Câu hỏi:

07/01/2025 345

Some people think that it is best to live in a horizontal city while others think of a vertical city. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Xem lời giải

Câu hỏi trong đề: 2000 câu trắc nghiệm tổng hợp Tiếng Anh 2025 có đáp án !!

Bắt đầu thi

Quảng cáo

Trả lời:

Giải bởi Vietjack

Sample 1:

Some people believe that living in a horizontal city is the best, while the opponents of this idea prefer to settle in a vertical city. While there are benefits to residents who dwell in a city that consists of low-rise construction, I would argue that cities with skyscrapers and high-rise buildings offer more advantages.

On the one hand, it is beneficial for residents to live in a horizontal city based on a few financial and security reasons. Firstly, people have to pay less for building services. If residents settle in a private house, they may save a great deal of money since they won’t have to pay for building services. Secondly, living lower to the ground is safer for inhabitants when emergencies occur. For example, if a fire starts in the home, they can quickly escape from the dangerous areas because the building is not too high off the ground, and it won’t take much time to leave.

On the other hand, it seems to me that living in a vertical city is the best choice. A city with skyscrapers will have more space for public usage because there will be less land used for residential areas due to the number of people who can live in high buildings. As a result, the government would be able to use this land to build hospitals, schools or places for entertainment. Furthermore, it is much more convenient for residents to live in an apartment in a tall building that offers a wide range of goods and services, thanks to shopping malls and service centres on lower floors.

In conclusion, while living in a horizontal city does have some benefits, it seems to me that the advantages of living in a city with skyscrapers makes living in a vertical city the better choice.

Sample 2:

The debate between horizontal and vertical cities is an ongoing one, with compelling arguments from proponents of both schools of design. In this, I am inclined to side with living in horizontal cities, although the other choice merits some discussion as well.

On the one hand, vertical cities have their own advantages, chief of which being their efficiency in terms of land use. As locations that feature dense population and a prevalence of high-rise apartments, vertical cities accommodate more people in a smaller area, which can reduce the amount of land required for housing. China is at the forefront of this design scheme, as many of their major cities are highly vertical, allowing tens of millions of people to reside in an area typically suited for a fraction of that number in other countries. This urban planning, however, may cause distress in claustrophobic people and heighten a sense of crampedness in otherwise normal residents. It could go on to become a catalyst for aggravating the mental health crisis among urban dwellers.

On the other hand, horizontal cities seem just as beneficial, if not more, despite some concerns. While land would be a necessity, the population stands to directly benefit from having more living space. A municipality that is spread out over a large area would have more room for parks and other communal spaces, which can improve air quality and provide a pleasant environment for people to socialize. Additionally, while a vertical city’s design restricts its function to providing dwelling, a horizontal city might not be as limited. Thanks to lower population densities and more space, this town type has more potential to become tourist destinations. A horizontal urban development model is, therefore, clearly superior for living to its vertical counterpart.

In conclusion, while both horizontal and vertical cities have their own advantages and disadvantages, I am inclined to believe the former design is the sounder one. Overall, a horizontal city may be the option that suits the most needs.

Sample 3:

Some individuals argue that residing in a sprawling, low-rise city is ideal, while others advocate for settling in cities characterized by high-rise buildings. Although there are advantages to living in a city with predominantly low-rise structures, I argue that cities with skyscrapers and tall buildings provide even greater benefits.

On one hand, living in a sprawling city offers certain financial and safety advantages for residents. Firstly, people can save on building service costs by living in a single-family home, as they won't need to pay for shared services. Secondly, low-rise living can be safer in emergency situations. For instance, in the event of a fire, residents can more easily evacuate their homes since they are closer to the ground, and it takes less time to exit the building.

On the other hand, I believe that choosing to live in a high-rise city is the superior option. Cities with skyscrapers allow for more efficient use of land, as less space is needed for residential areas due to the vertical arrangement of housing. Consequently, governments can allocate this land to construct hospitals, schools, or entertainment venues. Moreover, living in an apartment within a tall building often provides residents with convenient access to an array of goods and services, as shopping malls and service centers are frequently located on the lower floors.

In conclusion, while there are certain benefits to living in a low-rise city, the advantages associated with residing in a city defined by skyscrapers make high-rise urban living the more appealing choice in my opinion.

Sample 4:

When it comes to urban planning, there has been much debate over which is the superior way to design a city. It is often argued that the most ideal scenario would be for cities to expand upwards, while others are fascinated by the idea of horizontal ones. This essay will examine both design approaches and then justify why I favor the former concept.

