Some people think that children should begin their formal education at a very early age. Some think they should begin at least 7 years old. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Câu hỏi trong đề: 2000 câu trắc nghiệm tổng hợp Tiếng Anh 2025 có đáp án !!
Quảng cáo
Trả lời:
Sample 1:
It has been argued by some that children should start learning formally by the time they become toddlers, but others state they should wait until they turn 7. While starting formal education early can help ease parental duties, I would assert that it is more preferable to delay formal schooling until children reach 7 years of age as it is less stressful for them especially during the pivotal stages of early childhood.
In most nations today, parents must resort to sending children to school early in order to have more time for work. A key reason is that with growing workloads and increasing living costs, they may be compelled to send their children to kindergartens and childcare centers, which can in turn afford them more time for work. In the US, more than half of children aged 5 and below are enrolled in either a kindergarten or a childcare center with the majority of them having at least one employed parent. This is mainly due to parents wanting to devote more time toward their careers, thus forcing them to outsource their child-rearing obligations to others.
However, postponing education until the age of 7 might engender better overall development. This can be attributed to the fact that academic study during children’s early years can lead to unwanted stress. Many young children are cognitively and emotionally unable to handle the often-burdensome schoolwork and rules at schools. Hence, this practice is not necessarily ideal for those in the initial stages of their lives, who should be encouraged to enjoy their childhood rather than be over-burdened in their studies. In some Nordic countries, children do not start their formal education until they reach 8 years of age, with much of their early childhood education defined by play-based programs that emphasise fun and social skills. This has resulted in those countries boasting some of the best performing students in the world, often ranking highly in most educational surveys.
In conclusion, although sending children to school early can relieve parents of the burdensome pressure of parenthood, I contend that delaying their education until they turn 7 is more preferable since it reduces stress during their early years. Ultimately, national school boards should offer the option for parents wanting to wait until their offspring reach 7 years of age.
Sample 2:
People have different views about whether children should start their formal education as early as possible or delay it until they are at least 7 years old. Personally, I believe an early commencement of study would be far more beneficial than a later start.
Firstly, starting school at a young age would generate a number of positive outcomes. Undeniably, the younger an individual is, the easier it is for them to acquire new knowledge and information. As a result, these children would have a head start over their peers pursuing higher education. Besides this, they would have opportunities to figure out their natural talents. Most Vietnamese children, for example, are sent to kindergarten at the age of 3 or 4 to learn some basic skills such as addition and subtraction. After a couple of months, those showing potential will be cared for by teachers with an aim to train them to become specialized students in the future.
However, several individuals advocate a later start to formal schooling due to a number of reasons. It is believed that commencing school at a later age will offer kids more time to learn many things via their parents at home. As a result, these children will become more mature and integrate more easily into the educational environment in the upcoming years. In addition, it might also be more beneficial for children to have a childhood in which they can cultivate their own skills and interests through normal activities at home.
To conclude, despite being safe with their parents at home, children would have fewer chances to engage in extracurricular activities which would equip them with vital soft skills including teamwork and communication skills. Not to mention, while not at school, many children tend to lead an unhealthy lifestyle as their free time is devoted to online games, which gradually isolate them from society. Therefore, I believe that it would be well-advised that parents send their children to school at an early age.
Sample 3:
There has been recent debate surrounding the age at which children should begin formal education: while some people argue that children should start as early as 7 years old, others believe they should begin even earlier. I personally contend that although starting early might be economically beneficial for the family in the short run, it might ultimately be a futile endeavour as the children would be unable to absorb the information in the long run.
One could argue that by starting children on their path of formal education sooner may help support parents financially. Parents often struggle to arrange babysitters and have to resort to expensive daycare that is of no real benefit to them or their children, and if schooling started earlier, this would be a financial stress they would not have to cope with. Primary education in many Western countries, for example, is free for this reason: it allows parents to save money to spend on other things for their family.
However, as children are still in the early developmental stages for the first few years of their lives, they would undoubtedly lack the abilities to understand the things taught to them to a sufficient degree. More specifically, since children may not be capable of recalling their lessons, time and money spent on them would simply be wasted. Most adults today, for example, will find it almost impossible to recall what they have learnt in primary school. It could be argued that these early years of a child’s life should instead be spent being emotionally bonded with the parents instead of being taught skills they would forget later on anyway.
Ultimately, I argue that despite short term economic benefits to the family, the inability of young children to learn what is presented to them means that they should not start education at too early of an age.
Sample 4:
There has been growing momentum in recent years towards movements for children to start the schooling after the age of 7. In my opinion, although going to school from a young age will help with social development, children should be allowed to grow outside school until the age of 7.
Proponents of early schooling often point out the clinical research on the impact of school on social skills. At home, children are exposed to a variety of different circumstances. They may or may not have siblings, their parents might take them out for playdates often or neglect them at home, hampering their social skills. Once children start school, they are all in more or less an equal environment where they must communicate with older and younger children, compromise when playing, learn to listen to their teachers, and start forming stable bonds based on empathy and shared interests with others.
Despite the social advantages, children can develop more uniquely if they are allowed to delay their entrance to formal schooling. A good example of this is in Finland, where students do not begin school until after the age of 7. Finland is renowned for its top-performing students, but this can be traced to a number of factors besides simply school age. However, the impact on individual development is apparent. According to research into child psychology, children form the basis of their personality between the ages of 4 and 7. Therefore it is paramount to delay the age when they begin school in order to give them room to breath and ultimately produce a greater variety of voices in society at large as has been the case in Finland.
In my opinion, the social benefits of school do not outweigh the individual positives of delayed schooling to both the individual and society. Schools should continue to research this area so that they can better advise policymakers.
