MY ANSWER: YES! – One position, more straightforward to write, simpler to read.
PARAGRAPH 1
Practical experience, contacts, face to face skills. EG: Studies through the UK Government show graduates with work experience are twice as likely to find employment…..
PARAGRAPH 2
Better preparation, chance to improve social skills, close the gap between academia and private sector, helps pay to write an essay student decide on future before committing long haul, EG 1/6 students will change their higher education course while at uni….
Lots of people genuinely believe that it is simpler to learn something in a combined group rather than individually. Would you agree or disagree?
Paragraph 1
Agree – learning in group has advantages that are many of teamwork could be adopted
Group can utilize each person’s skill expertise
Paragraph 2
Disagree – Individualism is better
Self reliant, own the result, not determined by others
More mature way, more responsible
No laggards
Many people believe that children have to do organised activities in their time that is free while genuinely believe that children should really be absolve to do what they need to complete inside their free time. Which viewpoint do you really agree with? Use reasons that are specific examples to support your answer.
PARAGRAPH 1 -In favour of letting them choose.
-benefits letting the mind wonder, children can express themselves, find themselves, do whatever they prefer and excel… etc etc
-EG Recent tests also show 12% of school students dislike physical education, therefore if sports were chosen it would be unfair for this minority.
PARAGRAPH 2 -Reasons against “organised activities”
Organising activities is:
-costly for the school
-need time to plan‘equipment that is-possible to purchase
-furthermore studies also show that the brain operates better after a distraction from a structured task such as for example studying.
Many people say that globalisation and the growing wide range of multinational companies have a effect that is negative the environment. Which viewpoint do you really agree with? Use reasons that are specific examples to aid your answer. As to the extent can you agree or disagree? Use specific reasons and examples to aid your position.
PARAGRAPH 1 -DEFINITELY DAMAGING ENVIRONMENTAL SURROUNDINGS
-Increased interaction between countries
-Increase in products or services traded -this means more production, therefore more resources. EG China ‘workshop regarding the world’ – many places air pollution masks needed.PARAGRAPH 2 -MULTINATIONALS / PROBS WITH GLOBALISATION
-YES increase pollution – (this decision taken for simplicity)
-Globalisation requires global solutions -these can have drastic consequences if accidents happen
-EG BP gulf coast of florida, oil spill, destroyed the local ecosystem…
Scientists believe that so that you can protect the environment, people must use less energy in their daily lives. However, a lot of people have not changed the way they live. How come you believe many people have never taken individual action? What could possibly be done to cause them to become take action?
Ideas for body paragraph 1
Not taken individual action because:
– Danger not immediately or directly facing them
– Tragedy for the commons
– Collective problem – better to shirk responsibility
Ideas for body paragraph 2
What could be done to encourage them to take action?
– Media campaigns by the government
– Tax or incentives that are financial In Tokyo ……
Some think that could be the responsibility of people to deal with the environmental surroundings. Others say it is the government that should be careful of the environment. Discuss both views and state your opinion.
Paragraph 1
People should take care of environmental surroundings because:
we have been the consumers, we vote with our wallets,
Throw away culture become considerably too prevalent – individuals are causing horrendous damage (pacific garbage patch)
Paragraph 2
Government should take care of the environment because:
They have the power to legislate
Can impose fines and taxes on polluters
Supposed to be guardians associated with the country, which means collectively they’ve been guardians of the earth… but not true in fact
Conclusion
Both should really be doing more!
In many countries small shops and town centers are going out of business, because individuals tend to drive into the large stores that are out-of-town. This leads to a rise in car use, and it also implies that people without cars don’t have a lot of access to out-of-town stores. Do you consider benefits of such development outweigh its disadvantages?