Câu hỏi:

07/01/2025 312

Government investment in the arts, such as music and theatre, is a waste of money. Governments must invest this money in public services instead. To what extent do you agree with this statement?

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:

These days, the government spends a large part of its budget not only on public services, but also the arts. Although I agree that it is important to spend money on public services, I do not think spending additionally on the arts is a waste of money.

There are several reasons for spending a significant amount of the government budget on public services. First and foremost, public services are the things such as hospitals, roads and schools, and these things determine the quality of life that most of us will have. For example, if the government does not spend enough money on hospitals, the health of our society may decline. Similarly, if not enough money is spent on schools, our children may not be properly educated. Also, it will be the poor in our society that will be affected more if we do not spend enough on these things because they are the ones more dependent on such services.

However, this does not mean that the arts should be completely neglected. To begin, it is difficult for many arts institutions to generate much profit, so without some help from the government, many theatres and other such places may have to close. Moreover, the arts also have an important impact on our quality of life. Many people get great pleasure in going to see music and theatre performances so it is important that the government assists such institutions so that they can continue to provide entertainment to the public.

To sum up, there are clear benefits of ensuring a large amount of investment goes into public services as this influences the quality of life for nearly all of us. That said, I do not believe spending money on the arts is a waste of money as this too provides important benefits.

Sample 2:

Government funding with regards to art, such as music and theater, have been a longstanding issue of debate - many people believe that their tax money should alternatively be spent on public services. Personally, I believe that both art and public services bring about different benefits to society, and so government investment in both is desirable.

On the one hand, it is important to note that art is the voice of a society, and therefore, to fund art is to encourage the expression of society as well as the development and pursuit of new ideas. Art has always served as a window into the past and reconnects today’s generation with previous ones and has helped to create new creative movements. Such is why many European governments continue to fund museums and exhibits in their own countries despite many of them being unable to operate on a commercial basis, for they can showcase their own heritage and culture and inspire future generations.

On the other hand, spending on public services helps to ensure a more immediate benefit to the population. As opposed to art, it could be said that public services are enjoyed by most if not all of a country’s population, and therefore investing in it could be seen as much more equitable. Important public services such as healthcare also have the benefit of keeping the population healthy while creating numerous high-quality jobs. The economic effects of public services could thus be observed to be more immediate and tangible than investments in art.

Nonetheless, I argue that there are different benefits to both art and public services, and the government should invest in both.

Sample 3:

It is logical to maintain and increase government expenditure on public services because they are inherently related to a country’s development. However, I believe that governments reallocating their budget from arts to public services instead might not be a pragmatic approach, considering the potential values of the arts sector.

On the one hand, the chief reason behind diverting government subsidies from the arts to the public services might arguably be that the arts are considered mere entertainment, while the public services directly impact the country’s sustainable growth. This could be seen in Vietnam, where many schools and hospitals in rural areas require enormous financial support to renovate and purchase facilities, along with establishing the transport systems connecting these places to residential areas. Therefore, theoretically, curtailing the spending on arts to focus on public services is quite sensible.

Nevertheless, I would argue that the reallocation proposal probably overlooks the positive externalities that spending on arts can produce indirectly and in the long term, and creative industries deliver economic and social impacts even with little instant profitability. Firstly, museums, theatres, and cultural events can boost an area’s income through consumer purchases and attracting foreign investments. At the same time, tourism also contributes to the economy by promoting the hospitality industry and creating employment opportunities. Secondly, beyond the financial merits, arts can better the regional quality of life in several ways. For example, participating in cultural and artistic activities can improve the well-being of the residents. Aside from cultural consumption, local inhabitants also benefit from these fields, which leverages the power of arts in urban planning. Therefore, utilizing adequate government resources for arts is a rational strategy considering all the benefits hereinabove. Finally, strategic investments in arts can contribute substantially to the coffers for public services. South Korea’s policies of prioritizing the music sector are a successful example. The music industry in South Korea boosts the country’s economy by billions of dollars, a large portion of which is added to the fund for the public sector.

In conclusion, while ensuring sufficient investments in public services is necessary, I would contend that withdrawing capital from the cultural and creative sectors is an injudicious action considering the economic and social value arts can add to a country.

Sample 4:

How to allocate fairly government’s budget for a variety of social demands from health care, infrastructure to other mental ones such as arts remains controversial. Some people insist on that that money should be earmarked more for public services and less for the arts, while others believe each area should receive an inequitable amount of spending for its unique value contributed to social development. I partly agree with the latter view for the following reasons.