Sample 5:
People remain divided over the optimum age to start formal schooling. While a school of thought holds that the earlier the children go to school the better it will be for them, others believe that it is only when children reach the age of seven should they commence formal education. Personally, I agree with the former view, as will now be discussed.
On the one hand, it is understandable why some people advocate seven being the most suitable age for children to go to school. This is because, under this age, children are thought to be premature to shoulder the academic burden at school. They believe that young children are entitled to play more, to explore the world in their way, and to enjoy their life without worries about schoolwork and academic competition. However, if children do not attend school, they are often taken care of at home by other family members who may not have the knowledge, skills, or patience to help them reach their full potential. In fact, many children are left unattended at home and are allowed to binge-watch TV, which is even more harmful both to their physical and mental health.
On the other hand, I conquer with those who believe in the notion of 'the earlier, the better. This is because early formal education will give children a head-start in life over those starting later who fall behind. This is even more significant in the world we are living in today where rewards and benefits are often given to the more talented and intelligent. In addition, at school, children can learn to be more self-disciplined, self-reliant, and independent as they will need to set aside time to complete their homework on their own and to obey class rules. These are vital skills in the modern world and if they start early, they are more likely to harness these skills.
In conclusion, while there are reasons to support later formal schooling, the risks involved when children stay are not well catered for in their home environment can be significant, therefore I believe that the children should start school as early as possible for the competitive edge that they can gain and the skills that they can develop.
Sample 6:
Some people think that children should start formal education at an early age while it is believed that the age of seven is the best for children to attend school. In this essay, I will discuss both views before reaching my own conclusion.
The most common reason to think that children should not start formal education too early is the stress of school and homework or high expectations from their parents. At an earlier age than seven, children are unable to handle those stresses, and this stifles the growth of many children.
However, there are benefits for younger children to attend school at an earlier age. Students beginning their school studies earlier have more time to engage in activities at schools that encourage their development. Also, attending schools earlier offers children opportunities to discover their talents or interests. This means that they can build a stronger foundation in subjects they are good at or interested in at an early age instead of waiting until age seven.
In my opinion, children are able to move to a classroom environment before the age of seven. However, I think that only basic knowledge should be taught to satisfy their curiosity about the world around them rather than difficult subjects. By doing so, we can educate children while keeping their interest or helping them recognise their talents but create no stress on them. Moreover, school studies should not take up too much time as essential personal qualities such as kindness or self-confidence cannot be gained from formal education but playing and communication with their friends and parents.
In conclusion, the more important matter is that children should have enough time for both formal education and playing whether the age of seven is the optimal age to start school or not.
Sample 7:
People have different opinions about when children should start school. While starting school early could be beneficial for a child's academic performance, I believe that the best time for a child to attend school is when they are at least seven years old.
On the one hand, proponents of early formal education often claim that children can develop much better study habits if they are sent to school early. Some experts say that the first seven years of a child's life are the most important, as this is when they are developing and forming their personality and ideas about the world. Any external factors will have a strong impact on them and directly affect their overall development. Therefore, if educators can instill the value and importance of learning during these formative years, children may develop an interest in education, making them more eager to learn. As long as children can maintain this passion, they may become more academically successful in the future.
On the other hand, I believe that it is immoral to deprive children of a carefree childhood. This should be the time for children to naturally explore themselves, discover their talents, and cultivate their skills and interests. However, these activities cannot be done when a child enters school at such an early age, and they cannot enjoy their childhood while having to deal with homework and other aspects of school. In other words, sending children to school when they are psychologically unprepared means that people are treating children unfairly. If a child has to experience an unhappy childhood, the benefit of having good study habits becomes insignificant.
In conclusion, although forcing children to attend school early may enable them to form highly effective study habits, I believe that educators should delay formal education until children are at least seven years old so that they can enjoy their childhood to the fullest.
Sample 8:
Education and academics have been a bone of innumerable discussions and a prime matter of various debates. To this, some people opine that formal education should be started as early as possible while significant others hold the view that they should start their education journey post a certain age limit, such as after one attains an age of 7. I agree with the latter statement and consider that one should not rush in such sensitive matters as education. In the paragraphs to come, I shall talk about both the views and put forth my thoughts on this topic.
Education and literacy are the prime stanchions that contour one’s career definition to withstand the obstruction imposed by the cacophony of the world. One who is educated gets gifted with the streamlined persona to get away with all the impediments endowed to one’s way. Therefore, one must be budded with bolstered fundamentals right from the beginning of their career. At times, it could seem prudential to some people to send their children and get them set into the formal education system as soon as possible as that would have them get a nuance of schooling and education culture early in the day. This makes some people send their children to schools as early as they turn 3-4 years of age.
In contrast to that, some people hold the idea of starting one’s formal education past an age where one is ready to be sent in the ambience of schooling and education. I firmly agree with this. First of all, it takes a certain level of intellect to be ready to get absorbed in an educational institution which might seem daunting to the young and delicate minds. It might be extremely herculean for very young kids. Secondly, people past a certain age of 6-7 are significantly competent and receptive in demeanour as when it comes to learning potential that could only come with a matured and developed mindset. Hence, I believe it is extremely essential for the parents and even the educational administrators to realize that children should be prepared well at home before being sent to institutions.
Conclusively, it could thus be said that though people might find it intellectual to set their children to get the gradations of a real-time education set up as early as it could be, in the long run, it runs down the risks of subjecting young kids and fragile minds to be put under excruciating pressure of formal classes.
Sample 9:
Individuals have distinctive views about whether children ought to begin their formal education as early as possible or delay it until they are at least 7 years old. Personally, I believe an early start would be far more advantageous than a later start.
