Câu hỏi:

07/01/2025 576

Some people say that too much attention and too many resources are given to the protection of wild animals and birds. Do you agree or disagree with this 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:

The protection of wild animals and birds is an important part of preserving the natural environment. However, people are divided over whether more resources than necessary have been allocated to this cause. In this debate, I am against the belief that wildlife protection has received too much attention and investment.

Some might argue that enough has already been spent safeguarding wild creatures. They claim that pursuing this goal does not immediately provide economic benefits or improve people’s welfare. Therefore, any more time or resources allocated to conservation is likely to be a waste, and it is better to divert funds to education or healthcare investments, which directly benefit humans. In addition, there is a concern that more spending than currently to protect wildlife is unwarranted. As a matter of fact, much time and resources have been expended for this purpose, but some consider the effectiveness unsatisfactory. The illegal trade of wild animal parts such as horns and gallbladder, for instance, is ongoing and difficult to put to an end.

However, I believe the wild animals and birds deserve every penny to ensure their survival. This is because protecting them from extinction involves not only preserving existing individuals, but also enabling them to procreate. In the world, fewer than 3,000 Indian Tigers are left, yet each species requires 10,000 individuals to proliferate; these creatures are, therefore, in dire need of help in terms of breeding. Furthermore, safeguarding wildlife does positively impact the economy, as evidenced by safari parks. Wild animals live safely and freely in these locations, while visitors pay to observe them as a form of ecotourism. This, consequently, produces an additional source of income for local businesses. Taking these points into consideration, it can be clearly seen that wildlife protection is a multifaceted investment.

In conclusion, the various benefits of conserving wild animals and birds prove its worth, so spending on it is hardly ever too much. For the sake of biodiversity and ecological balance, it is essential that wildlife species are not driven to extinction; time and resources are necessary to realize this goal.

Sample 2:

In recent years, the increasing allocation of resources for the protection of wild animals and birds has given rise to the question of whether or not it is justified. While some argue that these efforts are crucial for maintaining biodiversity, others believe that the resources and attention dedicated to this cause are excessive. Personally, I think that humanity has other needs that are equally worthy of funding.

The first point to consider is that the disproportionate focus on wildlife conservation often overshadows more pressing human concerns. For instance, resources allocated for the protection of a single endangered species could potentially be redirected to address urgent human needs, such as healthcare, education, or poverty alleviation. In developing countries, where resources are particularly scarce, the choice to prioritise wildlife over critical human issues can be especially problematic. For example, in some African nations, vast sums are invested in protecting certain wildlife species, while basic human necessities remain unmet for a significant portion of the population.

Furthermore, excessive focus on wildlife protection can lead to unintended negative consequences for local communities. Often, conservation efforts involve restricting access to natural resources that communities have traditionally relied upon, leading to economic hardships. In parts of Asia, for instance, the establishment of protected areas for tigers has sometimes resulted in the displacement of indigenous communities or restrictions on their access to forest resources, which are vital for their livelihoods. Not only does this create conflict between humans and wildlife, but it also raises ethical questions about the fairness of such conservation strategies.

In conclusion, while the protection of wild animals and birds is unquestionably important, striking a balance is crucial. The current overemphasis on wildlife conservation, often at the expense of addressing human needs and respecting the rights of local communities, suggests a need for rethinking. A sustainable approach should consider both environmental and human factors equally.

Sample 3:

Many today would argue that there is undue emphasis on the safeguarding of various species of wild animals and birds. In my opinion, though there are legitimate practical objections, it is a positive overall given the potential impact of abandoning such efforts.

Opponents of current conservation initiatives argue they are an unnecessary waste of valuable resources. The natural development of ecosystems involves animals going extinct and fighting for survival. Human intervention can therefore be seen as unnatural to a certain degree as animals that adapt will flourish and others will become obsolete. Added to this is the economic burden. The majority of endangered animals are in developing nations in Africa, Southeast Asia, and South America. National governments in these countries have a variety of other concerns related to healthcare, education, employment, and so on that take precedence over animal populations.

