Câu hỏi:

07/01/2025 187 Lưu

Some people think that there should be some strict controls about noise. Others think that they could just make as much noise as they want. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Quảng cáo

Trả lời:

verified
Giải bởi Vietjack

Sample 1:

Noise is such a problematic issue that it has raised big concerns recently. That is why some people argue that there should be strict control on the level of noise production, while others object to this idea, claiming that people have the right to make noise as loudly as they want. I believe that noise should be controlled for the betterment of human life quality.

On the one hand, it is understandable why there are supporters of loud noise. First, noise is indispensable to modern life. In the old-time, people did not have access to modern loud-producing equipment such as TV or music speakers and individual transports were not as popular. However, today people are so accustomed to noises such as blaring car horns or engine noise that they feel no strong objection to them and claim that noise control is unnecessary. Second, loud noise is integral in many critical occasions such as ceremonies or celebrations such as weddings or festivals.   Loud music is exciting, upbeat and can be pleasing to the ear that relieves people’s stress of work and study, refresh their mind and revitalize them. Undoubtedly, in this case, noise is an indispensable element.

Nevertheless, people’s health and life qualities can be reduced greatly under loud noise’s impacts. For one thing, loud noise such as blaring car horns or noise sounds from people’s clamorous arguments or from brassy nonstop traffic cause people an array of health problems such as cardiovascular problems, sleeplessness which dramatically lower human life quality. For another, unbearable noise interferes and distracts people from their work and study. In a recent survey about the effect of the learning environment on a student’s performance, 90% said that they work best in a quiet hushed environment such as the library while just 10% choose to work in noisy places such as parks or cafés. This example has indicated that booming noise is mainly responsible for low productivity and focus span/ attention.

To conclude, some people argue that they see no problem with excessive noise; therefore, noise levels should not be controlled. I disagree with that idea from every perspective and believe that blasting noise should be controlled effectively to improve humans’ health and productivity.

Sample 2:

There are those who opine that it is necessary to impose tough noise regulations, while others argue that creating loud noise is their natural right. This essay discusses both sides of the argument and why I believe that governments should introduce laws to control high levels of noise.

There are understandable reasons why some people believe introducing noise regulations is perceived to be imperative. The first reason is that loud noise can have negative impacts on people’s health. For example, being frequently exposed to high levels of noise from traffic or industrial activities can make people suffer from medical conditions such as hypertension, dull headaches or even hearing impairment. Another reason is that the distraction caused by noise can result in people having bad performance in terms of working and studying. For instance, students will have difficulty concentrating on their lesson if there is a construction site near their school.

On the other hand, others feel they should have the right to make as much noise as they want to for some reasons. First of all, there are other solutions than noise restrictions, such as technologies, for those who want to reduce the impact of loud noise. For instance, people who are bothered by high levels of noise can soundproof their house. In addition, creating loud noise is deemed a great way to release stress or to express excitement. For instance, football supporters often yell and chant slogans when cheering for their favorite football team. People therefore should have the right to express themselves in order not to feel limited by the need to mitigate the release of their excitement.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that both sides of the argument have their positive points. However, I am inclined to believe that it is better to impose laws to control the level of noise because the need to prevent people from the hazards of noise outweigh people’s right to express themselves.

Sample 3:

People of the twenty-first century are being plagued by noise pollution, a problem which is growing considerably in extent, frequency and severity. Due to numerous wide-ranging adverse effects brought about by noise, some are of the opinion that the government should enforce noise ordinances. However, it is also argued that individuals have the freedom to make as much noise as they want. Both sides of the argument will be analysed below.

Attempts should be made to regulate noise because noise is associated with many adverse health consequences. As studies show, a growing number of modern-day people are experiencing hearing impairment as a result of prolonged exposure to loud noise. No matter where it comes from - in their homes, at their workplaces or in other public places, noise is secretly killing the hearing ability of people of all ages, affecting their communication and also behaviors. In addition, noise can cause long-term effects on the psychlogical well-being through sleep disturbances. In fact, it is the culprit of frequent mood swings, decrements in work performance, memory loss and the decline in other mental functions. For these reasons, environmental noise should be kept under close control.

However, the argument that there should not be control on noise also has some convincing points. It can be said that noise restriction violates the basic human rights that every individual is entitled to. As long as people have freedom to eat whatever they desire, speak whatever is on their minds, they should also be given permission to make noise. Therefore, legislation to limit noise production can prove unfeasible.

In summary, the modern-day environment is being gradually degraded by noise. Nevertheless, the most effective method to control it is by education, not by force.

Sample 4:

It took centuries for the inhabitants of planet earth to transform into a civilised society. Norms and traditions that were earlier considered to be of great value are gradually replaced with modern etiquette and manners. Being a citizen of democratic society one has the right to act and express as per their likings such as making noise, but many people believe that freedom of expression in high decibel should be regulated. This essay will analyse both views before presenting an opinion.

