Câu hỏi:

19/08/2025 632 Lưu

Some think that people should not change their jobs while others think they should because it brings advantages for themselves, company, and society. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Quảng cáo

Trả lời:

verified Giải bởi Vietjack

Sample 1:

Apart from people who long for a stable and long-term job, many want to experience different occupations as they assume it is beneficial to themselves, company and society. Personally, while both have their own merits, I believe it is better to have a job change for reasons including self-enhancement.

On the one hand, committing to one job can ensure financial stability for employees. As people work at one place for a long time, they will have a stable income and other benefits such as health or social insurance, plus promotions considering their contributions. These rewards and policies are usually applied to full-time employees or those who have worked for over a year. Applicants frequently job-hopping stand a lower chance of getting accepted into a new workplace and are more likely to face unemployment in the future. Most employers would reconsider hiring candidates with a background of switching jobs regularly as this behaviour is often associated with the stereotypical image of an unreliable and easily dissatisfied worker.

On the other hand, changing jobs once in a while can help people, especially the young, have the opportunity to develop a broader knowledge base and learn new skills. Many are put under new challenges such as fitting in or learning new procedures when working in a new environment, significantly enhancing their communication and problem-solving skills. Moreover, job hoppers can achieve career advancement without spending years for promotions, but they are often required to adapt more quickly and showcase their ability. Their efforts to outperform can potentially create better business outputs and build a skilled workforce for a country's competitive economy.

In conclusion, while working at one place can offer employees a more stable income and career prospects, switching jobs can boost their skills and benefit the company they work for and the country's economy. However, I believe that it is better to have a job change occasionally to foster personal growth from new challenges.

Sample 2:

People have opposing opinions about whether we should frequently change our jobs. In this essay, I will analyse both sides of the argument before arriving at my conclusion.

There are certain reasons why people think that it is a good idea for employees to change their jobs. The most important reason is that this is believed to help employees to have a diverse range of knowledge and experience. When they take up employment in a different company in the same industry, or a company in another industry, they have the chance to learn new knowledge and skills. For example, a lawyer working in a law firm can learn a lot by starting work in the legal department of a manufacturing company; this is because the nature of the work at the two companies is different. The diverse skill set that a person who frequently changes his/her job has allows this person to perform better at work and be entitled to a higher salary and better job-related benefits. 

However, I do not think that we should change our jobs frequently. First, I believe that having specialised and solid knowledge and skills in an industry is more valued than having a diverse range of knowledge. Tasks at work are best performed by employees who have done the same tasks for years and know how to perform them the most productively. For example, a doctor who masters a certain field of medicine is more valued by patients than the one that knows a lot of fields but does not specialise in any field. Another argument against frequently changing jobs is that when we change our occupation, we have to learn how to adapt to a new working environment. This is a time-consuming and sometimes stressful task.

In conclusion, although there are certain reasons why people advocate changing jobs frequently, I support the argument that we should stay in the same job for as long as we can.

Sample 3:

The topic of changing jobs can be a sensitive topic, with some believing that doing so equips workers with a more expansive skill set and allows companies to save on training costs. I, however, contend that it is more disadvantageous to change jobs since it can hinder an individual’s career and companies may continually struggle to hire new employees.

A key benefit of workers changing jobs regularly is that they can be equipped with a more diverse skill set. As different jobs utilize different knowledge bases, employees may be able to acquire a wide-ranging variety of professional skills. Therefore, in the future when a new job is offered to them, employees will be better prepared for the work entailed at any given position. For companies, when their employees switch occupations, they can save time and money on training. Firms can do this by hiring someone with equal or more experience than the previous person in the same field. Therefore, the quality of the products or services being offered by these firms will remain consistent.

However, switching jobs can hinder a worker’s career as companies may be reluctant to hire such individuals. Employers understandably may hold a prejudice against those who frequently alternate between occupations as they think a so-called ‘job hopper’ will not be able to contribute to their company long-term and thus it would be counterproductive to commit resources to them. When it comes to how companies themselves can be negatively affected by job hopping, they may continually struggle when finding new employees who can meet their requirements. This is evident with how international accounting firms have a higher-than-average turnover rate at the junior level, meaning that they are in a near-endless cycle of hiring new people.

