Câu hỏi:
06/01/2025 74Some people believe that if a police officer carries guns, it can encourage a higher level of violence. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Câu hỏi trong đề: 2000 câu trắc nghiệm tổng hợp Tiếng Anh 2025 có đáp án !!
Quảng cáo
Trả lời:
Sample 1:
Many people believe that a police force armed with guns encourages the level of violence in society. Other people maintain that an armed police force deters the level of violence. I think it really depends on how the guns are used by the police.
The obvious argument for having armed police centers around the idea that the show of guns by police is in itself a deterrent to violence. Citizens who may be contemplating an act of violence will be reminded that their own safety and welfare may be jeopardized if they are caught committing a violent crime by police. Thus, having an armed police force can in fact discourage the committing of crimes and violence within a society.
On the other hand, armed police officers’ use of guns may escalate violence instead of deterring it. If a police officer shoots at a suspected criminal, that violence may breed more violence, as the criminal might shoot back and then the police officers, the criminals, and even innocent bystanders could be injured or killed with the gunfire.
To sum up, most citizens expect the police to protect them by any means necessary, including guns. If citizens are not confident that the police are protecting them, those citizens might then decide to obtain guns to protect themselves against other citizens and the police. So, in those instances guns will lead to more guns and violence will breed more violence. However, if police officers are properly trained as to how and when to use guns, the guns they carry should provide a deterrent to the level of violence in a society.
Sample 2:
In some countries, the police force carries guns to fight against lawbreakers and protect the innocent. However, some people hold the view that it would give rise to a higher level of violence. As far as I am concerned, only when guns are used properly under certain supervision, can they serve to protect citizens.
Undoubtedly, guns are one of the most powerful weapons that the police can use to maintain social security and stability as it is the best deterrent to potential lawbreakers and scare off the would-be criminals. If the police force carries guns in public, there is a possibility that the potential criminals may give up their plans, thus reducing the crime rate. In addition, the police can use guns to protect themselves as police officers are one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. They need to protect themselves when they face criminals who are using weapons.
However, the application of guns can pose potential risks. First of all, it may lead to the abuse of weapons, especially in some western countries where ordinary people have the right to buy guns. Secondly, there is a possibility that the police may hurt innocent citizens accidentally when they pick the wrong targets, which also leads to social chaos. Thirdly, if every police officer caries a gun and walks in the street, people will lack the sense of security, and the society will have a horrifying atmosphere.
To conclude, the police can hold guns, but they should be very careful to avoid the abuse of guns. At the same time, the police must be trained strictly before being allowed to carry Weapons.
Sample 3:
Police officers carry guns and that is part of their job. They are entrusted with the job of enforcing law and order in society. When criminals carry guns, can we expect our police force to carry out their duty without the help of guns? Police officers do inspire the society. Children, especially, have a fascination for the police uniform and the gun. Does this cause an increase in violence in society? Well, that is debatable.
Because police officers carry guns and use them as and when necessary, it might give the impression that carrying gun is fashionable. It might also give the impression that guns are necessary for the maintenance of peace. In that case, it can be said that gun-toting police officers inspire violence.
Now let’s take a look at the other side of the argument. The duty of a police officer is to enforce law and order in the society. During the execution of their job, they face a lot of challenges. They have to deal with people of different kinds. How can we expect an unarmed police officer to effectively deal with a situation that might itself be violent? The gun, though it may be a sign of violence, is a necessity in situations like these. It also provides some security for the lives of our police force. When criminals are armed, police officers too need to be armed. That is essential for the effective execution of their job.
Looking at both sides of the argument, it is safe to assume that the gun is a necessary evil which the police force can’t do away with. What we need to do to reduce the incidences of violence is to create awareness about their ill-effects.
Sample 4:
I disagree with the statement that armed police force would promote a greater degree of violence. A number of arguments surround my opinion.
My first argument to support my viewpoint is that guns would, to a large extent, deter the potential criminals’ Police officers are those who are responsible for taking care of all the citizens, safety and wearing guns could largely make sure of this. For example, if someone has the intention to commit a crime, he would think twice about doing so if there is police carrying guns on patrol. Therefore, the level of violence would decrease rather than go up.
Secondly, criminals usually have guns and so, police officers need them in order to control crime. Instead of taking guns away from the police, it is more important to make laws against the general public having guns. Countries with weak or ineffective gun laws, or countries bordering such countries, like Mexico which has strong 8un laws, but virtually no way to prevent them from being smuggled over the border from the U.S., need a police force that is not only armed, but is armed better than the criminals.
Opponents claim that police in the U.K. are able to go without guns and also have crime in control. They have a point, but I believe that crime in the UK is under control because they are able to control the flow of guns to the general populace. Therefore, I reiterate my point that the police force should carry guns.
To sum up, because criminals can easily come into possession of guns, therefore the police force needs to be armed. Armed police in itself could never be a cause of increased violence. Nations around the world should hope to someday reach the point where their police force can afford not to carry guns and still be effective.
Sample 5:
On account of a series of commotions happening recently in a wide range of countries, a significant number of people consider that police officers carrying guns on patrol would promote the grade of violence. However, I am opposed to this perspective.
Police officers carrying guns and walking around are less likely to encourage the level of violent crimes. Police officers are responsible for deterring the latent criminals and taking care of all the citizens’ safety, which could be largely guaranteed by gun-carrying action. For example, some people may intend to commit a crime (=break laws/do something illegal), but there is a higher possibility for them to quit taking action if they are aware of the serious consequence of meeting a gun-carrying police. In this regard, the level of violent crimes tends to descend, and thus the standpoint that police officers carrying guns will encourage the level of violence will not hold water.
