Câu hỏi:
06/01/2025 176
Some people choose to eat no meat or fish. They believe that this is not only better for their own health but also benefits the world as a whole. Discuss this view and give your own opinion.
Câu hỏi trong đề: 2000 câu trắc nghiệm tổng hợp Tiếng Anh 2025 có đáp án !!
Quảng cáo
Trả lời:
Giải bởi Vietjack
Sample 1:
Vegetarians tend to avoid consuming meat and fish for the purpose of keeping body health and concerning on environmental issue. Both purposes will be discussed in this essay as well as provide several convincing explanations.
Vegetarians tend to consider health factors to stop consuming meat and fish because those kinds of food sources affect the blood tension of those who suffer from chronic disease such as cancer, obesity, etc. Other reasons from a health point of view of people become vegetarian because they need to lose weight or to have a better body shape. Moreover, choosing to consume vegetables rather than meat or fish becomes a trend to keep the body healthy.
On the other hand, being a vegetarian is one of the ways to protest the policy of the government or criminal action against environmental issues such as cruel animal slaughtering, fish-bombing, etc. Moreover, being vegetarian is believed to be the best solution for keeping the balance of the ecosystem among humans and animals.
However, another reason not to eat meat or fish is related to ethical concern on how there are several values or rules in a certain community that forbid to eat both food sources. They believe that animals, like human beings, should be respected and their lives should be preserved.
To conclude, vegetarians who consider health issues and environmental issues, as well as ethical concern, have their own reasons. In addition, both views are merely positive to keep the body healthy individually as well as to conserve the sustainability of animal lives globally.
Sample 2:
It is a fact that several groups of people prefer not to consume any kind of meat and fish, as they believe that being vegetarian bring many benefits for their health and for the world as a whole. To a certain extent, I would agree with the opinion, but I think that people should also consume meat and fish in a proportional portion as they contain rich ingredients that are needed by the human body.
For a number of reasons, some people choose not to eat fish or meat. Firstly, it is believed that several types of meats and fish contain fats which are considered unhealthy for the human body. People who consume those kinds of meat or fish have a higher risk of cardiovascular diseases such as heart attack or cholesterol. Secondly, as the demand for meat and fish increases, it would have a negative impact on the environment. The increasing number of farming activities would require bigger areas, which might reduce the number of forest areas. And then with over-exploitation of fishing activities, several types of fish would extinct, and it would make the sea ecosystem become imbalance.
On the other hand, many food scientists have found out that there are several types of vitamins and proteins that could only be obtained from meat and fish. For example, salmon fish generates a certain type of oil which is beneficial for our blood circulation process. And then, red meat is needed as the source of nutrition for the human’s brain. However, the main problem of those who consume meat and fish is that most of them consume the food in an inappropriate portion. As a consequence, many of them have problems with obesity or diabetes.
Sample 3:
It is generally believed that there are many health and environmental benefits to vegetarianism. While I do agree with this view, I do not think that vegetarianism is for everyone.
The consumption of animal products certainly has some health consequences. It hurts the environment as well. Some studies have shown that vegetarians tend to live longer than their meat or fish-eating counterparts. The environmental impacts of non-vegetarianism are even worse. Countless animals are raised, abused and slaughtered to fulfil the demand for meat and fish worldwide. Framing livestock is one of the major causes of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. If we can reduce the consumption of meat, the need for raising more animals also reduces. As a result, the land that is being used to raise them can be altered to grow vegetables which in turn produce clean air for the whole planet. Obviously, cutting down on the consumption of animal products benefits the whole world.
However, meat and fish are an integral part of many cuisines; therefore, being a vegetarian is not an option in many regions of the world. To illustrate, sushi is the most popular Japanese delicacy and without the addition of its main ingredient, fish, sushi will not be complete. Meat consumption is particularly common in cold countries. There are also some regions where it is difficult to grow vegetables and cereals. Furthermore, fish and meat are excellent sources of proteins and some fatty acids crucial for good health. For this season, meat consumption is essential for people engaging in strenuous physical activities. Being vegetarian, for example, is not a viable option for a bodybuilder or an athlete.
In conclusion, even though there are advantages to vegetarianism, I believe that this lifestyle is not for everyone. Even so, in my opinion, everyone should make an effort to cut down on their consumption of animal foods. That way they can improve their health and save the planet from tons of greenhouse gases.
Sample 4:
Nowadays, people are free to make a lot of options related to food. Some of them argue that eating meat or fish has a fundamentally beneficial influence on our planet and own life, while many others contend that it has a detrimental effect as well. To my view of thinking, meat and fish are one of the most important foods for our normal health condition, so it is harmful to refuse it absolutely.
Firstly, meat and fish provide a lot of useful vitamins. It is extremely necessary for our normal vital processes such as growing or maturing. Lack of this material causes serious disabilities. Moreover, the number of fish and animals should be regulated due to the shortage of feed in the water and earth, which is needed. On the other hand, the destruction of fish and animals could cause the disappearance of specific species. For instance, there are a lot of special species of fish that are written into a red book but still killing illegally. This negative aspect provides harmful acquaintances which should be solved globally.
In my opinion, people should not refuse it totally because it has a negative influence on their health. I am convinced that this problem could be solved by a smaller quantity of meat and fish. This solution guarantees a smaller request for these products and a positive effect on the balance of living organisms on earth.
Taking these points into consideration, I would like to say that there are some advantages and disadvantages brought by eating meat and fish. However, in my opinion, the supply of this product should be regulated very carefully, saving the balance of these organisms, but nobody should refuse this material wholly due to useful materials which are taken.
Sample 5:
A healthy diet plays a very important role in maintaining people’s health. Some people argue that we should eat no fish and meat to have our own health better and it is also valuable to the world. In my opinion, I agree that this will bring many advantages but also causes several drawbacks.
First of all, it is undeniable that by dint of eating like a vegetarian, people will have a nice body and more chance to avoid several chronic diseases. To specify, vegetables and fruits, which contain a rich source of vitamins and minerals, will enable people to keep fit and healthy body. Moreover, with a low amount of fats, cholesterol, or saturated fats, people will not have to worry about gaining weight or obesity as well as other related health issues like high blood pressure or heart diseases. For example, since I ate more vegetables, my body became stronger, and my weight stayed unchanged over time.