In conclusion, while changing jobs can help workers acquire vital skills and companies save time and money for training, I would assert that the drawbacks are much more substantial, as it can impede one’s career and companies can suffer from potentially high turnover rates.

Sample 4:

In this modern era, switching jobs now and then is no longer something unfamiliar, especially to the millennials. This present-time tendency has posed a debate of whether job-hopping or life-long employment would be more beneficial for the employees, the employers, or the public. This essay will look at both standpoints and suggest its favor for the long-term employment of one workplace.

It is understandable why someone advocates job changing. The first reason is that switching to a different job keeps employees busy and helps them develop valuable professional skills. When a person starts a new job, he is kicked out of his comfort zone and forced to learn new systems, new routines, new names, and new people’s skills. A staff who has flexibility and willingness to enter the unknown will be an asset to companies that require a mobile and malleable workforce. Moreover, it is difficult to significantly increase the annual salary while staying at the same company because a wage raise is usually calculated as a percentage of the base salary. Therefore, employees often switch between jobs to enjoy such financial gain.

However, there are more sound reasons to believe that aiming to stay at the same job career-long seems to be a more holistic solution. Firstly, while I acknowledge a major downside of a one-workplace career is stagnation, this issue can be solved by training programs offered either internally or externally. This means remaining at the same job can still secure one’s professional development. Secondly, a company may operate more sustainably if it can keep the turnover rate minimal. This comes down to the fact that a firm appears to suffer from significant financial loss if their staff leave too often, as they would have to pay more for recruiting and training processes. Also, failing to maintain loyal personnel would affect its reputation, leading to more difficulty in attracting talented workers and maintaining a strong workforce, which is a key factor for the healthy development of an organization.

To conclude, it is persuasive that encouraging people to stay at the same job would have more gains than losses at all levels rather than doing the other way around. Nonetheless, an employee should feel free to consider a shift in occupation if it is more suitable for their situation.

Sample 5:

Whether employees should jump from one job to another, or they should work at the same position throughout their career has been a controversial topic. In my opinion, while changing jobs can be beneficial to a certain extent, being in a similar position is more advantageous to both the individual and the employer.

On the one hand, career changes can benefit employees in many ways. First, job hoppers can hone diverse skills and possess an expansive knowledge spanning across different fields. As each position requires unique abilities, when switching jobs, employees can master a new skill, which can be of importance to positions that entails cross-department communication and cooperation. Moreover, individuals who change jobs often will be less likely to become jobless, as their diverse skill set can be applied in any post. For instance, during the Covid-19 pandemic, people who had additional knowledge in a field different from their job can find new positions once personnel reduction took place.

On the other hand, advocates of working constantly in one post have firm grounds to argue that this trend has numerous positive effects. Concerning individuals, being loyal to a position means that their incentives are high, including seniority bonuses as well as labor insurance. Whereas job hoppers can never expect this as their short-term work will always put their benefits at a new employee level. As for companies, having faithful employees can help them cut training costs and avoid problems that can arise from newcomers. When a new member joins the team, the company has to pay for their lack of efficiency and experience. This is not the case of longtime employees, whose incentives are only tools to motivate them to achieve greater success, not a retribution on the company for their senior employees’ mistakes.

In conclusion, while it is fair to argue that jumping between jobs can help individuals broaden their skill set, working in one position constantly can have numerous positive effects on both the employees and the employers.

Sample 6:

Several people believe that they should work for the same company for the remainder of their lives, while others believe that their jobs should be varied. This paper would examine both viewpoints and explain why the latter is, in my opinion, more favourable.

On the one hand, individuals who believe that staying at the same job makes it simpler to work argue that it is more convenient. In other words, if someone has worked for an organisation for a long time, he or she will be at ease performing any task because everyone knows who they are. For example, a member of my extended family has worked for a financial organisation for over a quarter of a century because he enjoys and is content working there. As a result, many people, particularly the elderly, are hesitant to change careers since they are perfectly satisfied with their current position.

Opponents of this viewpoint believe that a person should be able to change jobs at any time, which means that he or she should be able to transfer to different faculties based on their preferences. Furthermore, job variety not only makes a person happy, but it also allows them to get new experiences and expand their capabilities. For example, according to recent research, the majority of employees are quitting their jobs in order to advance in their careers. As a result, nowadays, young people choose to change jobs in order to further their careers and accumulate wealth.

