they like are more than those of useful subjects because I think success depends on whether you can work hard. If I study a subject that I am not interested in, I will feel more difficult when I learn it. Therefore, from my perspective, students should study whatever they like rather than useful subjects.
Some people say that the best way to improve public health is by increasing the number of sports facilities. Others, however, say that this would have little efffect on public health and that other measures are required.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. such as table tennis require a certain sports table. If there are adequate sports facilities, people can do exercise in any place. This measure has greatly increased the enthusiasm of the citizen movement, and thus improved the public health.
On the other hand, other people argue that increasing the number of the sports would not be effective solution to solve the problem of the public health. They favor regular medical examination more than sports facilities. Many potential diseases cannot be improved through exercise and people cannot feel it. If you delay the illness, the consequences will become serious. The regular medical examinations can avoid this issue effectively.
In my opinion, the advantages of the regular medical examination are more like than increasing sports facilities because I think people are busy and they do not have time and energy to exercise. However, they can take one day to do a physical examination every month so that they can observer changes in their bodies. If there are problems in their bodies, they can be solved immediately. This is a more effective way to have a healthy life and improve the public heath.
Countries are becoming more and more similar because people are able to buy the same products anywhere in the world.
Do you think this is a positive or negative development? An important question facing us today is that the globalization has made our country more similar than before, people can buy the same products all over the world. Some people believed that it is a good trend for the development of the world. Other people take the view that the similarity between the countries is a negative development. While both methods may have their advantages and disadvantages, they can be applied under different circumstance. Afterwards, I will explain my opinion about it.
On the one hand, most of the people prefer purchasing products around world at home country. Most of the brands that people used are concentrated in Western countries such as America, Japan. For instance, mobile phones are indispensable in people’s daily life, the fact is, the most popular phone’s brands are iphone, samsung which are from America and Korea respectively. Thanks to the globalization, people can buy the top brand with the best quality from the whole world.
On the other hand, other people argue that the the similarity has a bad impact on the country’s individuality. The products with national characteristics become fewer and fewer. It is annoying for the people traveling abroad. They are not able to buy any souvenirs which can not be bought in their own countries.
From my perspective, the advantages of the globalization are much more than the disadvantages of it because I think the top quality of products is what everyone wants. It promotes the competition all over the world. In some ways, the globalization is good for the development of local products industries