To begin with, advocates of low-rise housing often ground their arguments in the merit of security. Living in detached houses is generally safer than high- rise apartment complexes due to the basic nature of each structure. For instance, fighting fires in sky-high constructions would be a much more challenging task considering not all buildings offer an effective evacuation plan and sufficient fire escape routes, jeopardizing the lives of thousands of occupants. Moreover, some mega-structures are more vulnerable to natural incidents and might not be able to withstand extreme earthquakes or hurricanes. Collapses resulting from these towers would be much more tragic compared to lower ones and can cause irreversible damage to the regions.

However, in the context of overpopulation and housing shortage, I believe that growing cities upwards would be a more feasible approach for future urban planning. Skyscrapers make much more efficient use of space, as they can accommodate significantly more inhabitants than low-rise buildings can afford within the same area of land. Vertical cities can also help to protect the environment. Many forests would be saved from being transformed into recreational parks and shopping malls as vertical buildings could provide such built-in amenities. Furthermore, this would greatly reduce the need to travel outside the buildings for local residents, benefiting the surrounding environments.

In conclusion, although there are considerable advantages regarding the safety aspects of horizontal cities, I would argue that building cities vertically could help cope with some of humankind's most pressing challenges, which are overcrowding and resource depletion.

Sample 5:

When it comes to urban planning, there has been a prolonged debate over the superior approach to city design. Some argue that cities should expand horizontally, while others are captivated by the idea of vertical cities. This essay will critically examine both design philosophies and present reasons for my inclination towards the latter concept.

Advocates of low-rise housing often underscore the security benefits of living in detached houses. They argue that such dwellings provide a sense of safety and privacy that high-rise apartment complexes may lack. In the unfortunate event of a fire, the evacuation process in towering structures becomes considerably more challenging, jeopardizing the lives of thousands of occupants. Additionally, some mega-structures may prove to be more vulnerable to natural disasters, lacking the resilience to withstand extreme earthquakes or hurricanes. The potential collapse of these tall buildings could lead to devastating consequences, causing irreversible damage to the surrounding areas.

However, in the context of overpopulation and housing shortages, I firmly believe that adopting a vertical approach to city planning is a more viable solution for the future. Skyscrapers offer a highly efficient use of limited urban space, accommodating a significantly larger population within the same land area that low-rise buildings would require. By embracing verticality, cities can mitigate the detrimental effects of urban sprawl and preserve valuable green spaces and forests that would otherwise be lost to horizontal expansion. In fact, vertical cities can incorporate built-in amenities, reducing the need for sprawling recreational parks and shopping malls, which often contribute to the depletion of natural resources and encroachment upon wildlife habitats. Moreover, these towering structures foster a sense of community, where residents can find everything they need within the same building or complex, thus reducing the need for extensive travel and promoting a sustainable lifestyle.

In conclusion, while horizontal cities may offer certain advantages in terms of safety and aesthetics, the urgency of addressing issues like overcrowding and resource depletion necessitates a paradigm shift towards vertical urban planning. The efficiency and sustainability offered by vertical cities make them a compelling choice in our ever-expanding urban landscape. By embracing this approach, we can forge a path towards a more sustainable and harmonious coexistence of human civilization and the natural world.

Sample 6:

It is true that the question of whether to live in a vertical city or a horizontal city remains a source of controversy in people's lives. While a number of people believe that there are benefits to residents who settle in a horizontal city, I would argue that cities with skyscrapers and high-rise buildings offer more advantages.

On the one hand, it seems to me that living in a vertical city is the best choice. Firstly, living in an apartment in a high-rise building would be a better alternative for people, especially those with low or middle income. In Vietnam, for instance, buying a two-story house would cost around 5 billion dong while buying an apartment for just around 1.5 billion dong. Secondly, people would enjoy more facilities such as supermarkets, banks, fitness clubs and many other convenient amenities when living in high buildings. Therefore, it is much more convenient for residents to live in an apartment in a tall building that offers a wide range of goods and services.

On the other hand, it is beneficial for residents to live in a horizontal city based on a few private space and security reasons. For example, citizens who live in a private house could have larger garages and gardens. As a result, they would be able to devote more time to hobbies such as gardening or car washing, which may be beneficial to their mental health. Another reason is that it is safer to live in a low-rise building in emergency situations such as a fire or an earthquake. For example, if a fire starts in the home, inhabitants can quickly escape from dangerous areas because the building is not too high off the ground, and it won’t take much time to leave.

In conclusion, although both views certainly have some validity, it seems to me that living in a city with skyscrapers makes living in a vertical city the better choice.

Sample 7:

There are various models of urban planning devised to cope with the growing human population. Expanding cities thus have a choice: to grow upwards or to grow outwards. These both have their merits and choosing which is best is a difficult task. It depends upon whether you value efficiency or comfort.