On the contrary, it is obvious that by no means could this kind of diet have no negative effect on our health and lifestyles. As a consequence of eating no meat and fish, people will not gain sufficient proteins and fats so that they will not have enough energy for their daily activities. For instance, my mother trys to eat as a vegetarian for several days, but she always feels tired and cannot perform anything well.
On the other hand, thanks to the vegetarian meals we can contribute to save the world. In more detail, the fact is that every year, the food processing industry consumes a large amount of clean water to produce meat or beef and release tons of waste and smoke to the environment. Additionally, due to the overfishing for food, many species of fish in sea, rivers, lakes are endangered and facing extinction. Therefore, if we remove meat and fish from our meals, we can prevent this.
In conclusion, it is not always good if we only eat vegetables, but we should reduce the amount of meat and fish as well as eat more vegetables for healthier living.
Sample 6:
Healthy diet plays a key role in an individual’s maintenance towards their health and associated attributes. There have been several arguments regarding avoidance of consumption of meat and fish as it damages the health of individuals. However, in my opinion, I believe that this will yield several advantages and disadvantages as well in the long run.
First and foremost, consumption of vegetables and ensuring a dietary schedule as vegetarians will help develop a nice body. Moreover, this will also lead to decreased chances of chronic diseases. Vegetables are considered a rich source of vitamins and minerals. Vitamins and minerals play a potential role in ensuring a fit and healthy human body.
Additionally, eliminating meat and fish from regular diet schedules will help with lowered amounts of fats, cholesterol, and saturated fats within the body of individuals. This will also reduce the risks associated with high blood pressure or heart diseases.
Consuming vegetarian diets will lead to a little contribution towards saving the world. To be more specific, the food processing sector consumes a considerable amount of clean water each year to create meat or beef, as well as releasing tonnes of garbage and smoke into the environment. Furthermore, numerous fish species in oceans, rivers, and lakes are vulnerable and on the verge of extinction owing to overfishing for food. As a result, if we exclude meat and fish from our diet, we can avoid this.
To summarize, eating exclusively veggies is not necessarily a good thing, but for a better lifestyle, we should eat less meat and fish and eat more vegetables.
Sample 7:
In today’s era individuals are free to choose from varied options associated with their food consumption. There are arguments that eating meat or fish has a fundamental benefit for our planet and self life. However, many quote that this has a detrimental impact on the global index and human health conditions. I believe that meat and fish are key essential aspects of an individual's diet and have a potent role to play in daily normal health condition. Thus, it is harmful to eliminate these from everyday diet.
Meat and fish are addressed as one of the potential sources of vitamins and minerals for the human body. Thus, these are of extreme importance for vital living processes such as growing and maturing.
Lack of these dietary fibers leads to serious disabilities within the human body. There is a need to regulate and maintain an appropriate balance between feeding in the water and on earth. Nevertheless, increased consumption of fish and animals could cause the disappearance of specific species. There are several particular species of fish, for example, that are listed in a red book yet are nonetheless hunted illegally. This negative feature creates unhealthy relationships, which should be addressed on a worldwide scale.
I think that there is a necessity for maintaining a balance between perseverance and consumption of meat and fish. Complete eradication of these from a regular diet will have a negative influence on human health. Thus, consuming a balanced or even smaller amount of meat will help address this issue.
Sample 8:
Healthy diet is an essential source of well-being for individuals. Some claim that we should avoid eating fish and meat in order to improve our personal health and that it is also beneficial to the environment. In my perspective, this will have numerous benefits, but it will also have some disadvantages.
To begin with, people are descended from animals, and they have long relied on both flora and wildlife to suit their requirements. Because everyone's nutritional demands are varied, plants cannot provide all of the nutrients necessary for a human body. Omega-3, for example, is essential to improve the memory of humans and can only be found in sea-based creatures. As a result, it is permissible to rely on many species to maintain personal health.
With time immemorial and appropriate evolutions, bodily requirements have also changed. There are several cultures globally that strictly follow vegetarian diet and are mostly dependent upon plant-based food for centuries. Excessive fishing and animal poaching has contributed towards changing environmental conditions. These environmental conditions are responsible for contributing towards global warming. Thus, the human race is required to consider vegetables as the only source of their desired nutrients and vitamins.
Taking everything into account, I believe that people should not consume meat since human bodies have evolved over time and that being a vegan or vegetarian increases life expectancy. In addition, the ecosystem is suffering as a result of the widespread extinction of other species. Governments can aid in the mitigation of this problem by raising public awareness through campaigns or other forms of communication.
Sample 9:
Many individuals choose to embrace a vegetarian lifestyle, refraining from consuming meat and fish, driven by the belief that it promotes personal well-being and contributes positively to the planet's welfare. I hold a strong conviction regarding the significance of considering individual situations and making informed decisions that align with personal values and dietary requirements.
Firstly, plant-based diets can be nutritionally balanced and provide adequate protein, vitamins, and minerals. To brief, vegetarian diets are associated with lower risks of certain health conditions, such as heart disease, obesity, and certain types of cancer, which help reduce cholesterol levels and ultimately contribute to overall well-being. Additionally, livestock production contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and water pollution. Adopting a plant- based diet can reduce carbon footprints and alleviate pressure on natural resources. The production of plant-based protein, for instance, requires fewer resources, such as land and water, as compared to animal farming.
Furthermore, adopting a balanced and conscientious approach to food choices is crucial. Elaborating on this, by practicing moderate consumption of ethically and sustainably sourced meat and fish, individuals can obtain vital nutrients and maintain a well-rounded diet while also considering cultural aspects and environmental sustainability. Moreover, cultural and personal preferences can influence dietary choices, as the food holds significant connections to identity and longstanding traditions. For example, someone from a specific cultural background may prioritize certain traditional dishes as a way to preserve their heritage and maintain a sense of cultural belonging.
In conclusion, despite adopting a vegetarian diet can have potential benefits for personal health and the environment, I firmly accord that the decision should be guided by individual circumstances, values, and dietary preferences, with an understanding of the cultural significance of meat consumption.
Sample 10:
Many prefer to avoid meat or fish in their diets. They think that it is good for health while also beneficial for the environment. I believe that while adopting a vegetarian diet is advantageous to healthy living as well as the environment, eating meat and fish is more important because it has high nutritional value.
