THESE ESSAYS ARE LESS THAN 350 WORDS! MAKE SURE YOU WRITE AT LEAST 350 WORDS OR AVERAGE IN YOUR MUET WRITING ESSAY. BELOW ARE JUST EXAMPLES ON CHOOSING PROPER WORDS THAT SHOW MATURITY IN YOUR ESSAY. IN SHORT AVOID USING BASIC/INFORMAL PHRASES. HOPE THIS HELPS!
Example 1
A serious concern
nowadays is how our eating habits can affect our
health. In particular, it
has been demonstrated that eating too much junk food can
lead to health issues later in life. One sensible suggestion
for dealing with this is to improve the level of health education so that we
eat better and live longer.
One reason why focussing on health education is an appropriate measure is that it addresses one underlying cause of the problem. It is clear that there is a connection between what people know about nutrition and their eating habits. For example, children who have learned in school about the need to have a varied diet with plenty of vitamins tend to eat more healthily. In contrast, people who have not had this education still eat too much junk food and as a result suffer from diabetes and other diseases.
Better health education, however, is not a complete answer as it ignores the wider social factors that cause people to eat unhealthily. For instance, many people eat fast food because they have a lifestyle that means they do not have time to sit down to a proper meal. Again, other people might eat burgers and pizzas because they are seen to be cool and they want to impress their peers.
There would not appear to be any simple way to deal with these social factors. A difficulty is that it is very hard for governments to make a difference to the individual choices people make. It might help, however, to ban advertisements for unhealthy foods on television and to require companies to provide proper meal facilities for their employees.
My conclusion is that the government certainly ought to introduce measures to improve the level of health education. However, this probably would not be a perfect solution as it would also be necessary to deal with the other social factors that cause unhealthy eating.
One reason why focussing on health education is an appropriate measure is that it addresses one underlying cause of the problem. It is clear that there is a connection between what people know about nutrition and their eating habits. For example, children who have learned in school about the need to have a varied diet with plenty of vitamins tend to eat more healthily. In contrast, people who have not had this education still eat too much junk food and as a result suffer from diabetes and other diseases.
Better health education, however, is not a complete answer as it ignores the wider social factors that cause people to eat unhealthily. For instance, many people eat fast food because they have a lifestyle that means they do not have time to sit down to a proper meal. Again, other people might eat burgers and pizzas because they are seen to be cool and they want to impress their peers.
There would not appear to be any simple way to deal with these social factors. A difficulty is that it is very hard for governments to make a difference to the individual choices people make. It might help, however, to ban advertisements for unhealthy foods on television and to require companies to provide proper meal facilities for their employees.
My conclusion is that the government certainly ought to introduce measures to improve the level of health education. However, this probably would not be a perfect solution as it would also be necessary to deal with the other social factors that cause unhealthy eating.
The best way to solve the
world’s environmental problems is to increase the cost of fuel. To what extent
do you agree or disagree?
Most people would accept that one of the highest priorities today is to find a solution to the various environmental problems facing mankind. It has been suggested that best way to achieve this is for governments to raise the price of fuel. I am, however, not sure that this is necessarily the case.
One reason why this approach may not work is that there is not just one environmental problem the world faces today. If governments did make fuel more expensive, it might well help reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we produce and so slow down the rate ofglobal warming and air pollution. However, it would not help with other major problems such as intensive farming, overpopulation, the hole in the ozone layer or water pollution. For these problems we need to find other solutions.
A second reason why this approach may not be the most appropriate is that it places the emphasis on governmental policy and not individual responsibility. Ultimately, most environmental problems are the result of the way we as individuals live our lives. If we wish to find a long-term and lasting solution to them, we need to learn to live in a way that it is greener or kinder to the environment. What governments need to do to make this happen is to ensure there is a global programme to educate people of all ages about the environmental consequences to their actions.
In summary, I believe that increasing the level of taxation on fuel is at best a short-term solution to only one environmental problem. If we wish to provide a home for our children’s children, education is likely to be the key to making this happen.