However, humans should protect animals as their disappearance is irreversible. The issue of responsibility is not, to my mind, a compelling enough argument as blame can be assigned in a number of directions and is too self-righteous to be persuasive. Instead, it can be argued that permanent damage to the Earth will impact future generations. The Earth depends on biodiversity not only for the development of new medicines and the functioning of a healthy food chain but also in order to showcase its varied expressions of life. As the only known home to life in the universe, it would be short-sighted to eliminate species of animals and damage this reputation.

In conclusion, despite the financial cost, it is essential to protect wild animals which may go extinct. Governments must sometimes prioritize the future over short-term considerations.

Sample 4:

Some people argue that protecting wild animals and birds is a waste of time and money. I completely disagree with this point of view.

Many current practices involving the use of animals illustrate that governments have not invested enough time in the issue of animal welfare. For example, lawmakers have banned the use of wild and exotic animals for entertainment purposes, yet wild animals are still kept in captivity for circuses. This inconsistency between law-making and law enforcement suggests that the issue is not being taken seriously enough by those in power. Furthermore, it seems that an educational approach is unlikely to change people’s awareness about the issue. For many years, people have underestimated the role of wild animals, and many today still hold a belief that wild animal products have exceptional powers. To re-educate such people requires patience and consistency.

In addition to this, resources spent on wildlife protection are still limited. Many authorities believe that wild animal and bird conservation is only of minor importance, and human welfare is far more of a priority. This is why governments are not willing to allocate large amounts of funds and resources to the conservation of wild animals, which makes it difficult for organisations that are actually trying to make a difference. For instance, in Vietnam, we do not see any long-lasting bird conservation campaigns due to a lack of funding from the government, and it is non-governmental organizations that currently raise the funds to take care of existing wild birds.

In conclusion, while there is some time and resources spent on wild animal and bird protection, I believe that far more resources are needed to achieve that ultimate goal.

Sample 5:

The allocation of attention and resources to the protection of wild animals has become a contentious issue. While some argue that excessive efforts are being directed towards wildlife conservation, others believe that such measures are necessary. This essay will discuss both perspectives and present my own opinion.

Critics of intensive wildlife conservation efforts argue that the resources could be better utilized to address more immediate human concerns. They contend that issues such as poverty, healthcare, and education should take precedence. For instance, in Vietnam, where rural areas still suffer from a lack of basic amenities, diverting funds to wildlife protection might seem unjustifiable. These critics believe that if resources were reallocated to human development, the overall well-being of society could be significantly improved. Furthermore, they argue that natural selection and evolution should take their course without human interference, allowing ecosystems to balance themselves naturally.

However, I believe that the protection of wild animals is of paramount importance and should not be diminished. Biodiversity plays a crucial role in maintaining ecological balance, which directly impacts human survival. For example, in Vietnam, the preservation of forests and their wildlife helps regulate the climate, prevent soil erosion, and maintain water cycles. If these ecosystems were to collapse due to neglect, the consequences for human populations would be dire. Additionally, many species are endangered due to human activities such as deforestation, poaching, and pollution. It is, therefore, our responsibility to mitigate these impacts and preserve wildlife for future generations. Conservation efforts can also drive eco-tourism, providing economic benefits and raising awareness about the importance of biodiversity.

In conclusion, while it is essential to address human development issues, I firmly believe that the protection of wild animals should not be compromised. Biodiversity is integral to the health of our planet and our own well-being. A balanced approach, where resources are allocated to both human and wildlife needs, would be the most prudent strategy. By ensuring the protection of wild animals, we safeguard the intricate web of life that sustains us all.

Sample 6:

In recent years, the debate surrounding the allocation of resources and attention to the protection of wild animals and birds has intensified. While some argue that too much focus is given to this issue, I firmly believe that the preservation of wildlife is of paramount importance and deserves the resources and attention it receives.