Some argue that following a vegetarian diet is beneficial to an individual’s health and the planet as well. This is because a vegetarian diet plan means a high intake of fibre, unsaturated fat, vitamins C and A, and so on, thus leading to healthy living. Recent studies reveal that vegetarians tend to have a reduced risk of non-communicable diseases like diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and so forth. It also means the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as factory farm livestock produces methane during food digestion and excretion. Despite this, I would argue that eating meat and fish is of crucial importance in making up for the deficiency of proteins.
However, meat and fish are essential for health. Both are the key source of proteins, a nutrient crucial for our muscular health. Meat and fish are rich in proteins that are of high biological value, meaning that they comprise all the essential amino acids needed to support our body functions in the right balance. For example, the Spanish Society of Community Nutrition recommends that people should intake three weekly servings of lean meat. Furthermore, fish intake is particularly important for pregnant and breastfeeding women and people during childhood. I, therefore, believe that a moderate intake of meat and fish is of profound importance.
In conclusion, although avoiding meat and fish is vital not just for healthy living but for the environment also, these foods should be eaten, because they remain the best source of proteins and that is why moderately eating them is a healthy choice.
Sample 11:
The number of vegetarians in a community may depend on various factors, for example the traditions of the country, the wealth of the country, the religion or the age group. Therefore, the reasons why people choose to exclude meat and fish from their diet may also vary.
Some people become vegetarian because they believe that this will benefit their health. Undoubtedly, eating too much meat, especially too much red meat, is not to be recommended. Moreover, the fact that there are healthy populations in some parts of the world where no one eats meat proves that it is not, as some people claim, an essential part of the human diet. However, it is important to ensure that enough protein, for example, is included in the diet from other sources. Where vegetarianism is not a tradition, this may require some careful planning.
In my experience, it is quite common for people to become vegetarians because they feel that it is selfish to eat meat or because meat production increases global warming. They may also feel that if no one ate meat, there would be no food shortage, because meat production uses up food resources. This idealistic point of view is very attractive, but it is hard to judge whether it is in fact correct.
In some families, if a teenager decides to become a vegetarian, they may do so partly out of a spirit of rebellion, because this behaviour can be interpreted as a criticism of their parents’ way of life. However, provided that they continue to eat healthily, the parents should not raise objections, in my opinion. Vegetarianism is a valid choice in life. Moreover, research shows that vegetarians tend to be healthier in many ways than meat-eaters.
Personally, I think that being a vegetarian is a good idea in principle as there are proven health benefits and probably social benefits as well. However, it does not suit everybody, and I doubt whether it will ever be a universal choice.
Sample 12:
The question of whether it is right to eat the flesh of living animals has been debated for thousands of years, mostly by philosophers and religious groups, but more lately also by people who believe it is wrong to kill beings for sustenance and that this way of life has detrimental effects on our health as well as for humanity. Supporters of both points of view seem to have moral and practical arguments to defend their position.
Supporters of a vegetarian diet claim that overconsumption of meat brings about a series of health problems. Animal fat has been blamed for an increase in cancer and heart disease, which account for an extremely high number of deaths in the western world. They believe that more nutrients can be found in a wide range of non-animal food comprising grains, nuts, legumes, fruit and of course vegetables. These are held to contain all the nutrients, vitamins and minerals we need while not having a negative effect on our body. They also claim that our mental well-being will be enhanced as mind and body are closely linked. It is also true that most meat is heavily treated with antibiotics and various chemicals and that sea food nowadays may be contaminated with degraded plastic or heavy metals.
However, an even greater number of experts tell us that the consumption of meat is beneficial and that abstinence for long periods would lead to a lack of certain vitamins, minerals and proteins. This is especially true, we are told, for young growing children whose bodies are still forming. Parents are not generally willing to risk their children’s health by experimenting on them with a non- western diet. In countries where such a diet is common or mainstream, they have centuries if not millennia of experience. Furthermore, fruit and vegetables are just as contaminated as meat products, if not more so. Apples receive 23 pesticide treatments per season in large farms. One would have to buy only organic produce, which is currently beyond most families’ means.
Another side of the argument to be considered is the benefit of vegetarianism to the planet or humanity. Vegetarianism seems to have moral high ground. I do not think that any sane person enjoys seeing an animal being slaughtered. It is a disturbing site to most people unless they have been hardened by repeated practice in killing. They shut themselves off from empathy for the animal. The strategy seems to be that of disconnecting from the act of killing. The need to detach from the act and not reflect on it suggests that there may be a moral problem. If it were the right thing to do, a pure, healthy act such as picking an apple or drinking water, there would be no necessity to remove one’s mind from it. Morally, non-killing or non-violence as it is called in India appears to be noble.
Lastly, perhaps a policy of non-violence beginning in our dining room would extend beyond to a mentality of non-violence also towards our fellow man. A few hundred years from now people might well look back on us and be horrified that we killed other creatures in order to consume them. I believe that overeating meat is detrimental to our health, but that the negative effects of food may depend more on how it is grown and produced. A stick of celery might be more damaging than a meat base dish if it contains an excessive quantity of chemical compounds.
Hot: 500+ Đề thi thử tốt nghiệp THPT các môn, ĐGNL các trường ĐH... file word có đáp án (2025). Tải ngay
Sách thầy cô Vietjack biên soạn:
CÂU HỎI HOT CÙNG CHỦ ĐỀ
Lời giải
Sample 1:
Some people take the view that criminal behavior is a product of an individual's inherent nature, while others argue that it is the outcome of poverty and societal factors. Although there are cogent arguments for the former view, I still lean towards the social issues and poverty theory.
Those who argue that crime is rooted in an individual's personality traits and moral compass suggest that some individuals are simply predisposed to engage in criminal behavior due to factors such as personality. They argue that some people either have a natural inclination towards aggression, violence, and rule-breaking. These individuals are believed to engage in criminal activities by choice despite having access to legal means of earning a living. In fact, some serial killers are known for their violent and sadistic crimes, which were often carried out with a sense of pleasure or enjoyment.
In my view, crime is primarily a result of social problems and poverty. This is because individuals may turn to criminal behavior when they are faced with limited opportunities, financial insecurity, and social inequality. These conditions can lead to frustration, hopelessness, and despair, which can ultimately push individuals towards criminal behavior as a means of survival or escape. For example, a young person who grows up in a community with few employment possibilities may feel that their only option for financial survival is to engage in drug dealing.