Admittedly, public services are not of immediate benefit for the entire society. The issues of health care, education, and infrastructure are always top concerns of any government that wants to recruit high-skilled labour, a strong workforce, and modern facilities. Some countries still struggling with abject misery after wars, a large amount of spending for music and painting proves infeasible.

However, the need for arts is rising these days for their long-term worth, especially during the time the country is beyond the peak of economic development and gears itself towards sustainable growth. With music, painting and other kinds of arts gaining their popularity, people’s spiritual life is continuously enriched. Such cities say, Florence, Paris, and Madrid are always unforgettable destinations of millions of visitors for their spectacular artistic creations and lure them into a different world where people are away from worries and let their creativity take off. These cities are also homes to various well-known art geniuses from Picasso, Leona DeVinci to Gaudi, who led art revolutions, partly by dint of their governments’ greater appreciation of this field and bigger expenditure on it. America and Britain are, too, other examples of nations where the music industry overwhelms other key ones for their greatest generation of profit. This is again derived from their governments’ frequent organization of musical shows and festivals to attract audiences worldwide.

Sure, investing in public services is going to improve the infrastructure; however, investments in the arts and traditions will simply helps us improve the economy and GDP.

In a word, governments should pay more attention to key sectors when their nations are in the embryonic stage of growth, but once they escape the life of poverty, arts should have a bigger say for their mental, educational and economic merits.

Sample 5:

It is precisely understandable that governments must begin looking at varying ways to improve the public facilities for a sustainable development. Governments must make a true innovation in keeping the society stable, meaning that the citizens should get adequate services from the governments. As per the said statement, governments should use the money for public development and not for other things, such as theatre and music. On a personal note, I complete disagree with this statement. In the forthcoming paragraphs, I shall support my reasons.

These days, to deal with development as a country, governments must compete with other nations. Arts can contribute to the quality of life positively. I believe that every nation has its own abilities and skills that make it stand out from the rest of the world. For instance, we are witnessing some of the competitions held at a global level, where people take part from every corner of the globe, such as Miss Universe, Asian Idol, World Choir Competition, and more. Every nation sends the best participants to take part in these competitions. Competitors get to compete with an array of people, coming from varying backgrounds, nations and cultures.

Additionally, I think that in case a government invests money into the art sector, the country, as a whole, will get to relish a gamut of benefits. For instance, India has a lot of skillful, talented artisans, crafting enchanting and mesmerising decor pieces. India can sell these crafts on a global scale. This way, our talent and skills can become everlasting, creating unending opportunities for the artisans as well as the country. However, to make the most out of this global sale, people would have to establish a good teamwork with the government only then adequate outcome can be achieved.

Sure, investing in public services can improve our infrastructure-game; however, paying major attention to only this factor will not reap any benefits. Hence, arts and theater should get the deserving attention as well.

Concluding this essay, I would like to say that governments should begin investing the funds to enhance art creation as it has bigger opportunities to make a country extremely successful.

Sample 6:

There are various areas of government expenditure that suffer from a lack of substantial monetary investment. In situations like these, sensible resource management must be followed by the administration to allocate necessary funds to the sectors in need. It is widely believed that public facilities and infrastructure should be given more priority instead of fine arts when it comes to the utilization of government resources. I am a strong supporter of this belief as urban services serve a more crucial purpose than artistic agencies.

A considerable proportion of the population is greatly dependent on government-provided services. These amenities are a crucial aid to the smooth functioning of an ordinary citizen’s life. Furthermore, the dependence on such facilities is more prevalent in third-world countries like India, Brazil, and China, where the general income of a majority of the populace makes private services unaffordable. Thus, bearing in mind the necessities of the people on a macro-level, the public-sector merits extensive financial backing.

Additionally, we must also address the fact that creative activities like drama and music are only possible when the basic needs are adequately fulfilled. If there is a deficiency in the physical and mental well-being of an individual, no matter how impressive the artwork is, it will fail to ignite any stimulus within that person. Thus, it is vital to enhance the standard of living of the population before refining the quality of arts, as artistic demands are always secondary to rudimentary needs.

Nevertheless, the value of creative work cannot be disregarded entirely as all the artforms collectively form an industry that is vital to the economy. However, this trade has the support of numerous wealthy individuals and organizations, thereby do not require much assistance from the government.

Finally, the framework of government services requires fiscal reform. Thus, the authorities should recognize these obligations and concentrate their resources on the public sector.

Sample 7:

It is often argued that the government should finance public services instead of spending its budget on arts, music and theatre. Although I agree that the government’s investments in public services play a very important role, I think that proper funding for the arts sector is also crucial for society.