Firstly, the conservation of wild animals and birds is essential to maintaining the delicate balance of ecosystems. Each species plays a unique role in their habitats, and the loss of these species can have far-reaching consequences, including the collapse of entire ecosystems. For example, the disappearance of a single predator can lead to an overpopulation of prey species, which in turn can damage plant life and disrupt the ecological balance. Therefore, allocating sufficient resources to protect these species contributes to the overall health of the environment and the planet.

Secondly, preserving wildlife has significant economic benefits. Ecotourism, which revolves around the appreciation and exploration of nature and wildlife, is a rapidly growing industry. Many countries rely on this sector to generate revenue and create jobs, making it essential to protect and conserve wildlife populations. Without allocating adequate resources and attention to the conservation of wild animals and birds, these economic opportunities could be lost, leading to negative consequences for local communities.

Finally, wild animals and birds serve as vital resources for scientific research and medical advancements. Many species possess unique traits and abilities that can help researchers develop new treatments and therapies for various diseases. For instance, the venom of certain snakes has been used to develop life-saving medications, while the study of migratory birds has led to a better understanding of navigation and climate change. Therefore, protecting wildlife is an investment in the future of human knowledge and well-being.

In conclusion, I disagree with the notion that too much attention and resources are dedicated to the protection of wild animals and birds. I wholeheartedly believe that investment should be given to this cause for the benefit of all.

Sample 7:

In recent decades, an unprecedented global increase in awareness of wildlife preservation has been recorded. There are those who are concerned that too much attention and allocation has been spent on this. This essay strongly disagrees with the statement and will elaborate on the evidence and give relevant examples.

It is undeniable that wildlife has economically benefited humans for centuries. First and foremost, agricultural production activities greatly rely on wildlife. To be more specific, without the intervention of wild animals, farming processes would deteriorate. This is because a great deal of wild species, such as bees, worms and several types of birds, play pivotal roles in the ecosystem which includes crops that are planted by farmers. Therefore, more resources should be aided in maintaining the biodiversity of the ecosystem, and the word ought to be spread to raise awareness amongst the community. Furthermore, protecting wild animals also means prosperity for the tourism market. Some species are exclusively indigenous to certain lands and require tourists to travel in order to see them. To illustrate, kangaroos are a local species of Australia, and they have assisted the country’s economic growth significantly just by attracting international travelers. As a result, more resources should be subsidized to wildlife conservation as an investment for long-term benefits.

In spite of all the advantages wildlife preservation offers, some still argue that wild animals do not deserve that much concern. They claim that a portion of the fund for protecting wildlife should be invested in other fields such as scientific research and healthcare. However, such thinking is only valid to a limited extent, because what this argument fails to consider is the devastating result of an unbalanced and damaged ecosystem. Take bees as an example, they pollinate flowers in the process of producing honey, thus helping plants grow and ensure the continuity of many other species, therefore without which the ecosystem will be completely devastated. Considering the current situation in the world, environmental habitats are being destroyed at an alarming rate despite the considerable effort that was put into conserving the environment. This implies that even more resources and effort must be put into protecting wild animals and habitats.

To conclude, wildlife is continuously being degraded globally, and more measures must be conducted to alleviate the damage and assist recovery. Any act of funding or propagating to raise international awareness should be appreciated.

Sample 8:

There is a prevailing debate on whether wildlife protection is a significant concern given the rapid advancement of human activities. I totally disagree with the notion that protecting wild animals and birds is of minor importance.

Firstly, human activities severely impact wildlife. The natural habitats of many animals and birds are increasingly encroached upon for poaching, exploitation of resources, and illegal settlements. This intrusion leads to habitat destruction and puts wildlife at significant risk. For example, the Amur leopard, native to Russia and China, suffers from habitat loss and poaching due to logging, development, and illegal hunting. This has reduced its population to around 84 adults, threatening ecosystems and biodiversity. Conservation efforts, such as protected areas, anti-poaching patrols, and community outreach, emphasize the critical need to preserve wildlife and habitats for future generations.