Firstly, beginning school at a youthful age would produce a number of positive results. Irrefutably, the more youthful a person is, the less demanding it is for them to procure unused information and data. As a result, these children would have a head begin over their peers seeking higher instruction. Other than this, they would have openings to figure out their common abilities. Most Vietnamese children, for case, are sent to kindergarten at the age of 3 or 4 to memorize a few fundamental abilities such as expansion and subtraction. After a couple of months, those appearing potential will be cared for by instructors with a point to prepare them to become specialized understudies within the future.
In any case, a few people advocate an afterward begin to formal tutoring due to a number of reasons. It is accepted that commencing school at an afterward age will offer kids more time to learn numerous things through their guardians at domestic. As a result, these children will become more mature and integrate more easily into the educational environment in the coming years. In expansion, it might too be more advantageous for children to have a childhood in which they can develop their claim aptitudes and interface through typical exercises at domestic.
To conclude, in spite of being secure with their guardians at domestic, children would have less chances to lock in in extracurricular exercises which would prepare them with imperative delicate abilities counting collaboration and communication abilities. Not to say, whereas not at school, numerous children tend to lead an unfortunate way of life as their free time is committed to online games, which continuously confine them from society. In this manner, I accept that it would be well-advised that guardians send their children to school at an early age.
Sample 10:
One of the social concerns nowadays relates to instruction. Whereas it is broadly accepted that children got to be sent to school at four a long time ancient, others think that they should start school at the age of seven. I'm progressing to talk about these contradicting focuses of see. In my conclusion, in expansion to influencing connections, getting to school at 7 has a few benefits for children.
On the one hand, beginning instruction at an early age can impediment communication between family individuals. Family is the foremost vital calculation in children's advancement. It's about childhood, care and passionate impact. Letting children develop respectfully and understand how life happens depends on the education from their guardians. On the off chance that children are isolated from their families as well early and as it were getting information from school, they have fair gotten progressed instruction but don't have hint communication with their families. For case, there were a number of movies that depict the circumstance of taught families, guardians let their kids center on examining as well early when they fair knew to run and conversation. The result afterward is that the child's mental viewpoint isn't passionate when they are near to their guardians. That's since they have not been specifically uncovered to or instructed by their families for a long time.
On the other hand, beginning school early has a few points of interest. Firstly, children can get commonplace with the learning environment early and also support great conduct such as self-sufficiency and regard towards grown-ups. Besides, unused information which the kids get is the foremost permenant data. Since there are a few researchings about that little children are the foremost reasonable age for starting school, they can get it a few basic learnings speedier than young people and more seasoned ages.
In conclusion, beginning school early has focal points for scholarly victory and impediments for connections betweens guardians and children. In my supposition, guardians have the obligation to let their kids embrace instruction and guarantee they have ingested information in school.
Sample 11:
Suppositions are isolated on when children ought to begin their school a long time. In spite of the fact that starting considering scholastically at an early age can cultivate moved forward behaviors, I accept that it would be as well upsetting for the children so they can not pick up the information successfully and beginning at the age of 7 could be a more conceivable elective.
On the one hand, one might contend that giving children early instruction can constrain them to be well-behaved family individuals as soon as they start to see. Typically predicated on the presumption that those children will have a chance to familiarize themselves with the school directions and be instructed common ethics. This may offer assistance them to be less adamant and more respectful, which obviously benefits themselves and their guardians as a entire. In any case, this line of thinking isn't sound since in the event that children were uncovered to scholarly information at such an early age, they would be overpowered and focused, making them incapable of assimilating the information proficiently. This would refute any benefits of the previously mentioned proposition.
On the other hand, requiring children to go to school at the age of at slightest 7 would be a more sensible choice. This is since children at this age are more developed, empowering them to bargain with the potential push from school lessons, and subsequently pick up information more easily. In expansion, postponing school moreover saves time for children to play. This would advantage children rationally as through playing, children got to envision and think more, which creates their problem-solving and learning abilities. Without a doubt, these crucial abilities will encourage children's learning in schools, permitting them to succeed scholastically.
In conclusion, I accept that giving children early get to to instruction may break down the productivity of learning handle as children may endure from weight, and as it were when children turn 7 ought to they be given instruction as the time in early a long time is crucially critical for them to create both their ability to manage with stretch and aptitudes for fruitful learning.
Sample 12:
There are contradictory views about the most appropriate age for children to start schooling. While some argue that this age should be at least seven, I, like many others, believe it is more lucrative for children to attend school at a relatively earlier age.
There are several cogent reasons for children to start school earlier. To begin with, young children have a considerably higher ability to learn things. Studies have shown that much brain development occurs in the initial five years after birth. Consequently, if children start school at age 4 or 5, they can take better advantage of this brain development and improve their learning outcomes. It benefits parents as well when children start school earlier. In many families, both parents work and do not have enough time to look after their children. If these kids can be in school during the daytime where they can learn from their teachers and peers, which is an arrangement that benefits everyone. Moreover, children who start school early also tend to have better social skills.
On the flipper side, children till six or seven should spend time with their parents at home as they learn what they see, play with, or observe. Primarily, they cannot distinguish between good and bad habits and can be misguided easily at school by peers. Additionally, school pressure may restrict their ability to play freely and learn from their surroundings. Schools are often accused of limiting freedom and following strict rules, which is not a positive way of teaching young children. A survey in Washington has revealed that many school education policies emphasise formal learning and rob children of their creative abilities.
In conclusion, both arguments have personal reasons to emerge. Nevertheless, in my perspective, being spent early in school would improve in many ways. The consequence of nostalgic and bonding-related facts would be managed by parents after the schooling through questioning, chatting and so on.