In conclusion, while there are certainly some individuals who exhibit consistent patterns of aggressive or antisocial behavior, these traits alone are not sufficient to explain why people commit crimes. Therefore, I believe that the majority of crime is driven by socioeconomic factors.
Sample 2:
Opinions differ as to whether crime is caused by social issues and poverty or by people’s evil nature. Personally, I agree with the former view.
It is understandable why some people claim that our nature is the root of crime. Perhaps they have witnessed some children commit wrongdoing at some point in their lives. For example, many physically strong children tend to bully others at school, while others may perform mischievous acts like lying to adults or stealing money from their parents. These experiences lead people to believe that humans are purely good or bad by nature, and those who engage in misconduct at a young age will likely become criminals.
However, the point mentioned above is deeply flawed. Everyone possesses their own good and bad nature, and it is the environment that triggers people’s evil side and causes them to commit crime. One major cause of crime in many countries is inadequate education. Poorly educated youngsters may struggle to discern between right and wrong; therefore, they are more likely to commit crimes without even knowing. Poverty is another root cause of crime because those living in impoverished conditions may turn to stealing or robbing as the final solution to make ends meet. A corrupt political system can also be a breeding ground for crime because the politicians there have to comply with the corruption, regardless of their personal intentions.
In conclusion, though some might think that crime results from a person’s bad nature, I believe it is more likely caused by social problems, such as poor education, corrupt political systems, and poverty. People are both good and bad by nature, and the environment in which they live determines whether they become criminals.
Sample 3:
When it comes to crime rates, some individuals claim that criminal activity is solely the result of innate characteristics, while others argue that it is the outcome of societal issues and impoverishment. In my opinion, socioeconomic challenges and inequality are more likely to prompt people to engage in illegal behaviours.
On the one hand, criminality could represent the result of an inherent personality. In some cases, crime is merely the result of a person’s impulsive actions and lack of moral compass. Various factors such as upbringing, personal beliefs, and psychological disorders may all play a role when it comes to criminal activity. Some people, for example, may have grown up in environments in which illegal conduct is normalised, causing them to assume that such behaviour is acceptable. Similarly, those with mental health disorders like sociopathy or psychopathy may be inclined to committing crimes due to their inability to empathise with victims.
On the other hand, societal problems and economic hardship may contribute to criminal conduct. Poverty with limited access to food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, and schooling can push people to the brink of desperation, prompting them to resort to criminal behaviour as a means of survival. People who are financially strapped in various urban areas, for instance, may turn to illegal activities like drug trafficking or burglary in order to make ends meet. Once poverty and crime are intertwined, it may ultimately develop into a vicious cycle that is challenging to escape. Furthermore, socioeconomic issues such as discrimination, inequality, and corruption may promote crime through fostering an environment of dissatisfaction and rage. Those who experience discrimination or who believe the system is stacked against them are more inclined to turn to illegal behaviour as a form of protest or vengeance.
To summarise, aside from personal psychological factors, I believe that social difficulties and poverty can have a greater impact on crime rates.
Sample 4:
Crime has been studied by many scientific disciplines, with some people ascribing it to social problems and poverty, and others thinking that it is caused by the criminal’s nature. In this, I believe that unlawful behavior is more likely the result of defective personal qualities.
Several explanations can support crime being a function of inferior socioeconomic factors. Firstly, poverty reduces access to education and employment, causing hopelessness and desperation as a result. Having been deprived of opportunities, people may turn to crime to get by. Furthermore, people whose environment is rife with social problems may be accustomed to illegal behavior, making it easier for themselves to engage in criminal activities later on. A child who grows up in a neighborhood with drug problems could turn into a drug dealer himself, since he has witnessed drug abuse and addiction as a norm. It could, therefore, be argued that social issues and poverty create criminals.
However, the view that crime is a result of the perpetrator’s nature is no less convincing. Proponents of this belief claim that certain traits, such as impulsivity, aggression, and callousness, predispose individuals to immoral or unethical behavior. People with these traits become less considerate when they perceive any threat to their self-interest, making them likely to ignore the consequences of their actions. Others, meanwhile, carry undiagnosed psychological disorders, and their condition makes them more prone to committing crimes. A large share of the prison population, especially repeat offenders, are affected by sociopathy, a disorder usually characterized by inhibited compassion towards others. It is not well-understood otherwise, and education has only been partially effective in mitigating sociopathy’s effects. For these reasons, criminals’ nature is definitely worth looking at as a cause of their offenses.
In conclusion, while both views can be supported by evidence, I believe one’s personality is a more indicative factor of whether they are likely to commit crimes. Hence, it is crucial that parents and guardians pay attention to how they shape their children’s nature.
Sample 5:
For millennia, philosophers and scientists have held countless debates on personality. Some believe in the inherent crooked nature of humanity while others argue that they are the product of their environment. This essay wishes to explore both sides of the argument.
Nativists believe that personalities and manners are inherent and genetic, so crime is innate. Credible evidence of this would be the correlation between lead exposure and crime rate. In the 1940s, the USA was the prime consumer of lead-based products, such as paint and gasoline, so babies conceived, born, and raised during this period were lead-poisoned. They later suffered from poorer impulse control and higher aggressivity. As adults, they contributed to the surplus in levels of violent crime. However, it should be noted that genes do not cause behavior but influence it through their effects on the body's response to the environment.
Supporters of Environmentalism concede that criminal behaviors are determined by family and other people, education opportunities, as well as physical circumstances. This school of thought is supported by several studies. some of them focused on the negative link between vegetation and crime. It was shown that in neighborhoods with more greenery, fewer crimes were reported. One explanation for this was that the environment gave its residents a sense of safety and security.
It should be noted that the nature-nurture debate has not been taken as seriously as it used to be. Essentially, every facet of personality development results from interaction between genes and environment. If the authorities aim at reducing the rate of crime and violence, they should take action in improving residential areas as well as enhancing healthcare.
Sample 6:
Many people consider that innate characteristics are responsible for the fact that some people choose to turn to a career of crime. While I accept that crime may result from individual characteristics of violence or greed, I would argue that it is largely a consequence of social issues and poverty.