Secondly, the resources dedicated to wildlife protection remain limited. Many believe that human welfare takes precedence over animal conservation, leading governments to prioritize funding towards human-related issues. Consequently, wildlife protection receives minimal financial support, hindering the efforts of organizations striving to make a difference. In Vietnam, for instance, there are no long-lasting bird conservation campaigns due to insufficient government funding. Non-governmental organizations must raise funds to care for existing wild birds, showcasing the financial challenges faced in wildlife conservation.

In conclusion, the detrimental impact of human activities on wildlife and the insufficient resources allocated for their protection highlight the importance of prioritizing conservation efforts. Ignoring these issues would lead to irreversible damage to biodiversity and ecosystems.

Sample 9:

The protection of wildlife has become a frequent subject of debate with strong arguments for and against. Personally, I believe that humans are paying too much attention and allocating too many resources to this issue, as will now be explained.

Firstly, if we allow any species to disappear, this is actually not a disaster. Some people may argue that biology will be seriously affected if birds and wild animals are on the verge of extinction, but this is an exaggeration. Fossil evidence suggests that the mass disappearance of the dinosaur did not cause any harm to other species on the Earth but merely triggered the emergence of others such as the mammal. Therefore, we should not devote too much attention to the protection of wildlife.

Secondly, public money is limited. This means that the national budget should be allocated to more urgent issues rather than expanding too much in the conservation of wild animals and birds. For example, more resources should be diverted to medical research to find out remedies for fatal diseases such as HIV and cancer, which may help to save thousands of lives in society.

Finally, the government can simply protect wildlife by continuing campaigns to raise public awareness of the protection of wildlife habitats or impose stricter punishments on activities that may harm wild animals. Any individual who hunts wildlife for food or for pleasure should be given a heavy fine, and this may discourage them from threatening the life of wild animals. In conclusion, while I do not refute the argument for the conservation of wildlife, I believe that it should attract less attention and fewer resources from the public.

Sample 10:

Many people suppose that we are devoting too much attention and resources to protecting wild animals and birds. So, are we truly expending too much attention and too many resources as they have claimed? I would say no. In this essay, I will explain why I disagree with this view and present some arguments and examples to support my opinion.

On the one hand, it can be argued that we are not paying enough attention to wildlife conservation. There is a significant bias in the allocation of funding and assistance for different species, depending on their popularity, size, or attractiveness. For example, tigers, elephants, and lions receive more direct support than reptiles, amphibians, insects, and corals. Similarly, among mammals, big carnivores and primates are favored over small rodents and bats. Even pollinators like butterflies and bees are given more help than beetles and flies. Furthermore, richer countries tend to fund their own endemic species over other countries’ endemics. However, most of the world’s species, especially endangered ones, are found in the tropics, which are poorer than the temperate regions. Moreover, wildlife conservation is often seen as a charitable cause rather than an essential part of caring for the planet.

On the other hand, we are actually harming wildlife rather than protecting it. We often claim to support the preservation of animals, but we do not act accordingly. For instance, we advocate for the protection of polar bears, rhinoceroses, etc. but we still consume plastic goods, fur coats, leather boots and bags, etc. Additionally, we engage in many activities that destroy wildlife habitats. We deforest land for wood fuel, paper, and other products. We displace wild animals by expanding our urban and industrial areas. We emit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and this causes global warming, which affects the climate and weather patterns.

In conclusion, I strongly disagree with the idea that we are spending too much attention and resources on protecting wildlife animals. I have shown that we are not paying enough attention to many species that need our help, and that we are actually doing more damage than good to wildlife with our actions. Therefore, I believe that we should increase our efforts and awareness to conserve wildlife for the benefit of ourselves and future generations.