Sample 13:
While some people are of the opinion that the optimum time for children to begin their formal education is as soon as possible, others disagree and believe that it should not commence until they are aged 7. Personally, I believe that later is better.
Those who argue for beginning earlier base this on several reasons. Firstly, they believe that the earlier a child starts to learn, the better their intelligence will be. This is because they will have a head-start over those starting later who will fall behind. Another reason is that children will learn to be competitive, independent, and motivated as they aim to get the best scores and to complete their homework on their own. These are strong arguments in a world which these days rewards the highest achievers with the best jobs.
Despite these arguments, I believe starting at age 7 is the right choice. This is due to the fact that overburdening them with academic study and trying to beat others simply leads to stress. This is not a good situation for the very young, who should be encouraged to enjoy their lives, not to compete with their peers. Also focusing on play-based programmes at home or elsewhere develops cognitive abilities most effectively. For example, in countries such as Sweden and Finland children start formal education later and they have shown better schooling results than many other countries. Thus, there is clear evidence of its benefits.
In conclusion, I think that children should start school later because they can learn more through play-based activities than formal education. Formal education at an early age simply leads to stress and does not help children achieve higher grades in the long term.
Hot: 1000+ Đề thi cuối kì 2 file word cấu trúc mới 2026 Toán, Văn, Anh... lớp 1-12 (chỉ từ 60k). Tải ngay
CÂU HỎI HOT CÙNG CHỦ ĐỀ
Lời giải
Sample 1:
Some argue that offering free bus and rail passes to all who need them is the best solution to traffic congestion. While this might be effective for many, I believe the government should also explore other strategies to address this problem.
On the one hand, there are a number of reasons why allowing individuals to use public transportation without paying a price is advantageous in various respects. Initially, using buses and trains would assist in improving traffic flow. To be specific, more individuals would utilise public transportation instead of driving their cars to get to work or education as long as the government provides free bus and train passes for citizens in their nations. Additionally, avoiding peak hour traffic bottlenecks may be accomplished by taking free public transportation. In this circumstance, it might result in a reduction in commute times.
However, for a variety of reasons, I vehemently disagree with this assertion. First of all, governments must spend a considerable sum of money to ensure free public happiness. Since the government’s resources are finite, when they focus their investments on this area, other crucial variables would be disregarded and undervalued. Nevertheless, there are solutions to resolve this dispute, notwithstanding what was just said. A suggestion is that the government might first provide incentives for remote jobs. People need not to physically be present at offices if they could work from home, which would end the daily drive. For instance, large corporations all across the world are experiencing this phenomenon, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak.
In conclusion, while providing free public transportation can indeed help reduce traffic, it should not be the sole focus of government efforts to solve this issue.
Sample 2:
It is generally believed that if the government wants to solve the traffic congestion problem, the most effective solution is to provide free public transportation, such as buses and trains. In my opinion, I agree with this idea because it really helps to ease the situation.
Firstly, I believe that free public transportation can reduce people's dependence on cars and improve traffic congestion. People who live outside the city centre tend to go to work because there are no buses or train stations around the area. Therefore, the government should consider building railway and bus lanes to cover all remote areas. In addition, dedicated lanes can be allocated to buses to avoid traffic jams. For example, Japan has done a very good job with its advanced subway system. Their stations are always overcrowded, and trains and buses are always on time. People rarely own cars and they rely on public transportation.
Secondly, the government should always carry out publicity activities to promote the advantages of using free public transportation. By doing so, people can break the mentality that public transportation is dirty, slow, and unreliable. As long as more people know, the transportation system is well designed, more comfortable and more convenient; people will soon start using public transportation. For example, Singapore has implemented 24/7 free public transportation, and its roads are unobstructed.
In short, I firmly believe that free transportation will reduce congestion by promoting awareness-raising campaigns and investment in buses and trains. Although it is a difficult task for the government to implement free public transportation in the community, once the government implements it successfully, it will have a major impact on everyone's life.
Sample 3:
Today with the increasing population and the exponential growth of urbanization, the transportation needs of the people have increased rapidly. Due to increasing transportation and the need for vehicles, traffic congestion has become a major problem of the countries with increasing populations. Therefore, looking into the problem deeply, I find that the best way to control this traffic congestion is for the government to provide 24/7 free public transport facilities. There are certain reasons for increasing traffic congestion as discussed below.
Firstly, the faster pace of population growth has increased the demand for more vehicles on the road. Since the transport facilities are less as compared to the people traveling, the demands have increased day by day which has contributed to more vehicles on the road and hence contributing to traffic congestion. Secondly, the increasing urbanization has caused more of the rural population to migrate to urban cities and metropolitan cities to find jobs and work. This increased migration of the population to urban cities is also one of the major causes of the traffic congestion on roads. For example, metropolitan cities of India like Delhi, Mumbai, Ahmedabad are highly traffic-congested cities of India due to increased urbanization and rapid migration of the rural population.
Traffic congestion is one of the major causes of carbon dioxide emission and increasing global warming of the earth. The harmful gases emitted from these vehicles pollute the environment. For example, the highly populated city of India is Delhi due to increased traffic congestion. The government must provide free transportation facilities to reduce the number of private vehicles on the road and must also encourage the population to compulsorily use these free public transportation facilities to reduce the problem of traffic congestion. Besides, in public transport, the use of environmentally-friendly electric vehicles like metro services, electric trains, electric buses, and taxis must be encouraged instead of fuel vehicles to reduce the emission of harmful gases in the environment.
Therefore, after analyzing all the points above, the conclusion drawn upon is that traffic congestion is the major problem faced by many countries at large and the best solution to this problem is that the government must provide 24/7 free public transport facilities to the people.