When cities grow upwards, using large apartment buildings and skyscrapers to house their vast populations, they tend to make more efficient use of space. One tall building could perhaps house a few thousand people, whereas a smaller building of the same ground dimensions would only house a few dozen, at most. This is undeniably more efficient than spreading a city out over a vast area. Moreover, as technology improves, the height of buildings can continue to grow, housing more and more people. Through this sort of design, cities can stay within their geographical confines, but still allow for a growing population.

On the other hand, some cities grow outwards. The people planning these urban areas tend to think of tall buildings as unsightly and crude and prefer a more aesthetically pleasing design. People have more space to themselves, and the city less crowded. However, this sort of city grows further outwards, consuming more of the surrounding countryside, which would otherwise have been preserved with more tall buildings to house the people.

In conclusion, there is no correct way to design a city, but both “vertical” and “horizontal” urban planning have their benefits. Determining which approach is superior is simply a matter of perspective.

Sample 8:

The debate over whether it is better to live and work in a vertical city with numerous tall buildings or a horizontal city with fewer tall structures is multifaceted, with each approach offering distinct advantages and challenges.

Proponents of vertical cities argue that these environments maximize space efficiency, which is crucial in densely populated urban areas. Tall buildings can house more people and businesses on a smaller footprint, reducing urban sprawl and preserving green spaces. Additionally, vertical cities often feature well-developed public transportation systems and amenities within walking distance, fostering a convenient, car-free lifestyle. The concentration of resources and services in high-rise buildings can also lead to vibrant, dynamic communities with a rich array of cultural and social activities.

On the other hand, advocates for horizontal cities emphasize the benefits of a more expansive, spread-out urban layout. These cities typically offer more personal space, which can lead to a higher quality of life. Residential areas in horizontal cities often feature lower population density, resulting in less noise, pollution, and congestion. This setup can promote a sense of community and well-being, as residents have access to more green spaces and recreational areas. Moreover, horizontal cities are generally perceived as safer in terms of fire hazards and evacuation during emergencies, as high-rise buildings can pose significant challenges in such situations.

In conclusion, both vertical and horizontal cities present unique benefits. Vertical cities excel in space efficiency and convenience, while horizontal cities offer a more spacious, serene living environment. Personally, I believe the choice depends on individual preferences and lifestyle needs. For those seeking a bustling, convenient urban experience, a vertical city might be ideal. Conversely, individuals valuing tranquility and open space may find a horizontal city more appealing.

Sample 9:

There is a growing debate about the preferable way of living in a city – be it horizontally with sprawling houses and vast spaces, or vertically with towering buildings. Both urban design strategies have their unique advantages, but I personally favor the vertical approach due to the increasing scarcity of land in many cities worldwide.

Living in a horizontal city can be desirable for several reasons. Firstly, such cities generally provide more open spaces, allowing residents to enjoy nature and outdoor activities. This can lead to improved physical health and mental well-being. Secondly, horizontal cities tend to have less air and noise pollution because of fewer high-rise buildings and industries. Moreover, they often foster a sense of community as people live in closer proximity to their neighbors.

On the other hand, vertical cities also offer their own benefits. High-rise buildings can accommodate a larger number of people within a smaller geographic footprint, making them an efficient solution to rapid urbanization and population growth. Additionally, vertical cities can provide residents with convenient access to amenities and services, which are usually located within the same building or nearby.

In my opinion, while horizontal cities provide a tranquil and community-oriented living environment, the need for sustainable urban planning in light of increasing population pressure makes the vertical approach more practical. It facilitates high-density living without sacrificing accessibility to urban amenities.

In conclusion, both horizontal and vertical cities have their distinct merits. However, considering the current global context of limited land resources and rapid urbanization, I believe that vertical cities are the more sustainable option.

Sample 10:

The population of the planet is increasing at an alarming rate with the population increasing the demand for houses to live in and many other facilities. The demand for space is increasing, along with the need for personal space and urbanization. In the present era, most of the developing countries are facing the issue of space. Urbanization is a very old and important growth phenomenon. The process of urbanization takes place and divides the development of cities into vertical and horizontal cities. A horizontal city is a city in which the city spreads outwards across the ground while increasing the surface area of the city itself. While vertical cities are cities in which development is skyward, the area remains the same, and shelter is provided to many.

It is very difficult to decide between a horizontal city and a vertical city, which one is better? Benefits and disadvantages they both have their own. In my opinion, I like horizontal cities. Horizontal cities are cities with fewer tall buildings. Living and working in horizontal cities is a pleasure. Horizontal cities are basically found under rich and liberal government housing societies. These cities have cottages or houses with wide lanes, private gardens. And are available with more individual space while vertical cities are provided with fewer individual spaces. These cities are also responsible for the expansion of the area of a particular city. Each developed new area is self-sustainable and self-sufficient and completely loaded with basic amenities. This development of new areas reduces the pressure in the central part of a city. Living and working in a horizontal city is a pleasure. Real estate prices of these cities are very high while in vertical cities property prices are under control. But I still prefer horizontal cities to self-sustainability and living close to nature. In a horizontal city, living is safe like in case of fire or earthquake the escape is very easy and quick for people. The horizontal city is very civilized and modern with a lot of convenient services and high-quality living standards. With all these interesting benefits I am ready to pay more money to live in the horizontal city.