Sample 11:

Our ecosystem depends on the harmony between each living species on the earth. Some argue that until now, we have spent a lot of money and attention on the conservation of wild animals and birds. However, I completely disagree with the above-mentioned statement, and in the upcoming paragraphs, I will highlight the reasons for my disagreement.

From the current standpoint, we believe that the earth is the only planet where life exists, and each and every animal, plant, insect or bird has their own role in maintaining the ecosystem on earth. Nevertheless, human activities have disturbed this balance for a few centuries. In order to expand, humans have destroyed many forests, which were natural habitats for a plethora of wild animals and birds. Because of our activities, the place of natural forest is taken up by the concrete jungles we build without thinking about this outcome. To elaborate, many animals are on the verge of extinction because of the removal of their habitats, such as koalas, Asian tigers and many more. This also affects the food chain of other animals because they depend on each other. Hence, it is necessary to protect wild animals and birds to save the earth, and we have to spend resources for it because we are the ones who are responsible for this situation.

Furthermore, people believe that we have been protecting them by creating zoos and wildlife for centuries. Still, individuals do not understand that the zoo’s environment can never be compared to the natural habitats. Many zoos’ animals live in climate conditions that are not comfortable for them. For instance, bears require cold weather and large open areas, but in the zoo, they live in a hot environment and a small cage just to entertain humans. Moreover, when individuals visit wildlife centuries, they pollute these centuries and throw plastic and litter here and there. These all things affect the breeding of animals too. So, ultimately zoos serve the purpose of entertaining humans and not protecting animals.

The people who believe that we are spending too much on the protection of them do not understand the importance of animals and birds in maintaining the ecosystem. They are not able to see the future threats that their extinction can lead to. Such people believe that we should spend more money on healthcare, education and space exploration instead of protecting animals, but they forget that we can not survive without animals. To illustrate, for healthcare research, we require animals. Some medicines are made from animal products and many more.

To conclude, wild animals and birds are also as important as other animals for maintaining the ecosystem and human activities threaten such animals. Therefore, it is our responsibility to save them in order to protect our earth. So, we should definitely give more attention to them before it is too late for all on earth, isn’t it?

Sample 12:

Some individuals believe that too much attention and exorbitant finances have been utilized towards the protection of wildlife across the world. I disagree with this notion to a great extent.

To begin with, the reason why I believe animals need protection is that it is important to keep biodiversity. As an explanation, every species has its own role in the food chain; therefore, if one species of animal disappears, probably the other will also become extinct. For example, if we take a food chain, frogs use flies as their food, but frogs are snakes’ food. If flies disappear, the frog will disappear; therefore, it is significant to preserve biodiversity. Furthermore, today humans intervene and manipulate nature exceedingly more than ever. That’s why many animals have vanished or lost their inhabitants. Therefore, wildlife protection is important.

To continue, another reason for my disagreement is because of irrational human activity. It’s crystal and clear that the world is advancing before, and this naturally has a huge impact on the environment pollution, and over-exploitation of natural resources are just a few on this list; therefore, humans are responsible for the protection of wildlife. For instance, the Australian government uses huge amounts of money to protect forests because they exploit almost half of their wildlife. On the contrary, when spending a huge amount to ensure wild animal safety, the remaining sector may be underdeveloped.

To conclude, some peoples claim that too much focus and resources have been spent to protect wild animals may cause a decrease in another section; however, I disagree with this notion to a great extent because animals should be protected because there is part of biodiversity, and it is humans responsible for protecting them.

Sample 13:

It is commonly witnessed that too much emphasis is placed on allocation of attention and resources towards the preservation of wild animals and birds. I firmly believe that these efforts are essential for preserving ecological balance, promoting biodiversity, and safeguarding the health of the planet.