Sample 4:
The population has been increasing day by day and with the increasing number of people, urbanization is also at its peak. In such situations, the huge demands of vehicles have caused rapid traffic congestion on roads. However, some people argue that the best way to control traffic congestion is that the government must provide 24/7 free public transport facilities, but in my opinion, this may not be the correct way to control the traffic congestion.
Some of the major reasons for traffic congestion are urbanization and the migration of the people. This has caused an increased demand for vehicles in the market. Nowadays people tend to travel a lot, and, in such conditions, they find it easier to use their own vehicles rather than opting for public transport. A survey conducted in China states that a majority of people prefer their own vehicles rather than public transport and this has increased more vehicles on road contributing to the traffic congestions. Secondly, people find it easy to carry their own vehicle to travel to different corners of the country as it is more comfortable than public transport. Also, the conditions of the public transport facilities have also deteriorated, they are also very congestive and unhygienic. Besides, the public transport facilities are not available to the remote corners due to non motorable roads and hence, the best option for traveling to these areas are the private vehicles. Secondly, private vehicles like cars and motorbikes have become more affordable and budget-friendly for people.
For the government to provide 24/7 free public transport facilities, it will be a big burden on their exchequer. Instead, the government must focus on other measures like encouraging bicycles for school and college-going students, build wide tracks with separate lanes, build more expressways and flyovers to reduce the congestion. Also, they must subsidize the public transport fares but not completely free. A separate track for pedestrians and cyclists must be built to limit the number of vehicles on the road. Besides, an awareness campaign must be launched to inform people of the traffic rules and safety measures. Strict traffic rules must be followed, and a compulsorily fine system should be introduced.
Instead of providing free transport facilities for the public, the above-mentioned measures must be given more importance.
Sample 5:
To reduce traffic congestion, the government must provide free transport facilities to the public. But this step can be moderately implemented to reduce the congestion on roads. Some other measures should also be taken in equal proportion to deal with the issue of traffic congestion. Therefore, the statement, Government should provide 24/7 free public transportation to reduce traffic congestion is moderately correct. There are several reasons for the increasing traffic congestion on roads as mentioned below.
Population in many of the developing countries like India and China has been increasing at an alarming rate. This has caused an increasing number of people on the road either using public transport, their own vehicles or pedestrians resulting in increased traffic congestion. Also, a large-scale migration of the population to urban cities for work had deteriorated the traffic conditions of big cities. Secondly, the fares of the public transport are quite high compared to the service they render and are more congested and unhygienic. Now, when automobiles have become more affordable and fuel-efficient, people opt for quality and comfort over public facilities. Thirdly, people have started to travel more these days and public transport facilities are not available to the remote corners of the cities or towns. In such situations what people find better is the use of the facilities of the private vehicle. However, the use of private vehicles has resulted in increased traffic congestion and besides, these are the major cause of concern as they contribute to the emission of harmful gases polluting the environment.
To deal with the problem of traffic congestion, providing only free public transport may not contribute much. Besides, the government must encourage the use of electric vehicles and bicycles amongst the population. Secondly, it must focus on building more expressways and highways and separate lanes to reduce the congestion. Enough attention must be paid to constructing road facilities in remote corners of the cities and towns and especially in rural areas so that public transport can easily reach every corner of the world. Strict adherence to the traffic rules must be followed.
All these steps along with free transport facilities by the government together can contribute to reducing traffic congestion.
Sample 6:
The incidents of traffic congestion are increasing along with the population growth. Some contend that in order to lessen traffic congestion, the government ought to offer free public transportation. This solution, in my opinion, can only partially resolve the issue.
Most individuals now prefer to live in cities or towns rather than rural areas due to urbanisation. This is one of the primary causes of the heavy traffic on the roadways. At the same time, cars have also gotten cheaper and more fuel-efficient as a result of technological improvement. The number of automobiles on the roads has also increased as a result.
The government is undoubtedly attempting to reduce traffic by enhancing the efficiency and speed of public transit. For instance, the DMRC system, which facilitates bus stops across the entire city, has been installed in Delhi, a densely populated metropolis. The public can utilise this bus service 24 hours a day, seven days a week, but it is not free, thus many people opt to drive their own car instead. Because buses and trains are crowded and uncomfortable, many individuals will still choose to use their own vehicles even if public transportation is free. Free public transportation will also put a strain on the exchequer.
In my opinion, the government can take a number of additional steps to lessen traffic on the roads. For instance, it needs to create bigger roadways, additional flyovers, and separate lanes for cyclists and pedestrians. It should also strictly enforce traffic regulations and promote the use of environmentally friendly transportation.
In conclusion, making public transportation free will undoubtedly encourage more people to use it, but since those who value comfort and convenience over cost will still drive privately, this strategy is ineffective in easing traffic congestion.
Sample 7:
The traffic is getting worse in contemporary society, some citizens suggest that the authorities should provide free public transport every day, yet there still remain some arguments against this issue as it's extremely costly. Overall, it is my personal view that offering free public transport is not the best way and other measures should be taken at the same time.
We have to admit that this policy can increase the usage of public transport. Inhabitants will take it into consideration if it's free when they are facing traffic jam. To some extent, it can reduce traffic congestion. But we cannot turn a blind eye to the problems it caused.
This initiative will sharply increase the national budget. It's generally acknowledged that national funds are limited and should be used in a large variety of social aspects from education to environmental protection. The initiative will leave a burden on the financial budget and let the infrastructure cannot be maintained and guaranteed.
Furthermore, this policy cannot address the root of this issue. People use private cars not because of the high cost of the public transportation system, but because the line and route don't cover their destination or the low efficiency when they plan for a long-distance trip. No matter how attractive public transport is, people still use private cars in case of emergency and essence. In addition, traffic congestion only accrued during the rush hours, so it's pointless to provide it for free all day.