On the one hand, people argue that they are free to do and act whatever they like. Proponents of this viewpoint say that this is their fundamental right, and making noise or living peacefully should be the sole preference of an individual. For instance, in sporting events, like football, the decibels are at their highest peak or celebrations like birthday parties at home where children shout on the top of their voice to make their presence felt. Moreover, clattering depends on the situation also, for instance, patient's attendants in third world countries shout on the administration staff and make noise if they are overcharged on their bills. They believe that by shouting they can suppress another party.

On the contrary, another school of thought believes that one should live peacefully and respect the rights of their neighbour, passersby, and dwellers and so on. They say that people should always raise their concerns with politeness and softness in attitude. Proponents of this viewpoint don't argue that noise in the form of music or parties should be regulated, and the government should define laws and policies to kerb it because they distract and discomfort individuals who are sick, studying or sleeping and so on. For instance, in the UK one can be jailed if found disturbing their neighbour through loud music or quarrel.

To recapitulate, the aforementioned provides solid arguments in favour of both views. I personally believe that noise levels by an individual should be strongly regulated through legislatures in residential areas, hospitals, libraries and so on. However, one should be allowed to enjoy and make noise in sporting arenas, parks, etc.

Sample 5:

It is often considered by many that they can make noises as per their wish, while other people believe that there should be strict rules to control the amount of noise an individual makes. In my opinion, noise pollution causes ample social and physical issues; hence, it should be controlled.

On the one hand, freedom to speak and making noise is one of the human rights. In other words, every citizen has a right to make sounds or noise as they prefer. For instance, in some special events such as birthday celebrations, dancing parties making noise is accepted in the current society. Moreover, making sounds is often considered as accepted behaviour, especially among small children. Making noise provides enjoyment among people obviously during joyful occasions. It helps to ventilate one’s emotions, particularly anger and sorrow.

On the other hand, noise pollution is often accepted as one of the major concerns of the current world due to several drawbacks. Firstly, unpleasant sound causes ample health issues. For example, the high-intensity sound could cause increased stress level, deafness, cardiovascular problems and even sleep disturbances. Secondly, noise would often affect wildlife. Animals would probably develop aggressive behaviour and get irritated due to the high frequency of unpleasant sounds. To cite an example, during thunder and lightning pet animals became frustrated as a result of high pitch sounds. Finally, it leads to trouble communicating. In other sense, communication between individuals becomes difficult owing to noise from the surrounding. In other words, communication gets distracted.

In conclusion, the noise would adversely affect society and one’s body. Hence, necessary steps to be taken to control it. In my opinion, people should abide rules to control noise formation for the welfare of the society and inhabitants.

Sample 6:

People hold different views about whether people should have the freedom to produce noise or comply with some regulations of it. In my view, it is important that noise making is put under control. On the one hand, it is understandable why some people believe in their rights to generate noise freely. As people these days often have to suffer from considerable stress at work or school, they tend to find an effective way to relieve it. In some cases, recreational activities such as karaoke singing or party holding can bring a certain amount of relaxation, mitigating stressful situations for everyone. If too strictly imposed, any restriction of noise may deter people from gaining access to one of the useful methods of relaxing.

However, I can understand the arguments against noise makers. Firstly, excessive levels of noise can cause serious disturbance to the nearby residents who also have the right to take a proper rest after a tiring day. Those who are affected by the loud sounds from their neighbors may not only be unable to relax but also have their levels of discomfort increased. In the long term, this will definitely have a negative impact on their quality of life. Another reason for this opinion is that too much noise can produce detrimental effects on the health of the unintentional hearers. For example, constant exposure to high pitch noise can result in auditory problems, for example, hearing loss. Hearing-impaired individuals are very likely to experience difficulty in their daily life.

In conclusion, although there are good reasons why people should be allowed to make as much noise as they wish, in my opinion, some appropriate controls are necessary.

Sample 7:

It is common knowledge that in today’s modern world, loud noise is a normal occurrence. There has been an argument over this issue, with many insisting that there ought to be tight restrictions on noise control, while others maintain that everyone should be free to make noise as they please. Each side has their own reasons, and in this essay, I will examine each view before stating my own.

There is some sense in the argument for the right to make noise. There are many activities essential to our lives that, unfortunately, result in loud noises. Any strict regulations on these activities can, therefore, greatly disturb our daily life. For example, the high volume of traffic is often seen as the main source of noise pollution, but it is so important to our dynamic world that any attempt to limit the flow of traffic can affect the life of many people. Not only is the emission of loud noise often inevitable, but it is also sometimes necessary. Festive activities or public celebrations, such as carnival parades or football games often require loud music and noise to create the right atmosphere. Therefore, a ban of all loud noises will either be impractical or likely affect many aspects of our normal life.