In conclusion, it is apparent that staying in the same career is joyful for those who oppose change; nevertheless, those who change their profession on a regular basis have a high chance of advancement. As a result, I fully believe that a person should bring variety to their future career path.

CÂU HỎI HOT CÙNG CHỦ ĐỀ

Lời giải

Sample 1:

The issue of addressing the global challenge of feeding a rapidly expanding population has spurred discussions about potential solutions, including the adoption of Genetically Modified (GM) foods. While some proponents argue that GM foods present a viable answer to this problem, I fundamentally disagree. The potential risks associated with GM foods and the availability of alternative sustainable approaches make me skeptical about their efficacy as a long-term solution.

To begin with, Genetically Modified foods often involve the manipulation of organisms' genetic makeup to enhance desirable traits, such as increased crop yield or resistance to pests. While this may seem promising in theory, the unintended consequences of genetic modification could pose significant risks to human health and the environment. For instance, allergens or toxins could be inadvertently introduced into GM crops, leading to adverse effects on consumers. The release of genetically modified organisms into the environment could also disrupt natural ecosystems and harm biodiversity.

Additionally, the push for GM foods detracts attention and resources from more sustainable and holistic agricultural practices that have the potential to address food security challenges without compromising safety. Agroecological approaches, such as crop rotation, agroforestry, and integrated pest management, offer environmentally friendly alternatives to intensive monocultures and chemical-based farming. These methods promote soil health, water conservation, and biodiversity, all of which are crucial for ensuring the long-term sustainability of food production.

In conclusion, while the growing global population necessitates innovative solutions for food security, I am opposed to the idea that GM foods offer a viable remedy. The potential risks to human health and the environment, coupled with the availability of more sustainable agricultural practices, make me doubtful about the long-term efficacy of genetically modified foods. Instead of relying solely on GM foods, it is imperative to explore diverse and sustainable approaches that prioritize both human well-being and the planet's health.

Sample 2:

To tackle food shortages, many scientists recommend genetically modified (GM) food as a solution. Despite some concerns regarding this solution, I strongly believe that this is the future for food security.

The first benefit that GM foods offer is that it has significantly higher yield compared to traditional crops. GM foods have their genes altered to reproduce their cells quicker, leading to faster crop productions. Also, GM foods are capable of withstanding harsh environments, such as during winters and dry summers. Another benefit of consuming more GM foods is that they require fewer pesticides, contrary to popular belief. Because scientists design GM foods to be resistant to common pests, farmers do not need to spray pesticides as regularly as they would growing traditional crops.

However, despite these benefits, there are some concerns that researchers should revisit before populating GM foods. The first concern is the impact GM crops have on the ecosystem. Because these crops are known to be resistant to pests, it could lead to the eradication of pest species. As a result, this can disrupt the ecosystem’s balance. The second concern is that, due to GM crops’ high efficiency and rapid growth, they can easily become an invasive species with unhealthy farming practices. This problem, aside from damaging the ecosystem, also has adverse effects on the economy. For example, if one plot destined to grow a certain plant gets invaded by another species, farmers will experience a loss of income.  

In conclusion, although admittedly, there are some legitimate concerns for GM foods, I still strongly agree that GM crops are the most feasible solution to the global food shortage.  

Sample 3:

Feeding the ever-growing world population is undoubtedly a significant challenge that needs to be addressed. Some individuals argue that genetically modified (GM) foods could provide a viable solution to this problem. In my opinion, while GM foods may offer certain benefits, they also come with potential risks and drawbacks that need to be carefully considered.

Proponents of GM foods argue that they can help increase crop yields, improve nutritional content, and enhance resistance to pests and diseases. This, they claim, would enable farmers to produce more food on less land, ultimately helping to feed a larger population. Additionally, GM foods have the potential to withstand harsh environmental conditions, such as drought or extreme temperatures, making them more resilient and reliable sources of food.

However, it is important to acknowledge the concerns surrounding GM foods. Critics argue that the long-term health and environmental impacts of consuming and cultivating GM crops are not yet fully understood. There are also ethical considerations, such as the potential for corporate control over the food supply and the loss of biodiversity. Furthermore, the introduction of GM crops into natural ecosystems could have unforeseen consequences, disrupting delicate ecological balances.