To sum up, I think the authority should reduce the price and develop the traffic infrastructure if they want to address this issue, rather than provide it for free simply.
Sample 8:
Some contend that the best way to combat traffic congestion is to always provide free bus and rail passes to everyone who needs them. While I acknowledge it may work for the vast majority of individuals, I think the government ought to offer other options to address this issue.
On the one hand, there are a number of reasons why allowing individuals to use public transportation without paying a price is advantageous in various respects. Initially, using buses and trains would assist in improving traffic flow. To be specific, more individuals would utilise public transportation instead of driving their cars to get to work or education as long as the government provides free bus and train passes for citizens in their nations. Additionally, avoiding peak hour traffic bottlenecks may be accomplished by taking free public transportation. In this circumstance, it might result in a reduction in commute times.
However, for a variety of reasons, I vehemently disagree with this assertion. First of all, governments must spend a considerable sum of money to ensure free public happiness. Since the government’s resources are finite, when they focus their investments on this area, other crucial variables would be disregarded and undervalued. Nevertheless, there are solutions to resolve this dispute, notwithstanding what was just said. A suggestion is that the government might first provide incentives for remote jobs. People need not to physically be present at offices if they could work from home, which would end the daily drive. For instance, large corporations all across the world are experiencing this phenomenon, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak.
In conclusion, it is undeniably true that providing free public transit to citizens may be a significant element in reducing traffic, but this is by no means the main component that governments should take into account when trying to address this issue.
Sample 9:
In recent years, traffic jams have been increasingly ubiquitous particularly in big cities which cause great fatigue for commuters. In order to tackle this problem, it is argued by many that government should provide free public transport all day, yet there still remain some arguments against this issue as it is extremely costly. Overall, it is my personal view that offering free public transport is not the best way and other measures should be taken.
First of all, it is an indisputable fact that traffic congestion is not only attributed to the vast amount of private transport but also road systems. Moreover, no matter how attractive public transport is, people still use private cars in case of emergency and essence. Thus, providing free public transport alone just contributes to cutting down the volume of traffic to some extent. In fact, many big cities like Ho Chi Minh still suffer from traffic jams in narrow roads with obsolete infrastructure in spite of the rise in availability of public transport. Therefore, I strongly believe that road needs to be widened, and traffic lights and signs should be made more state-of-the-art to stem the root causes.
More importantly, though providing free public transport 24 hours per day is not necessary and what is more is that it may leave a burden on the national budget. According to the majority of reports, traffic jams mainly occur during the rush hours, so it is pointless to provide public transport all the time. On top of that, providing free public transport in the long term may be unachievable due to its tremendous cost. This measure not only costs governments a fortune but it is also unable to address the root of the issue. It would be far more economical if this amount of money was invested in enhancing road facilities.
By way of conclusion, I once again reaffirm my position that other measures rather than making public transport available may be far more efficient to traffic congestion. In years to come, I strongly believe that more investments in road systems should be adopted to make commuting more comfortable and time-saving.
Lời giải
Sample 1:
Although fossil fuels still remain the most important energy sources in many places, some countries are now already using alternative sources like solar or wind power. In my opinion, it can be difficult for a country to move towards using alternative energy at first, but this development brings about several benefits in the long run.
On the one hand, the change towards using alternative types of energy would probably put a heavy financial burden on the government and companies as they will have to invest millions of dollars in purchasing and developing new equipment and facilities for harnessing solar, wind or hydro-electric power. For example, the average cost of installing a wind turbine for generating electricity is about $3 million, and an average country would require a wind farm with hundreds of turbines to supply power to all companies and households. In addition, the production cost of large solar panels is still very high, which is why many countries, especially those with a poor economy, are still unable to use this power source.
However, I still believe that shifting towards using alternative energy is a worthwhile investment due to the great benefits it brings. Firstly, fossil fuels are the main cause of air pollution nowadays since petroleum-powered vehicles and factories are releasing tremendous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere every day. Therefore, replacing coal and petroleum with wind or solar power will help to reduce the level of emissions in the atmosphere and improve air quality. Secondly, fossil fuels, like natural gas or oil, are finite resources and will soon be depleted, which will potentially threaten the economy if there are no alternative sources. This fact emphasizes the need to develop renewable energy to gradually replace traditional sources when fossil fuels inevitably run out.
In conclusion, I hold the view that despite the high initial cost of new equipment and facilities, the switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is still necessary for the long-term development of the planet.
Sample 2:
The debate around our primary sources of energy has been intensifying in recent decades, with some pushing for more sustainable energy while others arguing that fossil fuels should remain the main source of power globally. I personally think renewable energy production should be encouraged, since it’s important that nations should seek to reduce their own carbon emissions to divert the dangers of climate change as well as build a more sustainable economy.
Firstly, fossil fuel should be discouraged because it could bring about the existential threat of climate change. As a result, biodiversity is at an all-time low, with shifting climates and rising sea levels slowly eroding the delicate tapestry of food webs across the globe. As scientists are convinced this is directly the cause of human activity, such as in agriculture and fossil fuel consumption, renewable energies would help slow this threat immediately and might be our only solution to salvaging the planet.
Secondly, one could argue that renewable energies are more sustainable and would therefore be better for the economy in the long run. While oil and coal are a finite resource and take millions of years to replenish, energy from wind and solar can in theory never run out. Therefore, making a switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy can be a solution that thinks of the longer term, since it could avert an economic crash when oil fully depletes. Many analysts have warned that with the current trajectory, oil could run out by 2050; when this happens, it could sharply affect the biggest economies in the world that are still heavily dependent on oil.
