Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Task 2
What young people should study at school has long been the subject of intense debate and this is a question that certainly does not have one correct answer. We need to provide young people the best possible chance of doing well at school. In traditional curriculum there is a wide variety of subjects with a mix of academic and nonacademic subjects. In this way a young person is formed with a rounded education. Nonacademic subjects would include sports, cooking, woodwork and metalwork. I believe this is the best form of education. A young person should learn things other than academic subjects.
Sport is particularly important. Young people have to learn to love sport so that they can be fit and healthy later in life. If not we will be raising an obese and unfit generation. I totally understand the point of view that education is so important that students must be pushed as hard as possible to achieve their best. It sounds a good idea to only expose the students to academic subjects as then they can spend all of their school hours on studying areas that will get them into university and good jobs later in life. I just feel a more rounded education would produce a better individual. We must remember too that a lot of people, maybe even most people, arent academically minded and would benefit more from a more vocationally based education. Forcing academic studies onto them would lead to failure and the student leaving school too early. Therefore I agree that although a wholly academic curriculum would suit and benefit some young people, I believe that for most students non-academic subjects are important inclusions still in todays syllabuses. (283 words)
Task 2
Animal experimentation is a very difficult issue with lots of people feeling very strongly about it
We use animals for experimentation in different ways. One of most contentious issues problems is testing cosmetics on animals. The images of animals with things put in their eyes so that we can look a bit better makes many people very angry. Is it necessary? Companies such as the Body Shop say that they do not experiment on animals and they still produce good cosmetics who make money. I do not agree that making the cosmetics that make our faces better does not mean the animals must suffering in terrible ways, it does not seem moral for me. On the other hand we also use animals for testing new drugs. Without these new drugs people would die and suffer. Some people believe that animals should not suffer and die so that we can avoid death and suffering. I certainly do not agree with this. I am sure that most people would change the minds if it were they who were dying or one of their children. It is certainly sad that animals have to suffer for our health but I believe that the suffering is justified. Are there any alternatives to animal experimentation. Im not an expert but I dont think so. Monkeys are nearest animals to us biologically and without testing on them, we cannot be sure of the effects of new drugs. We do test on humans also but only when we know the drugs will not be a health risk to us. Testing on humans without first testing on animals could lead to unnecessary human deaths. So, in conclusion I do not believe that animal testing is justified for non essential things but for essential things I believe that we do not have a choice and that it is justified. (309 words)
(214 words)
Task 2
The internet is still a relatively new technology. When I was young, there was no internet and few computers. Today of course everybody has a computer and most people in developed countries have access to the internet. People can now find most things that they need to know about on the internet. This includes the information that we can find in newspapers such as the news, sport, business information, the weather and a range of other things. The newspapers themselves have their own sites where you can access the pages that you can buy in the traditional paper form. Will this mean the end of the newspaper? I do not think so. Although access to the newspapers and information are easy and cheap, this is not just what people want. People like reading a newspaper. They do not necessarily want to sit at a computer screen, especially if computers are part of their jobs. You cannot take a computer where you want. You can not take a computer to a beach and read it. You cannot take a computer on a bus or a train or a plane to read the newspaper. Personally I prefer to buy a newspaper in a shop so that I can read it when and where I like. I like reading a newspaper at a cafe with a coffee, especially at the weekend. I am not going to take my laptop to a cafe, even if I can access the internet there. So in conclusion some people will replace their need for a newspaper with a computer but I think that the world will always need newspapers on paper. Newspapers will not become a thing of the past. (283 words)
Task 2
Over the last 150 years medicine has made enormous advances and scientists have discovered the cures for many previously incurable diseases. Now you no longer hear of people dying of cholera, tuberculosis or any of the other killer diseases that were so common. One reason that so few people in the west die from these diseases is because medicine is not expensive and easily available. Nowadays we have other diseases to fight against, for example AIDS and cancer. The drugs that are used to treat these diseases and slow their effects can be found in the west but in poorer countries people cannot pay for them so people die for no other reason than their poverty. I think drug companies should be obliged to make their products available cheaply in poor countries or allow cheaper copies of the drugs to be manufactured under licence. They will still make reasonable profits. Anyway if the big drug companies dont allow to make their drugs available cheaply, companies based in the poorer countries will produce the copies anyway. In India for instance many drugs are copied and sold illegally. Even people from the rich, western countries go there to buy the drugs they want at a cheaper price. Some drug companies have already promised that they will give their drugs at a cheaper price. For example a company promised AIDS retardant drugs to South Africa. In spite of the promises there has been no action and no drugs go for the thousands suffering from AIDS there. Therefore I really believe that drugs companies should make available low cost drugs to poorer countries. At present it is a case of ignoring people who are dying in order to safeguard profits. This is immoral and indefensible no matter what companies say about their business interests. (300 words)
lungs through breathing. When humans and animals exhale they breathe out carbon dioxide. So plants, humans and animals provide services for each other. Humans and animals need the oxygen that plants produce in order to stay alive. When humans and animals breathe out, they provide the carbon dioxide that plants need in order to survive. This ends my report. (150 words)
Task 2
It is true that vast amounts are spent on space exploration for apparently little gain while people suffer from terrible poverty around the world. Supporters of space programs say that space exploration has brought inventions to the world that we would not have had. The famous example is non-stick pans! Supporters also point out that it is in human nature to strive to discover the unknown and that we can progress in all ways by unlocking the secrets of the stars. These are all valid points. On the other hand how can we as human beings justify the billions of dollars spent sending people into space so we can have non-stick pans while millions of people around the world are dying of disease and famine? With the money spent on space exploration, wells could be dug, farmland could be developed, medicine could be bought, schools and colleges could be built, and teachers, doctors and nurses could be trained. Even if we could justify money on exploration, wouldnt it be better to spend the money on exploring the sea on our own planet that could offer enough food to provide for the entire world? From what I have said in this essay it would seem that I would agree that money should be spent on better things than space exploration. However, this is not the case. I understand all the reasons for spending money on better things but I also strongly believe that it is necessary that the human race should continually strive to develop our technology and broaden our horizons. The money in the long run is well spent on space exploration. (272 words)