In conclusion, while GM foods may offer some potential benefits in addressing the challenge of feeding a growing world population, the risks and uncertainties associated with their widespread adoption cannot be ignored. It is crucial to conduct thorough research and risk assessments to ensure that the benefits outweigh the potential drawbacks. Ultimately, a balanced approach that takes into account the needs of both current and future generations is necessary to tackle this pressing issue.

Sample 4:

Whether GM foods are the ultimate answer to address the need to feed the ever-growing global population has been a topic of fierce argument recently among intellectuals across the world. However, I fully agree with the statement that such foods are an effective remedy to worldwide food scarcity.

One obvious advantage of GM foods is better production in lesser time which will ensure food for more people that too utilizing a few resources. In addition, these foods and their cultivation are a lot more environmentally-friendly than normal foods because the former are highly resilient to diseases, pests and insects which reduces the need to use harmful herbicides, pesticides, insecticides and so on. This also ensures that people get pure fruits and grains, for example, free from chemicals.

Better texture, varied flavors and improved nutritional values are some other qualities which make genetically modified foods a viable solution to shortage of food. When such high-quality foods are made available at cheaper prices, it will sure save governments and individuals substantial sums of money, not to mention the obvious health benefits for people. Further, longer shelf-life makes bioengineered foods easier to transport to distant places and store them. Last but not least, their potentially non-allergenic nature makes them Manna from heaven for the hungry millions.

In short, GM foods are the need of the hour. Therefore, the authorities across the world need to spring to action to mass-produce genetically-engineered foods and make them available to people thereby saving hundreds of thousands of lives from malnutrition and starvation.

Sample 5:

As the population is increasing at a fast rate across the world, a shortage of food is becoming a perplexing problem. Some individuals suggest that this can be addressed by genetically modified foods. In my opinion, I totally disagree with the statement since engineering genetic foods have a high risk of potential problems and negative environmental impacts.

The main issue of genetic modification organism is a risk of potential problems after having the food for a long-term. This is because scientists or nutritionists are not sure about the long-term effects and safety as it is a relatively new practice. For example, food allergic reactions have risen in the last decade such as nuts or dairy products, which resulted from consuming GM foods. In addition, there are also a large number of people who hold concerns about the potential risks to human health affected by GM crops such as inducing mutations in human genes. Therefore, numerous people have an inclination toward eating organic food rather than GM foods.

Another thing to consider is that the agricultural method of GMOs brings harmful effects on the environment and ecosystem. Firstly, the changes in the agricultural practice affect on the farming and where weeds or other harmful factors become stronger. This results in overuse of the toxic sprays such as pesticides and herbicides. Secondly, the new cultivation method is harmful for non-GMO crops and also insects or animals, which can lead to loss of biodiversity. To illustrate this, bees play an important role in the pollination of various food crops, but they are vulnerable from the sprays.

In conclusion, I am strongly opposed to the opinion that genetically modified foods can deal with

a shortage of food due to the world demographic growth. This is for the reason that it has potential problems affecting people’s health and it has negative effects on environmental impacts and biodiversity.

Lời giải

Sample 1:

An increasing concern for many governments around the world is the declining health of their citizens due to a poor diet. While some people believe governments should be responsible for improving the health of their nation, others believe it is up to the individual. This essay will examine both sides of the argument.

There is no doubt that individuals must take some responsibility for their diet and health. The argument to support this is the fact that adults have free will and make their own choices about what they eat and the exercise that they do. Children are also becoming less healthy. However, their parents are the ones who provide their evening meals, so it is their responsibility to ensure these meals are nutritious and encourage them to avoid junk food and sugary snacks during the day.

Despite these arguments, there is also a case for advocating the intervention of the state. People these days often have little choice but to depend on fast food or ready meals that are high in sugar, salt and fat due to the pressures of work. Governments could regulate the ingredients of such food. Some governments also spend huge amounts of tax money on treating health problems of their citizens in hospitals. It would be logical to spend this on preventative measures such as campaigns to encourage exercise and a good diet.