On the one hand, the government should definitely allocate a large part of its budget to public services. This economic sector determines the overall quality of life, ensuring that some basic services, like schools, hospitals and roads, are available to all citizens irrespective of their income or social status. Public services satisfy the primary needs of the society and thus need proper funding, while artists and musicians are not curing diseases or building houses, so their role is secondary. For example, any country can live without music concerts, but the absence of medicine will create significant problems. That is why the government should adequately finance public services in the first place.

On the other hand, arts, music and theatre are not a waste of money, since they are an integral part of society’s cultural and intellectual development and amusement. Firstly, art and music draw people’s attention to diverse phenomena and represent the inward significance of things. Quite often a single drawing, piece or song can exhort myriads of people to reconsider their attitude towards some situations. This way, art serves as a major source of a nation’s personal and intellectual development. Moreover, visiting museums, watching movies and listening to music are common ways of relaxation and entertainment. Thus, the art sector is also important to society and should not be neglected.

To conclude, though I agree that the government should allocate a large part of its budget to such urgent needs of the society like public services, I think that arts, music and theatre should also be financed since they play an important role in people’s development and entertainment.

Sample 8:

In some countries, the higher tax incomes come from arts such as movie industry, music or theatre business. In this regard, arts are beneficial investments for the government. On the other hand, arts, such as music are the food for soul and government should patronise this sector.

Moreover, in big countries like America and United Kingdom arts are one of the biggest earning sources for those countries. The fact that, many people want to come to these countries because their arts are famous and the best in the world. Due to the fact movie industries, music or theatre has been encouraged the government for tax. Indeed, it can help the government to invest some money to public services as well. Hence, those countries are famous for music and movies and its imposing in the world and have become destiny for many people around the world for gaining their passion in arts.

Undoubtedly, in the United States of America, we can see that musician, an actor or an actress have higher incomes, but they should be taxable for the government that is a policy not only in this country but also in some countries that have good arts too. For this reason, to develop some areas, for instance, healthcare, public transportation, etc. The government should encourage the artists and arts. Clearly, to give excellent service for American civil society, arts should not be ignored. Furthermore, taxpayers’ awareness among arts industries are higher and which is rapidly changing the economic growth of America.

Arts are the important media to give profits for the USA whereas in the UK too. Arts represent the identity, uniqueness, heritage and reflection of a nation. In brief, investing in arts is by means a waste of money, rather it is a good investment both for economic growth and cultural enrichment.

Sample 9:

The government spending on arts has long been a contentious issue. Many counter the idea of government incurring expenses to promote arts. However, I feel governments should continue to spend money on arts. This will be argued by analysing how arts can contribute to a country’s economy as well as serve as a platform to achieve one’s goals.

To begin, arts such as music and theatre are steady sources of income for a country. A case in point would be New Zealand, where the government supports new artists by lending them money to kick-start their careers, which in turn enables the state to collect taxes on the revenue earned by these artists. This stream of income would be lost if there’s no spending to foster local artists. Hence it is clear that arts are vital for a country’s economic health rather than being a liability to it.

In addition, having a decent infrastructure for creative industries would mean realisation of dreams of millions who wish to be artists. For instance, in the UK, a person could choose to adopt arts as a career path, enabling him or her to earn a fair livelihood, rather than having to reluctantly pick a profession that he or she does not feel passionate about. A state where the government doesn’t invest in arts would most likely prevent people to go after what they long for, resulting in frustration on the part of people. Therefore, arts play an important part in contentedness of the individuals of a nation.

In summary, the government should continue to devote resources to arts since its significance in a country’s tax system and bringing happiness to people should not be underestimated. Henceforth, government’s funding of arts is not a waste of a country’s resources.

Sample 10:

Some people are convinced that the financial reserve of the government should be allocated to the public sector rather than on arts. However, I strongly believe that arts play a major role in the development of a country.

Primarily, arts symbolise the culture of a nation. In the primitive era, people celebrated their occasion through music and dance. These cultural activities have become a religious ritual for them, thereby representing an aboriginal tradition. It is in the style of an art such as designs of garments and historic rock sculptures that determine the ethnicity of a group. For example, in the Philippines, the Ifugao tribe in Bulacan is well known for wearing a bahag attire, which looks like an old an old-fangled brief. Their cultural identity becomes famous because of their artistic rice terraces.

Furthermore, arts have become the freedom of expression. Some arts enthusiasts can demonstrate their feelings through music or paintings. Such activities have a reasonable means of portraying emotions. One example of this is expressing depression through a composition of a melancholic song rather than to venture in a destructive behaviour such as inebriation of alcohol. Thus, art is a good passion that entices the people to do recreational activities.