There is a belief that a person’s nature determines whether or not they become a criminal. Firstly, some argue that an individual who is cruel turns to crime more easily than a kind person. For instance, a child bullying other boys or girls at school may turn into a violent criminal in the future. Secondly, bad characteristics such as laziness or selfishness could also breed future offenders, who seek to acquire easy money without working for it. A number of youngsters choose to steal from others, instead of working hard to make an honest living. These are strong reasons for thinking that those who have an inborn bad nature are more likely to break the law.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that social issues and poverty are the main causes behind crime. There are many problems in society which might lead to an increase in the crime rate. For example, unemployment pushes people into resorting to crime because they simply cannot find a job. As a consequence, the number of offenders has climbed in many countries over recent decades. Another reason is that, more broadly, poverty in general leads to a rise in crime. If people do not have enough money to make ends meet, they will be tempted to pursue illegal activities just to support themselves and their families.
In conclusion, although both views certainly have some validity, it seems to me that the principal causes of crime are a result of social conditions and problems.
Sample 7:
The causes of crime have long been a topic of debate. While some argue that crime stems from a person's inherent nature, I do believe it is the result of social problems and poverty
On the one hand, advocates of the view that crime results from a person's nature suggest that individuals with cruel tendencies are more likely to engage in criminal activities. This is because cruelty often correlates with a lack of empathy, disregard for others' well-being, and aggressive behavior, all of which can lead to crime. For example, a child who bullies others at school may grow up to become a violent criminal. Additionally, bad characteristics such as laziness or selfishness can breed future offenders who seek easy money without working for it. Many young people, lured by the prospect of quick and easy money, turn to cybercrime, engaging in online scams, hacking, and identity theft.
On the other hand, some, myself included, argue that crime is primarily a result of social problems and poverty, a perspective I support. Social issues, such as unemployment, can push people towards crime as they struggle to find legitimate employment. The widening gap between the rich and the poor exacerbates this issue, as seen in places like Rio De Janeiro, where high crime rates are prevalent in impoverished areas. Poverty is another significant factor; individuals struggling to make ends meet may resort to illegal activities to support themselves and their families. This explains why people in dire need often turn to theft or other crimes for survival.
In conclusion, while inherent personal traits can contribute to criminal behavior, social problems and poverty play a more significant role in driving people towards crime. Addressing these underlying issues is crucial for reducing crime rates.
Sample 8:
Crime is a complex issue that elicits varied perspectives regarding its origins. While some argue that crime is primarily a consequence of social problems and poverty, others contend that it stems from an individual’s inherent nature. I contend that the interplay between societal factors and individual predispositions contributes significantly to criminal behavior.
I concur with the notion that crime often finds its roots in social problems and poverty, where the impact of socioeconomic conditions significantly steers an individual’s choices. For example, in underprivileged areas, the absence of adequate educational facilities, job prospects, and robust social support structures may force individuals into a corner, compelling them to turn to illicit means for survival. Moreover, when societal disparities are rife and systemic issues remain unaddressed, it can exacerbate the situation, causing individuals to resort to criminal activities as a perceived solution to their economic struggles or as a means to voice their grievances about prevalent social injustices.
However, I am also of the opinion that the origins of crime are not solely tethered to external factors; rather, an individual’s innate disposition can also play a crucial role. Some individuals might exhibit inherent psychological disorders that predispose them to engage in unlawful activities, regardless of their social background. Furthermore, the absence of strong moral values or ethical guidance in an individual’s upbringing can be a contributing factor, irrespective of their socioeconomic circumstances. Instances abound where individuals from affluent backgrounds have succumbed to criminal behavior due to the lack of a strong moral compass in their formative years, indicating that individual nature can play a pivotal role in shaping criminal inclinations.
In conclusion, I believe crime’s origin is not solely attributed to either social problems or an individual’s nature; rather, it is a complex interplay between societal factors and personal inclinations.
Sample 9:
There are divergent opinions regarding the root causes of criminal behavior. Some people argue that external factors such as poverty or other social issues are to blame for most crimes, while others contend that people who engage in criminal activity are intrinsically bad in nature. In this essay, I will discuss both perspectives and provide my own opinion.
On the one hand, those who believe that social problems are the primary cause of criminal behavior argue that people are driven to commit crimes due to their difficult and disadvantaged circumstances. For example, individuals facing extreme poverty or unemployment may resort to stealing or other illicit activities as a means of survival. Proponents of this view also point out that issues such as substance abuse or mental illness can exacerbate criminal tendencies, emphasizing the importance of addressing underlying social difficulties to reduce crime rates.
On the other hand, there is a counterargument that criminal behavior arises from individual traits such as impulsivity, selfishness, or a lack of empathy. This perspective suggests that some people have a natural tendency to engage in harmful behavior, regardless of environmental factors. In support of this view, critics of the social circumstance theory point out that there are people who grow up in difficult circumstances but do not resort to crime, indicating that innate character traits play a significant role.
In my view, it is likely that both factors play a role in criminal behavior. While social issues can be a significant driver of crime, it is also true that some individuals may be more inclined to engage in criminal activity due to inherent character flaws. Therefore, addressing both the root causes of social problems and providing intervention programs that focus on individual development could be effective in reducing crime rates.
In conclusion, there are varying opinions regarding the root causes of criminal behavior. While some argue that criminal activity is solely attributable to social problems, others believe that individual traits play a more significant role. In my opinion, it is essential to consider both perspectives and work towards comprehensive solutions to reduce the prevalence of crime in our society.
Sample 10:
Crime is a complex issue with multiple contributing factors. While some argue that most crimes result from circumstances like poverty and social problems, I believe they are caused by individuals who are inherently bad in nature.
On one hand, there are several factors that lead people to believe that most crimes stem from circumstances. Firstly, individuals who grow up in deprived environments often lack access to basic needs such as education, healthcare, and stable employment, leading them to potentially turn to crime as a means of survival or escape from their circumstances. For example, high crime rates in low-income neighborhoods can be attributed to individuals struggling to meet basic needs such as food, housing, and healthcare, and with limited access to education and job opportunities, they may resort to criminal activities like theft or drug dealing to make ends meet. Secondly, exposure to violence and crime from a young age can normalize these behaviors. For instance, children from households with domestic violence may become desensitized to violent behavior and replicate it in their own relationships.