However, it is also important to keep the noise we create under control. Constant loud noises can inflict serious harm on our health, especially on our hearing. It is not unusual for people who are exposed to continuous blasts of high-volume sounds, such as construction workers or nightclub DJs, to lose some of their hearing ability or even become permanently deaf. Moreover, loud noises can be highly disruptive. For many people whose job requires concentration, from students to medical doctors, being in a noisy environment can hinder their work and lower their productivity. Thus, there must be certain regulations concerning our noise-making activities.

To sum up, both of these opposite sides of the debate seem to have valid reasons for their argument. It appears that we cannot afford to completely dismiss the noise problem, yet it is also advisable that we refrain from imposing too strict noise regulations. Personally, I believe that any decision regarding this matter should be made with consideration of the ideas from both sides.

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:

There are numerous reasons to support the fact that hard work and determination are two key factors for success in life. However, as an alternative argument financial condition and looks of the person may also be the primary criteria for success.

Some people believe that financial status and appearance are important for success. They advocate that the looks of a person determine his confidence, which is a vital factor in success. No one can complete any task without considering himself capable of that. Hence, the confidence of the person plays a very key role. Furthermore, money is another important factor as it provides the support to lead the career of your choice. Without financial security, it makes the way to success much more challenging. In a way, money saves the energy and time of a person. It creates numerous opportunities to progress in a rapid way in the career of their desire. Based on this view, the utmost need for success is financial stability and appearance.

On the other side, people have certain justifications to agree with the view that ambition along with hard work is the key to success. People believe that the way to success has no shortcuts, and the primary criteria is to acquire knowledge and practical experiences through hard work. We can have monetary support from someone. However, no one can help us in developing our skills which needs the efforts of my own only. The second most important thing to reach our ultimate goal is our determination. It is because no dream can be fulfilled without ambition and persistence. Hence, one should be hardworking and have the strong willpower to attain the goal of his life. 

To sum up, although appearance and financial position have a great impact on achievement, hard work and determination are the most dominant factors in the way of success.

Sample 2:

It is true that there are numerous ways for people to succeed in life. While some people believe that wealth and physical attractiveness are two aspects that influence a person's success. I would contend that people can achieve the pinnacle of their careers when they work hard and are determined.

On the one hand, there are a number of reasons why having money and being physically attractive help people succeed in life. The first explanation is that having money helps people fulfil their deepest goals, such as those for strength and size. Extremely wealthy individuals, for instance, have endless opportunities to advance quickly in their careers and achieve the recognition they desire in their communities. Furthermore, one of the key elements affecting success is one's appearance. For instance, individuals would have a greater probability of landing a job if they display a confident body posture or wear attire. In addition to having excellent abilities and experiences.

On the other hand, it is evident that perseverance and hard effort are essential qualities that are crucial to ensuring success in the industry. First of all, putting in a lot of effort enables people to get some worthwhile life experiences. To demonstrate my thesis, let's use the example of a young student who practises their assignments often. By doing so, they reduce the likelihood that they will make the same mistakes again and are more likely to perform well on formal exams. Second, determination inspires us to develop goals that serve as the cornerstone of success. This makes it a necessary talent to help people solve complicated challenges in all circumstances. Further keep pushing forward in order to accomplish long-term objectives.

In conclusion, I feel that hard work and determination are the main factors to acquire the maximum performance. Even though money and attractiveness have an impact on achievement.

Sample 3:

Being successful is a dream of every human being. Working hard and dedication is considered to be pivotal to gain success for many people, whereas others have a different viewpoint and believe that money and attractive personality leads to progress in life. This essay will highlight both opinions and also elaborate on why working hard and determination are far more considerable than cash and physical appearance. To begin with, for some people certain goals and ambitions entail success. Since when someone is working hard, he/she would be able to succeed in that particular task eventually. As a result, people gain prosperity and rewards which pave the way to earn revenues. Likewise, in order to be a successful person, goal-oriented behaviour is required. For instance, while preparing for my RN exam, I had to burn midnight candles. Consequently, now I am working as an RN in a renowned hospital, where I am earning a handsome amount of salary and have succeeded in achieving my ambition. Thus, for a high-status in life, one should adopt the way of working hard rather than finding shortcuts for success.

Conversely, according to other groups of people, with money and great personality people could be famous in no time as everyone gets attracted towards the glamorous lifestyle. Because having the ability to buy anything encourages to gain the attention of other people. That's why with wealth and good health people become popular among their communities. For instance, there are some Bollywood singers who are not talented as compared to others, but by flaunting their wealth in front of the audience they are more recognised even without having any struggle. Overall, to some extent money and physical appearance are the reasons to attain prosperity.

To conclude, to boost progress is quite challenging. Even though money is the necessity of life which is required to achieve success, hard work and dedication are enormously countable to achieve success in one's life.

Lời giải

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

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

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

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

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

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

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

Nâng cấp VIP