Finally, it is widely believed that some artistic outputs have contributed to the tourism of a country. There are holidaymakers who visit a country so they can witness a painting, sculptures or any artistic masterpiece. To illustrate, the painting of Juan Luna “the Spolarium” in the Philippines has lured a considerable number of foreign visitors. This is because the painting depicts the suffering of most Filipinos at the time of Spaniard regime, which becomes a historical event in the country.

To conclude, I am convinced that arts have a greater contribution to the society. Not only does it represent the cultural heritage of a country, but it also encourages performing a formidable masterpiece that can promote the culture of a country.

Sample 11:

The art, music and theatre constitute an integral part of the culture of any country. The government often found supporting these by arranging a requisite amount of funds but for some spending on these activities should ideally be utilised for the welfare of the country’s people as it otherwise does not serve any good purpose. I think there is nothing wrong in supporting arts of a country and government is the ideal body who should do this.

With globalisation, often the culture of developing countries transforms to adopt the traits of developed countries. For example, traditional street plays in India are things of past and people are more inclined toward watching movies, a culture from the western countries. This poses a threat to the existence of an intrinsic regional culture of a country which actually defines the spirit and uniqueness of the country. So it is the responsibility of the government to support traditional art, music and theatre which tends to carry the cultural heritage of a country.

Every year a lot is spent by the government to promote regional art, music and theatre and this is something which people suggest is a waste of money. Prima facie it is correct, but on the other hand, it helps promote these features of a country which help the government to attract more and more tourists from other country and it also acts as the livelihood of the people who are solely dependent on these skills. For instance, nation foreign exchange has risen 20%, since the last five years, thanks to the increasing promotion by the government.

To summarise, it may involve a huge cost for a nation to support art, music and theatre but it should be seen as an investment for supporting the unique heritage of the country.

Sample 12:

It is highly debated that pouring government funding into art is such a waste, and it should be distributed in other sectors instead. I definitely believe otherwise. This essay will first explain the significance of art and then discuss in detail the financial opportunities stemming from its preservation.

The expression of the human creative mind and imagination plays a tremendous role in painting a nation’s distinct identity that sets it apart from others. Art has greatly contributed to our cultural growth, which betters the understanding of our heritage and fills the gap between different generations. As a result, we are able to take pride in the essence of who we are as a community and fluently communicate it with the world.

Moreover, quality of life could be vastly enhanced through the performing arts such as music and theatre due to their entertainment value. They are incredible outlets for people to release stress by allowing them to escape the harsh realities of life. Consequently, our emotional and mental health would be fully nourished, which could be just as crucial as looking after our physical well-being.

Not only should countries invest in art for sentimental reasons but also for economical motivation based on its potential earnings. Museums that house ancient artefacts could host special exhibitions to attract a significant number of tourists, and subsequently generate a sizable income. Destinations like the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and the Louvre Museum in Paris welcome millions of visitors annually and rake in an enormous amount of revenue. An additional benefit could be the employment opportunities available to the local workforce, who would eventually contribute to the economy in the form of income tax.

Art is undeniably valuable because it carries such cultural and financial importance. Therefore, governments should continue to invest in protecting as well as furthering its development.

Sample 13:

In this day and age, increasing attention has been placed on the debate over whether the government should allocate funding to the arts or devote the entire budget to public services. From my perspective, both the arts and public services bring different benefits to society, and therefore, government investment in both is desirable.

On the one hand, it is important to note that art is the voice of society. Funding the arts encourages public expression and the development and pursuit of new ideas. Art has always served as a window to the past, linking today’s generation with previous ones, and helps to vividly create new narratives. For example, European governments continue to fund museums and exhibits in their countries, despite many being unable to operate on a commercial basis. These institutions can still afford to preserve their heritage and culture.

On the other hand, spending the budget on public services provides more immediate benefits to the population and directly impacts the country’s sustainable growth. This can be seen in Vietnam, where many schools and hospitals in rural areas require substantial financial support to renovate and purchase facilities, along with establishing transport systems connecting these places to residential areas. Therefore, reducing art funding to focus on public services is essential.

To conclude, while ensuring sufficient investment in public services is crucial, I contend that withdrawing capital from cultural and creative sectors is unwise, considering the economic and social value the arts can add to a nation.

Sample 14:

The government must allocate funds on public services instead of investing in music and theatre arts which are considered an unnecessary expense. I completely agree with this statement of utilising people's money in public services than in the arts.