On the other hand, I do believe that crime is caused by individuals who are inherently bad in nature. Firstly, those who commit crimes may have a predisposition to violence and deviant behavior, regardless of their upbringing or environment. Ted Bundy, for instance, despite his stable upbringing and education, committed numerous murders. His actions suggest an inherent predisposition to violence and deviance, highlighting the role of personal moral character in criminal behavior. Secondly, some research indicates that genetic and environmental factors can increase the likelihood of engaging in criminal activities. For instance, a longitudinal study conducted by the National Institute of Justice followed a group of individuals from childhood into adulthood and found that those with a family history of criminal behavior were more likely to engage in similar activities.
In conclusion, while circumstances like poverty and social problems contribute to crime, I believe that personal moral character and inherent predispositions play a more significant role in criminal behavior.
Sample 11:
Crime is a prevalent issue in modern society and understanding its root causes is important for its effective prevention and control. Some people argue that most crimes are the result of circumstances such as poverty or other social problems. Others believe that criminal behaviour stems from individuals who are bad in nature. In my opinion, most crimes are the consequence of socioeconomic circumstances.
Individuals who believe that crime is the result of inheriting bad nature think that even though people who live in affluent societies with minimal social problems, are subjected to face crimes. They believe that personal choices and moral failings are significant contributors to criminal behaviour. For example, studies have indicated that people who possess personality traits such as impulsivity and aggressiveness are more likely to engage in criminal activities.
On the other hand, proponents of the view that crime is a result of poverty and social issues argue that individuals coming from poor backgrounds are forced to commit crimes because of necessity. When a person’s basic needs such as food, shelter and security are unmet, they may resort to illegal activities as a means of survival. For instance, incidents like theft and burglary are more common in economically deprived societies where everyone is striving to make ends meet. Furthermore, social problems such as lack of education, unemployment and substance abuse exacerbate the situation. Without access to quality education, many individuals cannot secure well-paying jobs, leading them to seek alternative, often illegal, means of income.
In my opinion, poverty and social problems create an environment where crime can flourish. When individuals are deprived of opportunities and resources, the temptation to break the law becomes stronger. Additionally, the social environment, including peer influence and community norms, plays a crucial role in shaping behaviour.
In conclusion, addressing these root causes through social policies aimed at reducing poverty, improving education, and providing employment opportunities is essential for effective crime prevention. By creating a more equitable and supportive society, the incidence of crime can be significantly reduced.
Sample 12:
Throughout history, people tended to believe that crimes were committed by those who were innately bad, but in the modern era a more liberal approach has led to the idea that crimes are often acts of desperation, committed by people whose circumstances are bleak. This essay will explore both perspectives, concluding that the latter is usually true.
First of all, it should be noted that some crimes are committed by people who appear innately driven towards such acts. These people may have some sort of hereditary psychological condition that means they do not feel empathy for others, or a predilection towards violence. This is a controversial perspective and although it feels true for many, it is hard to prove. Many of the most violent criminals have traumatic backgrounds, such as child abuse, neglect, or sexual assault, which suggests that they were not born with their criminal compunctions, but rather that these developed very early, which thus places them more into the circumstances than nature category. However, the lines are blurry.
Certainly, it does seem as though most criminals are created out of difficult circumstances. To understand this, one just has to look at impoverished communities around the world. These are places where crime flourishes because the people there are desperate and forced to do immoral things in order to survive. In such states of despair, people tend to put themselves first and overlook social norms, laws, and the usual empathic perspective that would stop most people from hurting others. In such areas, people tend to be conditioned for a young age to ignore the law or even social decency, joining gangs and becoming influenced by dangerous people. This tends to be a problem due to a lack of resources, opportunities, and education in such areas.
In conclusion, it appears likely that most crime is the result of people’s unfortunate circumstances, meaning that criminals are not inherently bad. However, there may be some people who were born with a certain compunction towards violent or criminal activity.
Lời giải
Sample 1:
Television has become an integral part of our daily lives, and its influence on children cannot be underestimated. While some argue that children can learn effectively through television and should be encouraged to watch it both at home and school, I strongly disagree with this notion. In this essay, I will present arguments against the idea of promoting excessive television watching among children.
Firstly, television watching is a passive activity that lacks the interactivity and engagement required for optimal learning outcomes. While children may absorb information from television programmes, they often lack the opportunity to actively participate, ask questions, and engage in critical thinking. In contrast, traditional educational settings such as classrooms promote active learning, where students can interact with teachers and peers, ask questions, and engage in discussions. This active involvement enhances comprehension, critical thinking skills, and the ability to apply knowledge in real-world situations. This is why young children do not learn effectively from watching TV.
Furthermore, excessive television viewing can have detrimental effects on children's physical and mental well-being. Prolonged sedentary behaviour associated with watching television can contribute to a sedentary lifestyle, leading to various health issues such as obesity, cardiovascular problems, and poor posture. Moreover, excessive screen time can adversely affect children's cognitive development and attention span. Research has shown that excessive exposure to screens, including television, can lead to attention deficits and decreased academic performance. In contrast, encouraging children to engage in physical activities, interactive play, and reading promotes their overall well-being and cognitive development.
In conclusion, television is not a substitute for interactive and engaging learning experiences. Moreover, excessive television viewing can have negative effects on children's learning, physical health, and cognitive development. Therefore, it is important to encourage children to participate in interactive learning environments, such as classrooms, rather than watching TV.
Sample 2:
Television, as a learning tool, could be useful if children watch the right programmes for a limited duration of time each day. I do believe that TV can be a very powerful learning tool for children, and that is why they should be allowed to watch TV programmes both at home and school, but within the teacher's and parent's watch.
To begin with, though I am no longer a student, I can still learn better by watching TV rather than reading books. Whenever I tune on to the History Channel, BBC or National Geographic Channel, I can learn new things. This is also true for school-going children. My younger brother, who is a college student with a History major, heavily relies on History Channel documentaries to enhance his knowledge of history.
Moreover, TV programmes are the audio-visual presentation of an event, story or fact, and thus have lasting impressions on our brains. If the right programmes are chosen for children, they will learn faster by watching TV. For instance, one of our neighbours allows her 3 years old daughter to watch Rhymes on the internet TV channels, and she can recite most of those rhymes. According to her mother, the girl has learned more effectively by watching animated cartoons that have rhymes than by reading books. Since TV is a powerful learning tool, we can use it in school for educational purposes.
In conclusion, as parents and teachers, we must pick suitable educational programmes for our youngsters both in school and at home. I believe that TV is a good pedagogical tool, and hence its use in the school and home for both educational and recreational purposes should be allowed.