Most people would accept that one of the highest priorities today is to find a solution to the various environmental problems facing mankind. It has been suggested that best way to achieve this is for governments to raise the price of fuel. I am, however, not sure that this is necessarily the case.
One reason why this approach may not work is that there is not just one environmental problem the world faces today. If governments did make fuel more expensive, it might well help reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we produce and so slow down the rate ofglobal warming and air pollution. However, it would not help with other major problems such as intensive farming, overpopulation, the hole in the ozone layer or water pollution. For these problems we need to find other solutions.
A second reason why this approach may not be the most appropriate is that it places the emphasis on governmental policy and not individual responsibility. Ultimately, most environmental problems are the result of the way we as individuals live our lives. If we wish to find a long-term and lasting solution to them, we need to learn to live in a way that it is greener or kinder to the environment. What governments need to do to make this happen is to ensure there is a global programme to educate people of all ages about the environmental consequences to their actions.
In summary, I believe that increasing the level of taxation on fuel is at best a short-term solution to only one environmental problem. If we wish to provide a home for our children’s children, education is likely to be the key to making this happen.
Example 3
Many people nowadays face a
difficult decision when they buy their own home. The question is whether they
should buy a house or an apartment. There would seem to be clear benefits and
drawbacks to both options.
Perhaps the major advantage of living in a house is the issue of privacy. Typically, there is more opportunity for peace and quiet, if you live in a house. This is particularly the case if it is a detached house. Other significant advantages are that houses are generally more spacious and on the whole have gardens. This is especially important if there is a family so that the children can have a safe environment to play in. If, however, you live in a tower block, then the children may have to play outside on the pavement.
There are, of course, negative aspects to living in houses. The greatest of these is that they tend to be more expensive to purchase and to maintain. Indeed, a large majority of people choose to live in apartments because they cannot afford the mortgage to buy a house. Another possible problem is that there are fewer houses in cities than the countryside. So if you like urban life, it may be preferable to live in an apartment. A second reason to avoid living in a house is that there is a greater sense of communityto life in an apartment.
My conclusion would be that this is a well-balanced issue. There are probably an equal number of pros and cons to making either choice. Ultimately, whether you decide to live in a cottage in the countryside or a duplex in the city depends on your own personality, family and financial circumstances
Perhaps the major advantage of living in a house is the issue of privacy. Typically, there is more opportunity for peace and quiet, if you live in a house. This is particularly the case if it is a detached house. Other significant advantages are that houses are generally more spacious and on the whole have gardens. This is especially important if there is a family so that the children can have a safe environment to play in. If, however, you live in a tower block, then the children may have to play outside on the pavement.
There are, of course, negative aspects to living in houses. The greatest of these is that they tend to be more expensive to purchase and to maintain. Indeed, a large majority of people choose to live in apartments because they cannot afford the mortgage to buy a house. Another possible problem is that there are fewer houses in cities than the countryside. So if you like urban life, it may be preferable to live in an apartment. A second reason to avoid living in a house is that there is a greater sense of communityto life in an apartment.
My conclusion would be that this is a well-balanced issue. There are probably an equal number of pros and cons to making either choice. Ultimately, whether you decide to live in a cottage in the countryside or a duplex in the city depends on your own personality, family and financial circumstances
It has never been straightforward to know how to decide to punish criminals for
their actions. It does seem clear, though, in
this day and age that work in
the community is a viable alternative to custodial
sentences for minor offences and, perhaps, in cases where there are mitigating factors.
In this essay, I attempt to
explain when I believe these community service orders should be made.
The first set of circumstances when community work is the appropriate sanction is for less serious offences when the offender shows remorse for his actions. Part of the reason for this is that it may be wrong to take away someone’s livelihood by sending them to prison, simply because they have written graffiti on a wall. Likewise, there is a significant danger that these minor offenders would become hardened criminals if they spent time with career criminals in prison. I would emphasise, however, that it should be a condition that the criminal regrets his actions and it is only appropriate for first time offenders.