The foremost reason for not considering any investments in arts is because area, such as music and arts, is a recreational activity rather than an essential service. It does not form a vital link in society and is enjoyed by the wealthier sections of the society who constitutes around 20% in our country whereas the remaining 80% of people are economically poor and are devoid of basic amenities such as food, health, and employment. Thus, investment by the government authorities should not be in the arts.

On the other hand, the important reason for not spending in public service is it improves the welfare of the people and society. Spending money in providing free education would provide opportunities for children from economically deprived backgrounds to prosper in their life. As more people are getting graduated, a majority of jobs would be taken up by the locals than from outsiders. This, in turn, would overall enhance the economic activities of the country. Hence, investing in a citizen's education would result in the growth of the individual and the community.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that a government's expenditure must not be in a leisure activity such as arts, but instead ought to be spent on public services such as education which is beneficial to both the common man and the society as a whole.

Sample 15:

The debate over allocating government funds to support the arts is contentious, with some arguing it's a waste that could be better spent elsewhere. I hold a different view. This essay will first explore the importance of art and then delve into detail about the financial opportunities that arise from its preservation.

The expression of human creativity and imagination plays a crucial role in defining a nation’s unique identity that sets it apart from others. Art has significantly contributed to our cultural advancement, deepening our understanding of our heritage and bridging generational gaps. Consequently, we are able to take pride in our collective essence as a community and effectively communicate it to the world.

Furthermore, the quality of life can be greatly enhanced through performing arts like music and theater due to their entertainment value. They serve as valuable avenues for individuals to relieve stress and escape the challenges of daily life. As a result, our emotional and mental well-being can be fully nurtured, which is as important as maintaining our physical health.

Countries should invest in art not only for its cultural significance but also for its economic potential. Museums that preserve ancient artifacts can organize special exhibitions to attract a large number of tourists, thus generating substantial revenue. Iconic destinations like the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and the Louvre Museum in Paris welcome millions of visitors annually and generate significant income. Additionally, these initiatives create employment opportunities for local communities, contributing to the economy through income tax.

Art holds undeniable value because of its cultural and economic significance. Therefore, governments should continue to invest in its protection and advancement.

Sample 16:

When it comes to arts, it is often said that governments should invest in arts such as music, theatre, painting and sculpture, whereas others argue that the investment in those areas is such a waste of money. In this essay, I will discuss and analyze both views and state my own opinion.

As for investment in arts, it comes with several advantages such as growing talented artists and offering entertainment to people. Without a doubt, people who are eager to become a popular artist and make money tend to suffer from financial burden as doing artwork causes high expenses such as costs of art materials or music instruments and the places for working. It is needless to say that the investing in amateurs encourages them to achieve their goal such as holding their own exhibitions. In addition, many people are likely to enjoy entertainment such as listening to the music and watching movies on theatres, in their free times. Therefore, supporting artists is a crucial element to provide people with a variety of entertainment.

On the other hand, government has a duty to deal with various public services such as libraries, institutions as well as education for old people. As a matter of fact, students do not tend to use libraries for reading books, these days, due to the influence of smartphones. Moreover, there are not enough programs regarding exercises, preparing for retired life, prevention of dimentia and so on for old people. As this reason, many people argue that government should invest money in public services rather than in arts.

In conclusion, investing fairly in both arts and public services is one of the major duties of government. However, in my opinion, government should more invest in arts instead of public sevices as the more art industry grows up, the more entertainment can be activated.

Sample 17:

According to many people, the investment in art liked music and theatre are nothing but causes of money. They believe that this money can be utilized to fulfill the increasing demand for public services like hospitals and schools. I agree with this statement to some extent. This essay will emphasize on the reasons why both are important to our society.

Our society is built up with various elements. According to few people, some of them may not be that crucial for our existence. They believe that a community needs hospitals with advanced types of equipment and schools with innovative technology for the development of a better society. For instance, a hospital with all the diagnostic equipment’s like computed tomographic scan enables cloches to detect diseases at early stages result in fewer mortalities. Thus, government authorities must invest more finances in these essential sectors to strengthen their basic infrastructure.

Despite the above facts, I still believe that field of arts is also important for a society if not equally. Artistic sculptures created over time help us to remember our cultured existence. The stories reenacted by theatrical performances enable us to relive the history or feels the emotion of an artist, as we get connected with them emotionally at a subconscious level. Furthermore, the music songs whether traditional folklore or modern pop songs provide us the relaxing environment and entertainment, within preservation of our cultural inheritance.

In conclusion, I can confidently state that government should invest more in public services. However, I do not believe that financial funding for the futuristic section is a total wastage.

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 »

Bình luận

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