Sample 3:
Modern technology has undoubtedly made learning easier and better. Most children's parents encourage them to watch shows to gain information and acquire new knowledge. While I agree that watching television has some positive effects on a child, I believe this trend has a more detrimental effect on our children and society in general.
First and foremost, watching television can have some positive effects on children. There are, in fact, considerable advantages to incorporating television into homes and educational institutions. Many informative broadcasters, like National Geographic and Discovery, exist solely for educational reasons. Moreover, viewing television may increase the concentration and attention of some people. For instance, children with autism and behaviour problems have a concentration weakness; research has demonstrated that these children have enhanced their focus and concentration and are capable of watching television for prolonged periods. Therefore, it is obvious that somehow this trend has some beneficial consequences.
Similarly, I believe that watching television has several negative adverse effects. Spending time watching television can divert attention from healthy pastimes like outdoor activity with colleagues, leading to weight gain and feelings of loneliness. In addition, some programmes are created for entertainment, not teaching; these programmes have violent scenes and inappropriate terminology, which hurt children's brains. In addition, prolonged watching television may prevent reading a book and informative articles. Consequently, children would lack intellectual and problem-solving abilities. The negative impacts of television on the psychological and physical well-being of children can be determined.
In summation, I believe that television watching has more drawbacks than benefits. Under the supervision of both their parents and educators, children may spend more time watching purely for informative and educational reasons.
Sample 4:
Nowadays, television sets are now utilized as an educational tool. Many people believe that teenagers can absorb more efficiently while watching television. I fully agree with the concept that television might benefit youngsters in increasing their knowledge. This essay will look into the several reasons for this approval.
I feel that television is incredibly good for youngsters for two primary reasons. First, kids have access to a plethora of informative television channels, such as National Geographic and discovery, which are quite captivating to watch. This option might, in my opinion, considerably expand students’ understanding of Biology and Geography. Another consideration is that watching television helps reduce the school-related anxiety that teenagers are prone to. If, for instance, a youngster receives a poor grade in a specific subject, classmates would likely tease him or her. Consequently, I would suggest that televisions may be advantageous in some instances. It is evident that, by viewing the news on television, students receive a significant amount of information and learn about the world's various cultures and critical problems.
In contrast, I feel that we should not push youngsters to watch television constantly because it makes them less productive and inactive. Moreover, numerous studies have already demonstrated that televisions not only make individuals idle but also cause overweight. I believe that many schools offer physical education classes, even though television can make children less active.
In summation, although it is obvious that television makes an individual less active, I am convinced that teenagers learn more efficiently while watching television, for the reasons I have explained throughout.
Sample 5:
In this 21st century, digitalization has replaced all the old-schooled theories in educational institutes. Moreover, it is claimed that teenagers can effectively study while watching television at home and school. Although I agree that youngsters sometimes can learn from watching television, I do not consider it to be a good idea to encourage this activity.
Firstly, children's study is occasionally enhanced by television viewing. Numerous television programmes provide visual information and tales that enhance the process of learning interesting as well as the content easier to understand. It is a good way to encourage students to learn, particularly when they are tired of academics and assignments. Some applications, for instance, present appealing stories of literature, enhancing children's comprehension. These tools also make it simpler for youngsters to memorize poetry, as it is challenging and tiring for young children to remember poetry by continuously repeating them.
In contrast, I believe that prolonged watching of television may damage a child's academic performance. First, television programmes can serve as a distraction from their academics, especially when they are not attentive. Some programmes employ games to assist youngsters to learn more efficiently, yet youngsters may become more involved in the pleasure and so acquire little. Furthermore, continuous TV viewing alone could lead to an absence of human engagement. If children have queries while watching the television, their instructors cannot immediately address them, which would be most likely to lead to misunderstandings.
To conclude, even though viewing television encourages children to take an interest in learning, I believe that youngsters should not consume too much television because it has a negative consequence on their academics.
Sample 6:
With the development of technology, the media plays an important role in the field of education. Many people are of the opinion that when students are taught with the help of computers, mobile phones, and even television, they learn productively. As far as I am concerned, educating a child with the help of television at school and home is commendable, but there should be a limit to the exposure, otherwise, there may be a hindrance to their mental and physical development.
Childhood is a period when everyone enjoys the simple pleasures of life. Running with friends, pursuing adventures, enjoying ice cream and chocolates are some of the activities that make them happy. Nowadays, children are glued to their television or computer screens. There is no scope for physical activity, and they become obese or unhealthy. If the children continuously come in contact with television at home as well as at school, the rays from the screen may affect their eyesight.
Apart from this, when children watch television at home and school, they become addicted. For example, when a child is shown animated videos to understand certain topics, they get an excuse to watch videos on youtube. They tell their parents that the teacher had asked them to watch those videos to understand the topic better. In this way, the parents are bound to allow them and are unable to keep track of their activity. Moreover, some programs on television show excessive violence, which excites the children. They may try to copy their favourite superhero and get hurt in the process. The crime shows may even instigate them to behave in a rude or anti-social way which ultimately becomes detrimental to their development.
Yet, it is irrefutable that television is an effective tool to educate children and adults alike. While shows on National Geography, Animal Planet and Discovery tap on the scientific evolution of a child’s mind, cartoons or game shows help them relax after a long day of study and activities.
To put it in a nutshell, even though watching television both at home and school might help the children, the negative effects outweigh the positive side. So, according to me, elders should keep an eye on their wards and allow them limited time to watch television at home and school.
Sample 7:
As a professional in the field of education, I strongly disagree with the idea that children should be encouraged to watch television regularly at home and at school. While it is true that television can be a source of information and entertainment, it is not a suitable medium for effective learning for children.
First and foremost, excessive television viewing can have detrimental effects on a child’s physical and mental health. Studies have shown that children who spend too much time in front of a screen are at a higher risk of obesity, sleep disturbances, and attention problems. Moreover, the content of television programs is often not age-appropriate and can expose children to violence, inappropriate language, and negative behaviors.
Furthermore, watching television does not promote active learning or critical thinking skills. Unlike interactive educational activities, such as reading, writing, and hands-on experiments, television viewing is a passive experience that does not engage children in the learning process. It is important for children to develop their cognitive abilities and problem-solving skills through active participation in educational activities, rather than passively absorbing information from a screen.