Sample 11:

When we are discussing horizontal city and vertical cities, I feel that vertical city is a need of an hour. As we all know, vertical cities are made up of multiple tall buildings which provide space for living to many individuals in the same area. In the current time, all the developing countries are facing problems. Like land scarcity, growing population, lesser space, and willingness to live close to the main city. The growth of vertical cities is the result of the lack of land and the growth of population. These two demands forced people to move skyward.

The population growth is straining the earth’s resources to the breaking point. Hence in my opinion vertical cities can fulfil the demand for more space and more natural resources can be saved in this process. As with increasing urbanization, it is very difficult to provide individual space for each person. So to fulfil the demand for personal space, the vertical city can be an answer. The vertical city is designed in such a way so that there is ample space for parking, malls, hospitals, parks. And all the basic social amenities required by an individual of this modern current era. In the current era, people need houses with all the supporting infrastructures which is easily possible with the layout of vertical cities. In vertical cities work is easily available, property prices are not that high unlike horizontal cities and easily affordable by individuals. Vertical cities are also not a threat to the environment as no regular cleaning of forests is required for the expansion of the city. The main concerns about residing in high rises are elevator breakdown and safety escape during the time of calamity. Reduced interactions with neighbors, and water supply. After all these concerns, I still favor the vertical city, as the construction quality of high rises is generally very high. And so natural calamities like wind pressure can be taken care of. Most high rises nowadays are built with safe fire escape routes and earthquake resistant so living in the high rises is made safe and sound.

Sample 12:

The world is facing multiple crises in the 21st century like the clean water crisis, global warming, increasing population etc. In this situation, living space for people is becoming an unintentional requirement and the reason to think where the world is going. As urbanization increases, it is very difficult to accommodate individuals with individual space. Previously we had individual houses and streets with separate garages and parking spaces. However, the number of people is increasing but the space that we have is still the same, which is making cities crowded. The concept of having separate houses where the cityscape increases horizontally is no longer a trend and horizontal cities have given space to vertical cities. In a vertical city, the city increases upwards, towards the sky. It is designed in such a way that very minimal space is utilized, and all the amenities are included that a person might need to survive. In place of separate houses, there are apartments one above the other. The floor increases towards the sky. People staying near the ground in such skyscrapers do not face many issues. The people staying above might face elevator breakdowns, power cuts, and water issues. However, it is safe to stay in these buildings as they are built after all the clearance like fire escape and safe from natural calamities. I do prefer a vertical city as this will help the environment to prevail and lesser horizontal space will be used. This will be useful to save our planet from different crisis situations.

Sample 13:

With industrialization came urbanisation, meaning the formation and development of metropolitan cities. These mega cities tended to grow at rapid paces, sometimes vertically and sometimes horizontally. Depending on the authorities and the level of development at the time, there developed vast differences between the two.

The first type of city, the horizontal city, was usually found under rich and liberal governments housing individual cottages with wide lanes and private gardens. Today these cities, also referred to as garden cities, are spread out on a vast area of land usually in sparsely populated expanses. Living and working in such a city would definitely be a pleasure, although the real estate prices in such locations tend to be unusually high. The drawbacks would mainly be regarding the area of natural habitation which constantly needs to be cleared in order to maintain the pace of development.

The other type of city, which is the vertical city, is more commonplace nowadays. The origin of most of these cities was due to the unfettered growth of population and lack of land for further development, which forced people to move skyward. Here, work is easily available, and property prices tend to be much more affordable as compared to the horizontal cities. Although the main problems with these cities include sound nuisance, garbage management, water shortages and a host of other problems, land is not an issue. These urban spaces not only offer modern and sustainable living but also provide room for corporate development.

To give my opinion as a summary, I would state that looking at today’s advancements and weighing the pros and cons of both lifestyle choices, horizontal cities sound very appealing but are not likely to last for very long. In contrast, vertical cities are by far more economical and sustainable. I believe that vertical cities are the way forward.

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:

Xem thêm »

CÂU HỎI HOT CÙNG CHỦ ĐỀ

Câu 1

Some people believe that crime is a result of social problems and poverty, others think that crime is a result of a bad person's nature. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Xem đáp án

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.

Câu 2

Children can learn effectively by watching television. Therefore, they should be encouraged to watch television both at home and at school. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Xem đáp án

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.

Câu 3