The other major instance when there is a strong argument to order people to work in the community is when their crimes are unlikely to be repeated. For example, someone who has caused an accident and been caught driving when drunk may not be sent to prison if they were driving their pregnant wife to hospital. In this case, it seems much better if they are ordered to help the community in some way such as working in a shelter for the homeless.
In summary, prison is in my view not always the best sanction and there are certain circumstances when non-custodial sentences may be both more effective and more just. In particular, judges may decide not to send to prison minor offenders and people who are unlikely to re-offend.
The first set of circumstances when community work is the appropriate sanction is for less serious offences when the offender shows remorse for his actions. Part of the reason for this is that it may be wrong to take away someone’s livelihood by sending them to prison, simply because they have written graffiti on a wall. Likewise, there is a significant danger that these minor offenders would become hardened criminals if they spent time with career criminals in prison. I would emphasise, however, that it should be a condition that the criminal regrets his actions and it is only appropriate for first time offenders.
The other major instance when there is a strong argument to order people to work in the community is when their crimes are unlikely to be repeated. For example, someone who has caused an accident and been caught driving when drunk may not be sent to prison if they were driving their pregnant wife to hospital. In this case, it seems much better if they are ordered to help the community in some way such as working in a shelter for the homeless.
In summary, prison is in my view not always the best sanction and there are certain circumstances when non-custodial sentences may be both more effective and more just. In particular, judges may decide not to send to prison minor offenders and people who are unlikely to re-offend.
In recent times there has
been much debate about which subjects
should be included on the school curriculum. One particular issue is
whether the introduction of more modern subjects such as IT for more
traditional subjects such as art and music disadvantages the pupils. I believe
that this is a difficult question and different solutions need to be found for
primary and secondary schools.
There is one major
argument in favour of replacing art, music and sport on the
curriculum with subjects like IT. This is that the purpose of school is to
prepare children for their working life after school, so the subjects on the
curriculum should be relevant to their potential careers. From this point of
view, IT is much relevant to schoolchildren as they need to be computer
literate if they want to survive in the workplace. For example, it is easy to
see that word processing and programming skills will impress employers more
than the ability to run fast or draw well.
There are also, however,
strong arguments for retaining the more traditional subjects as part of the
curriculum. One significant counter-argument is that the purpose of education
is not just to prepare children for later careers, but also to develop their
all round “culture”. It is important that children leave school with some
knowledge of art, music and sport as all these are all help develop aspects of
young people’s personalities.
My own personal point of
view is that there is merit in both sides of the debate and that all children
should study some IT, art music and sport at least at primary school. At
secondary school, however, children should be offered a choice between these
subjects so that they can continue to study them if they wish.
It is unquestionable that rising unemployment is one of the most pressing issues in the industrial world. One solution that has been put forward is to cut the working week to a maximum of 35 hours. However, this solution is somewhat controversial as it has both positive and negative effects.
It is fairly easy to understand the reasons why this proposal has been made. The reasoning is that if workers are not allowed to work for more than 35 hours weekly, then employers will be forced to engage more staff. There would be at least two advantages to this. Not only would unemployment be reduced, but the working conditions of employees on very long shifts would also be significantly improved. For example, a factory employing 300 manual workers doing 10 hours a day might employ 450 workers.
There is also, however, a strong argument not to implement this proposal. This argument is based on economic competitiveness. If a company was forced to employ more workers to produce the same amount of goods, then its wage bill would rise and its products might become more expensive and less competitive compared to companies with longer working weeks. In this case, it is possible that the company either might become insolvent or it would have to make some employees redundant. As a result, the intended benefit to the personnel would not happen.
In summary, we can see that this is clearly a complex issue as there are significant advantages and disadvantages to the proposal. My own personal view is that it would be better not to introduce the shortened working week because it works only in theoryand not in practice.