Overall, I argue that the climate effects as a result of fossil fuels consumption combined with the economic benefits of renewable energies mean that we should encourage the development of these forms of energy.
Sample 3:
Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, have long been the dominant sources of energy in many countries. However, their extensive use has resulted in significant environmental harm, prompting the need for alternative sources of energy. In response to this, many countries are encouraging the adoption of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. This essay will discuss the reasons behind the promotion of alternative energy sources and argue that it is a positive development.
One of the key reasons for the promotion of alternative energy sources is their potential to mitigate the negative environmental impacts associated with fossil fuels. Unlike fossil fuels, renewable energy sources produce little to no greenhouse gas emissions during operation, thereby reducing the contribution to climate change. For instance, countries like Germany have implemented strong incentives and subsidies to support the development of solar power, leading to a significant increase in the share of renewable energy in their energy mix. This shift towards cleaner sources of energy is driven by the recognition of the urgent need to combat climate change and reduce dependence on finite fossil fuel reserves.
The encouragement of alternative energy sources has numerous positive implications and is a positive trend. It promotes energy diversification, reducing reliance on a single energy source and increasing energy security. By harnessing the power of wind, solar, and other renewable sources, countries can decrease their vulnerability to fluctuations in fossil fuel prices and geopolitical tensions related to energy resources. Additionally, the transition to renewable energy stimulates innovation and job creation. As governments invest in renewable energy infrastructure and technologies, new industries and employment opportunities emerge.
In conclusion, the encouragement of alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar power, is driven by the need to address environmental concerns and promote sustainable development. By reducing greenhouse gas emissions, diversifying energy sources, and fostering economic growth, the adoption of renewable energy brings numerous benefits. Therefore, it is crucial for countries to continue investing in research, technology, and policy frameworks that support the widespread adoption of renewable energy, ensuring a cleaner and more sustainable energy future.
Sample 4:
Fossil fuel, though extensively used, is not eco-friendly, and its usage comes with huge environmental costs. Considering global warming and climate change, and the detrimental effects fossil fuels have on the environment, green fuel, such as solar, hydro and wind power, is increasingly being used in many countries. It is a good thing that many countries have already started using these green power sources.
The promotion of alternative sources of energy has gained significant momentum in numerous countries because of a growing concern about the adverse effects of fossil fuels on the environment such as greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. Governments and environmental organizations recognize the urgent need to transition to cleaner and more sustainable energy options. For instance, countries like Germany have implemented ambitious renewable energy targets, investing heavily in wind and solar power to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and combat climate change.
The stock of fossil fuels is limited and would get exhausted at a certain point. So, alternative and green sources, which are renewable, would be the main source of our energy in the future. Despite the shift from fossil fuel to green energy being expensive and labour-intensive, green energy like wind and solar energy is renewable, their use should be as much encouraged as possible from right now, and it is a good thing that the trend has already started. Alternative sources of power, such as solar and wind power, do not pollute the environment, have lower carbon emissions and are eco-friendly. So, their use could save the planet from the disaster of global warming which is already visible around us. Wind power and solar power are in use in countries like Denmark, Germany and France, and more and more countries are joining the list. We already have extremely efficient technology to produce solar and wind power, and the trend is quite encouraging.
To conclude, the energy demand is increasing at a fast pace, and the stock of fossil fuels is diminishing. So, we should turn to alternative green energy sources and share the technology and expertise with all nations so that the transition happens all around the world to save our otherwise dying planet due to climate change and greenhouse effects.
Sample 5:
Every year the energy demand is increasing globally. So, the strains on the current and already limited resources are high. Since these energy resources, like fossil fuels, are mostly imported by countries, some countries have opted for alternative sources of energy to enjoy greater energy security. I wholeheartedly believe that it is a positive trend.
Alternative sources of energy offer greater energy security and independence and that is why their production and use is increasing. Relying on traditional energy sources, often imported from other countries, can leave nations vulnerable to price fluctuations and geopolitical tensions. Embracing renewable energy sources, such as hydroelectric, geothermal, or biomass, allows countries to tap into their own natural resources and reduce dependence on foreign energy imports. This is why it has already gained popularity.
Fossil fuels, like coal and oil, are not unlimited. A few countries like Germany and Japan, for example, are completely dependent on the import of such resources. For all these countries, alternative energy, also known as green energy, is the answer for the future, and it is a welcoming trend that many countries have already started producing green energy. By embracing renewable energy options, countries can address climate change, enhance energy independence, create employment opportunities, and drive technological progress. Countries like France and Norway, among others, have invested in the technology needed to produce extremely efficient solar panels to store energy from the sun or produce wind power. The positive impacts of this development are innumerable, and many countries are following in their footsteps.
In conclusion, the use of green energy sources is gaining traction because many countries want to become energy self-sufficient. This is definitely a positive trend as it reduces reliance on energy imports, helps countries fight climate change, advances technology and creates more employment.
Sample 6:
These days, the environment is being severely affected by the excessive use of nonrenewable energy resources, such as petrol, diesel, coal and natural gas. However, eco-friendly and renewable power sources like wind and solar power are being adopted in many countries mainly because they do not harm the environment, and I wholeheartedly think that it is a positive trend.
The shift towards renewable energy sources in many countries is primarily to fight global warming and climate change. Fossil fuels are often the reason climate change is so severe and threatens the existence of humans on the mother planet. Many countries, including Germany, Norway and France, have adopted the use of green energy like solar and wind power to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels to save the environment.