Having considered both sides of the issue, I would argue that although individuals must take ultimate responsibility for what they eat, governments also have a role to play as only they can regulate the food supply, which openly encourages a poor diet. It is only through this combination that we can improve people’s health.

Sample 2:

It is observed that few citizens think that ruling authorities must take care of the habit of eating of the citizens. On the other hand, few people think that it is their own duty. There is a divided opinion on this. My preference is explained further.

Examining the former view, the propionate claim that it is the duty of the government to take care of the food habits of people. To a large extent, it is like imposing the rules if there are strict rules for junk food availability. For example, if there are limited outlets, many people will avoid going to such places. Also, they can put restrictions on the production of certain food. To add to that, the government also can put a restriction on soft drink products. So as much as less availability as less use. So by that, they can control the uses.

On the other hand, many believe that it is their responsibility of own to take care of their health. Nowadays youngsters prefer to eat outside food, but their parents should take care of their eating habits. As they are the pioneers of their children. All the good and bad things taught by elders to their kids. And kids also listen to their parents only. So, it becomes their own duty to look after this.

All in all, it can be said that the government is not responsible for the eating habits of people. It is an individual’s duty to take care of their diet. Government cannot control diet because it will have a bad impact on the ruling authorities.

Sample 3:

The increasing focus on health has sparked a debate regarding the responsibility for dietary decisions. Some argue that individuals should have the autonomy to choose their diets, while others believe governments should ensure their citizens adopt healthy eating habits. In my view, achieving the best health outcomes requires cooperation between individuals and governments.

On one hand, individuals bear the primary responsibility for their dietary choices. With a wide array of food options available, people can create balanced diets rich in essential nutrients. This flexibility allows for personalized approaches; for example, vegetarians can opt for protein-rich beans, while those who consume meat can choose leaner protein sources. Moreover, individuals have a unique understanding of their own bodies and preferences, enabling them to tailor their diets for optimal health and well-being.

However, governments also wield considerable influence over food choices. Their role extends beyond ensuring food safety to include implementing regulations that restrict the advertising of unhealthy foods, especially those aimed at children. Additionally, governments can subsidize the production and sale of nutritious foods, making them more accessible to all citizens, particularly those facing financial challenges. Educational campaigns advocating for balanced diets and highlighting the risks of unhealthy eating further empower individuals to make informed dietary decisions.

In conclusion, promoting a healthy populace requires a multi-dimensional approach. While individuals are ultimately responsible for their choices, governments can play a significant role in creating an environment conducive to healthy eating. Through regulatory measures, educational initiatives, and economic incentives, governments can empower citizens to prioritize their well-being and make informed choices. This collaborative effort will contribute to the overall health and wellness of the population.

Sample 4:

Nowadays an increasing number of people are becoming concerned about their health and the quality of their diet. There are two diametrically opposed opinions on the matter. Some people believe that each and every individual is responsible for their own health while others state that it is the government that must ensure that the citizens have healthy eating habits.

Personally, I believe that people bear full responsibility for their diets for a number of reasons. First, nowadays there is a vast variety of products that everyone can choose from, ensuring a balanced diet consisting of different types of products with sufficient vitamins, proteins, carbohydrates and fats. Everyone can balance their diets according to these factors and also based on their taste preferences. For example, vegetarians will prefer beans rich in protein while omnivorous eaters might opt for meat instead. Secondly, while governments cannot considerably vary in their healthy eating programs usually adhering to 'one size fits all' approach, individuals know exactly what they need in order to keep fit and healthy both generally speaking and in terms of food. We take a tailored approach as we know exactly what we need to succeed in life, be strong and healthy.

However, others argue that the government is fully responsible for the kind of food its population consume because they make decisions regarding the quality of food their country produce and import as well as prices. For instance, in many developing countries people rarely have access to high quality food, thus being forced to choose something cheap like fast food. Moreover, the government can introduce legislation as regards to what kind of food can be promoted, seen for example in many European countries where the advertising of fast food, alcohol and cigarettes is prohibited. These measures, it is argued, can affect the way we eat and control the diets of the whole population. 

In conclusion, while the governments may play a role in the choice of food of its citizens, it is still the responsibility of every individual whether to eat healthy diet or not due to many reasons being that a variety of methods to balance their diets or their finances. After all our life is in our hands!

Lời giải

Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.

Nâng cấp VIP