Conversely, some people insist that police officers taking guns on duty would inevitably raise the level of violent crimes. Robbery is a major case in point. If someone intends to rob a bank for money and they are entirely aware of the situation that police officers are equipped with guns, they are likely to make sufficient preparation for having a gun battle. If they were to be fired, there would be significant losses in terms of innocent people’s properties or lives, and this will probably jeopardize the stability of society. However, if police officers are constantly on alert for any possible emergency and potential threat, there would be slim chances of committing a crime.
In conclusion, I have the inclination to maintain that police officers carrying guns would substantially decrease the level of violence rather than increase it.
Sample 6:
It is often believed by a few sections of society that the violence rate will rise if police authorities carry a weapon. However, some people, including myself, completely disagree with this view. I feel that to reduce the crime rate and protect themselves; Policemen should carry guns or other safety weapons.
The primary reason behind carrying a gun is to deter criminal acts. Thieves or criminals would think twice or be scared before commencing any crime if they know that police officer around them are armed. As a result, violence and crime will significantly reduce in society. For example, a robber might stop his criminal thought if he is afraid of police officials carrying guns could shoot him from a long distance. Contrary to this, failure to carry a weapon might give offenders a strong advantage in terms of their ability to commit violence without any corresponding risk. Another reason is that police officers can protect themselves and people from dangerous situations.
Certainly, many criminals keep various harmful and life-threatening weapons, which they can use against not only police persons but also citizens. Therefore, if there were no safety precautions for police officials, there, as well as people’s lives, could have come at risk. For instance, in many terror attacks globally, the terrorist killed innocent citizens and police officers. Hence, in such circumstances, to save innocent lives, carrying a gun is a necessary precaution for police officials.
In conclusion, although some people oppose carrying weapons by police officers in fear of violence, I completely disagree. In my view, to control and reduce the crime rate as well as to save people and own lives, police officials should carry a gun.
Sample 7:
Whether a police officer should carry a pistol or not is a debatable issue. A few people ponder that if a policeman carries a gun it can lead to more violence. I strongly disagree with this notion and will explicate my standpoint in subsequent paragraphs.
To inaugurate with, the fundamental reason why an officer should carry a weapon is because they are professionally trained to use a gun, so it will not lead to violence. To elaborate, an officer shall only draw a pistol in adverse circumstances where the lives of civilians are in danger. For instance, a recent news published by The Indian Express depicts that a policeman was able to protect the employees in a bank robbery because he immediately used his revolver to shoot and distract the robbers on site. Therefore, a self-defence weapon is required to be carried by police personnel for people's safety.
Another point to consider is that guns can be useful to maintaining discipline in society. In other words, some criminals are highly proficient in fighting skills, hence they can overpower the police officer so in these situations, a gun can be useful to instill fear in criminals. To illustrate, BBC news reported an incident where a group of fighters got into a quarrel and started hitting each other, a police officer was able to tackle this situation by pulling out a gun and arresting them all. Thus, a pistol can be a useful asset for an officer to handle situations wisely without violence.
In conclusion, from the above arguments, I would like to conclude that a police officer should carry a gun in order to maintain social decorum, as well as to protect the lives of citizens at risk during life-threatening circumstances such as robberies and shootings by offenders.
Sample 8:
It is generally believed that armed police could maintain social security by fighting against lawbreakers and protecting the innocent, though arming officers is not the norm in many countries. Some people hold the view that police routinely carrying firearms might give rise to a higher level of violence. Personally, I am in line with this view.
It is true that the police officers carrying guns could discourage the committing of crimes and violence within a society. The main reason is that weapons always serve as a deterrent to potential criminals. Those who intend to commit severe crimes, such as robbing a bank or a jewellery store, would think twice if they know the terrible consequence of being shot by gun-carrying police. Besides, gun-toting police officers can be more proactive in controlling the situation and force a criminal to surrender. In this case, gun ownership allows the police to avoid physical violence and make the arrest easier, reducing the crime rate to a low level.
However, the widespread use of guns among the police would exacerbate violence instead of deterring it. Firstly, always carrying guns reinforces a perspective where the policemen may bully or injure the ordinary. For example, a police officer could have run after suspicious and unarmed criminals but unintentionally giving a fatal shooting. This misconduct not only primes aggressive and resentful thoughts amongst civilians but also leads to social rioting events. Another point is the police shootings may contribute significantly to cycles of violence. This means carrying guns to tackle violent crime risks would erode trust between the police and the public. As a result, people feel less safe and equip themselves with deadly weapons for self-defense, which results in a higher grade of violent crimes.
In conclusion, although police forces have the right to be entitled to firearms to protect citizens, I believe that police should not carry guns due to the rising level of violence and unwanted consequences.
Hot: 500+ Đề thi thử tốt nghiệp THPT các môn, ĐGNL các trường ĐH... file word có đáp án (2025). Tải ngay
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.
Bộ câu hỏi: [TEST] Từ loại (Buổi 1) (Có đáp án)
Bài tập chức năng giao tiếp (Có đáp án)
Bộ câu hỏi: Các dạng thức của động từ (to v - v-ing) (Có đáp án)
15000 bài tập tách từ đề thi thử môn Tiếng Anh có đáp án (Phần 1)
500 bài Đọc điền ôn thi Tiếng anh lớp 12 có đáp án (Đề 1)
Bộ câu hỏi: Thì và sự phối thì (Phần 2) (Có đáp án)
Trắc nghiệm Tiếng anh 12 Tìm từ được gạch chân phát âm khác - Mức độ nhận biết có đáp án
Bộ câu hỏi: Cấp so sánh (có đáp án)
Hãy Đăng nhập hoặc Tạo tài khoản để gửi bình luận