First and foremost, wildlife upholds the intricate harmony of ecosystems. To explain, every single species, regardless of its size, is a crucial part of the environment. For instance, bees are tiny creatures, but they help in pollinating crops and ensuring agricultural success. Meanwhile, predators play a significant role in regulating prey populations, thus preventing overpopulation. Therefore, failure to safeguard these species could result in disruptions in ecosystems and jeopardizing the invaluable services they offer.

Secondly, ecosystems rich in diversity possess a higher ability to adapt to various changes, including climate shifts, diseases, and invasive species. Ultimately, prioritizing the safeguarding of wild animals and birds increases the longevity and robustness of the environment. Furthermore, the vast array of wild species holds an inherent worth, as well as a special place of importance in various cultures. Apart from this, the presence of rich and thriving wildlife is crucial for ecotourism, a key source of revenue for local societies and an important means of protecting these diverse creatures.

However, it is important to recognize the importance of finding a balance in resource allocation. To explain, while preserving wildlife is undoubtedly critical, other urgent matters, such as poverty alleviation, healthcare improvement, and education access should also be addressed. Achieving equilibrium among these priorities is crucial in promoting sustainable development.

In conclusion, it is clear that the allocation of attention and resources towards safeguarding wild animals and birds is not only necessary, but also justifiable as by doing so, a healthy ecological balance and biodiversity is promoted.

Sample 14:

It is argued that protecting wild animals and birds is drawing/attracting too much concern and too many resources of society. Personally, I totally agree with this point of view.

There are two main reasons why I think people have paid too much attention to the protection of animals. One reason is that many non-governmental organizations have been established in order to protect animals all over the world. However, they are too concerned about animal-related activities in many parts of the world. For example, it is unreasonable PETA, an animal-protecting organization, accused Katy Perry of using tigers and elephants in her music video “Road” for commercial purposes while she did not. Furthermore, news about the wild can be shared rapidly on the Internet. If a bear is imprisoned somewhere, this news will be widespread on social networks such as Facebook on a large scale immediately.

In addition, people have also spent too many resources protecting wild birds. Firstly, a great deal of money is required to carry out any project to protect wild birds, in which infrastructure and research are the two most expensive. The more difficult research to preserve the DNA of wilds is, the more it costs. Secondly, the expenditure for this protection is quite unnecessary to some extent. While funds should be raised to improve the living standards in some regions, investment in bird protection appears to be a waste of money.

In conclusion, it seems to me that both concern and resources are focused too much on the protection of wild animals and birds in this modern world.

Sample 15:

It has long been considered that protecting wildlife is the responsibility shared by all humans. There are some people, however, who argue that this topic is being given too much attention and that the resources allocated to wildlife protection are much higher than they should be. While I agree that we are making great efforts to ensure the safety of wild animals, I do not believe that these efforts are being misplaced.

One of the reasons why we are not wasting our money, time or other resources on these tasks is that the results of our endeavors are still largely inadequate. Each year, the number of extinct animals still rises, and there are still poachers and consumers of animal products who are untouched by the laws. Clearly, the fact that we have not finished the task of protecting the animals of our planets suggests that more, not less, effort and attention should be given to this.

Secondly, the protection of wile species of animals or birds can benefit us in many ways; therefore, it should not be considered a waste of our investment. For example, the Chinese’s successful breeding program of giant pandas have not only managed to save these animals from the brink of extinction, but also generated great amounts of revenue from tourism activities to their pandas’ zoos. Similarly, reservation areas in Africa, the original purpose of which was to help protect wild animals such as lions or giraffes, also welcomes flocks of tourists every year. It appears that by spending and focusing on protecting animals, we are also encouraging tourism and earning ourselves profits much greater than our initial investment.

In short, I am skeptical of the idea that we are spending too much on wild animals’ and birds’ protection. On the contrary, as the arguments above have pointed out, we should invest even more in ensuring the safety of Earth’s biodiversity. Only by doing so can we both fulfill our responsibility with other animals, while still benefiting ourselves greatly.

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