Instead of encouraging children to watch television regularly, it is essential to provide them with alternative and more effective learning opportunities. Schools should focus on creating a stimulating and interactive learning environment, where children can engage in hands-on activities, discussions, and group projects. At home, parents should limit screen time and encourage their children to participate in outdoor activities, sports, and hobbies that promote physical and mental well-being.
In conclusion, while television can be a source of entertainment, it is not an effective medium for children to learn. Instead of promoting regular television viewing, it is crucial to provide children with active and engaging learning experiences that foster their overall development.
Sample 8:
Some parents believe that watching television is bad for their children. So, they try to restrict their children from watching TV. In a different way, others think that there is nothing bad in watching TV programmes. Personally, I think that watching TV brings tremendous benefits to children unless they spend a lot of their valuable time in front of a TV set daily. It is recommended that children should spend less than a couple of hours daily watching TV programmes, and those programmes should be suitable for them. For the following reasons, which I will mention below, I believe that television plays an essential role in a child’s development.
First of all, television helps a child to extend his or her range of interests. Children can find out many new things and make many exciting discoveries for themselves. In addition to this practical benefit, television improves children’s vocabulary, their memory and gives them the opportunity to gain more knowledge. It is essential for a child’s growth. Of cause, someone can say that there are plenty of different resources of information such as books and teachers. But, I think, in our modern world children must learn faster and use all contemporary technology in order to succeed.
Secondly, watching cognitive programs helps children to learn more about wildlife, our environment and about the importance of preserving our forest and wild animals that live there. However, scientists say that a child should not watch TV for more than 40 minutes successively and not more than 2-3 hours per day. For example, my mother always made us have a break after watching TV more than half an hour and let our eyes rest for several minutes before turning on the TV again. She did not let us watch the TV all day long as well. I think it is the best solution.
To sum up, I believe that television gives children and all people the opportunity to learn what cannot be learnt from books. Television and movies, in particular, allow people to feel the reality and see what they will most likely not be able to see in their lives. Personally, when I was a child, I liked to watch cognitive programs about wild animals. Unfortunately, my family had only one TV, but these programs were the only ones we all wanted to watch. So, we gathered in our living room and watched them in complete silence. I always remember those moments with a smile.
Sample 9:
It is irrefutable that TV is a very efficient teacher. However, I disagree that children should be motivated to watch TV both at home and at school. I shall put forth my arguments to support my views in the following paragraphs.
There is no doubt that TV can be a powerful means of delivering information and a nice part of the learning process. Being an audiovisual medium more effective result can be achieved. What is seen is retained longer in the minds of children. There are some things which can be very easily taught by visual illustrations. Even boring subjects like history can be made interesting with the help of TV.
However, if TV is to be used as an educational tool, then very strict monitoring would be needed as to what children watch on TV. All those talk shows and soap operas we can see every day are a complete waste of time and can even have negative effects by distracting children from their studies. Moreover, most so-called educational programmes like National Geographic cannot replace books and academic lectures because they tend to entertain people and have not an aim to give deep and concentrated knowledge. It is highly unlikely that TV channel directors would abandon their profits and change talk shows to lectures and video lessons.
Furthermore, if children watch TV in school also then their interaction with the teacher would be limited. Teachers teach a lot of things apart from academics. They can come down to the level of the student and can also stimulate children to learn. What is more, children would read less when they learn everything from TV. Reading is an active activity as compared to TV which is a passive activity. So, it would be detrimental to the holistic development of children.
To put it in a nutshell I pen down saying that, although TV is a very good educational medium, it should be used within limits and whatever children learn from TV should also be carefully monitored by parents and teachers.
Sample 10:
Nowadays, many educational institutes are focusing on the usage of screens for learning in kids. Some people are of the view that learning through screen should be encouraged for young kids. My opinion, I completely disagree with acquiring knowledge through television screens. In this essay, I am going to support my opinion before giving a reasoned conclusion.
On the one hand, screening for long hours for educational purposes is likely to put strain on the eyes of youngsters. This is because television screens are likely to release rays that may impact vision in young kids. As a result of this, the younger kids will need to wear glasses at every age. Additionally, vision impairment due to screening is not restricted to weak eyesight but also to severe headaches for days or even blurry vision. For instance, nowadays, ophthalmologists believe that long hours of screening are the main cause of vision impairment in kids. Also, they emphasize the limitation of screen time for kids at a young age.
Secondly, viewing learning programs on tv continuously is likely to impact young kids' physical and mental well-being. As when kids do screen time, they are unlikely to do any form of physical movement. Hence, sitting constantly and just watching videos online will make youngsters lethargic and tired. Moreover, learning through screens, even at home, will result in obesity, leading to other personality development issues in young ones. Along with that, learning without a screen tends to enhance analytical and cognitive capabilities in kids. For instance, when learning through screens, kids only make use of a few of their senses, while off-screen learning involves the usage of many other senses. Undoubtedly, off-screen learning involves eyes, ears, hands, and touch, which also helps develop the brain in young kids.
In conclusion, learning through tv screen can impact the eyes in young kids and may lead to vision impairment. Also, constant viewing of tv screens is not good for the physical and mental well-being of young ones.
Sample 11:
It is acknowledged that children may benefit from watching television programs, such as educational programs. However, I disagree with the recommendation that watching television should be a regular activity at school and st home, as this would produce more negative outcomes than positive ones.
It has received wide cognition that many television programs can moticate children’s learning enthusiasm, thus encouraging them to expand their knowledge in terms of normal school subjects and after-school activities. However, there are still many problems associated with the increased time of sitting in front of a TV screen.
If children spend time watching television every day at school and at home, they may face the probability of suffering obesity, eye problems and back problems. When they are studying at school, it would be advisable for them to focus on learning, acquiring knowledge on academic subjects. Besides, more active and aggressive activities should be encouraged as they are in a physical state when they should participate in more sports activities. But watching television seems to do more harm than good in their physical development.
Furthermore, it is true that children waste a lot of time playing electronic gadgets after school, resulting in the fact that many of them have become highly addicted to these gadgets. If they are asked to watch television regularly, they would certainly lack interpersonal interaction. It would be more beneficial if they play games with their parents or do the housework.
In conclusion, although television programs would do good to children’s learning in some ways, they definitely would cause more disadvantageous effects if watching them becomes a daily routine for children.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nhắn tin Zalo