It is a positive trend as it greatly reduces the carbon content of the environment and makes the planet more sustainable. Without extensive use of green energy, we will soon transform our planet into an uninhabitable one. To save our planet from destruction, we need to produce and use more green and renewable energy. Moreover, it is cheaper to produce such clean energy than to extract coal or natural gas which makes these eco-friendly energies affordable to mass people. A recent study by Oxford University reveals that the production of solar power is 30% cheaper than that of fossil fuel. This finding again emphasizes how important it is for all nations to opt for renewable energy sources, and how beneficial it is that many countries have already invested in generating clean power.
In conclusion, even though we have harmed our mother planet to a great extent by indiscriminately using fossil fuels, some countries have already shown us a better way to produce and use power. It is expected that more countries will invest in alternative sources of energy to make the planet green again and make energy affordable for all.
Sample 7:
While fossil fuels have been the backbone of our energy supply for centuries, they have severe harmful impacts on our environment. Therefore, some countries have started relying on green energy to reverse the situation. And it is a positive trend that we have started researching and using alternative sources of energy, also known as green energy, that are sustainable and do not cause long-term damage to our environment.
One of the main reasons alternative energy sources are being used to produce green energy in many countries is their ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which are a major contributor to climate change. According to the International Energy Agency, the use of renewable energy sources can help reduce global CO2 emissions by up to 70% by 2050. This is a significant step towards protecting our planet from the devastating effects of climate change, including rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and loss of biodiversity.
The use of renewable sources to generate energy is a positive development for a variety of reasons. For instance, investing in renewable energy can also create jobs and boost the economy. According to the Renewable Energy and Jobs Annual Review 2020, the renewable energy sector employed around 11.5 million people worldwide in 2019, a 6% increase from the previous year. This growth in employment opportunities can help to stimulate local economies and provide new job opportunities for people in both developed and developing countries. For example, in Germany, the government's decision to phase out nuclear power plants and invest in renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, has created over 300,000 jobs and contributed to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
In conclusion, the shift towards green energy sources is a positive development that can help to protect our environment and create new job opportunities. While it may take time and investment to transition away from fossil fuels, it is a necessary step to ensure a sustainable future for generations to come.
Sample 8:
Many nations are now supporting the adoption of various energy alternatives in order to reduce fossil fuel consumption. In my opinion, though there may be short-term economic downsides, this is a decidedly positive development due to the implications on the environment generally.
Those who feel the sudden adoption of alternative energies is a negative point out the financial repercussions. There are economies around the world that are currently dependent on exporting fossil fuels, in particular in The Middle East, South America, and Eastern Europe. Many of these countries are still developing and have few other natural resources or industries that could replace a decline in the energy sector. The economic effects will extend far beyond exporters though. Both developed and developing nations ranging from the United States and Vietnam to China and Russia exploit oil for private vehicles and various industries. Substituting cheap oil for a more expensive alternative might result in economic catastrophe with wide-ranging repercussions.
However, the environmental effect is overwhelmingly more important for the long-term health of the planet. The economic results of less dependence on fossil fuels will cause short-term problems but the issues caused by climate change are also becoming a present reality. For instance, there has been a rise in the number of cataclysmic natural disasters related to rising ocean temperatures and deforestation. Even more troubling are the less noticed problems such as habitats being destroyed in remote areas like Antarctica and the Amazon Rainforest. Beyond the animals becoming endangered and extinct, it is only a number of years before human life is affected. This existential threat is the reason alternative energies are a pressing need.
In conclusion, despite the economic drawbacks of a sudden shift to alternative power sources, this reorientation will have a markedly positive long-term impact on the environment. Governments should therefore implement and bolster alternative energy initiatives.
Sample 9:
The development of renewable energies like wind power, wave power, or solar energy to replace the electricity generated from burning fossil fuels has become an increasingly popular trend in the world. I believe this is a green movement in the energy sector with countless benefits that people should welcome.
The most palpable advantage one can recognize at once when mentioning renewable energies is that they reduce the burden on the environment. The use of solar power creates no emission at all, and thus provides for the need of power at almost no environmental cost. It is similarly clean and sustainable when wind, wave, and water moving around the Earth eternally can be used in energy production. Also, the independence from fossil fuels in electricity generation saves the world from a rapid depletion of coal, oil and natural gases, and slow down the imminent energy crisis which may even cause wars over energy sources among countries.
Moreover, the production of green energy also benefits individuals and the country as a whole. Thanks to less burning of fossil fuels in thermal energy plants, workers in energy companies face less risks of occupational health problems especially those related to respiratory diseases and may lead to early death. On the large scale of a country, the utilization of wind, wave, sunlight, and even geothermal heat to produce electricity will diversify the energy portfolio of different nations, making them free from reliance on limited natural resources to generate electricity due to their unfavourable geographical locations.
In conclusion, the movement of the world towards more use of renewable energy is completely positive when it solves multiple problems of environmental pollution, dependence on natural resources for energy, and poor health of workers in thermal power plants.
Sample 10:
Governments across continents have turned their attention to more sustainable sources of energy as alternatives to fossil fuels. In my opinion, this could be seen as a progress for the following reasons.
First, there is no arguing that producing energy from buried dead organisms lacks sustainability, which means such production could not guarantee the survival of humans in the long term. In fact, the consumption of energy generated from fossil fuels tends to accelerate in direct correlation with the growth of the world population. With the current rate of exploitation, this valuable resource would dwindle away in no time, leaving no other choice than seeking additional reserves such as nuclear power or hydroelectricity. This is a safe solution to the fear of energy scarcity and ensures the future development of the human race.
Second, dependence on fossil fuel for worldwide energy supply would cause environmental degradation while using solar power, for example, is considered an ultimate choice of energy conservation. The combustion of fossil fuels is the culprit of greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants, leading to tremendous damage to the environment. Such suffering of the Earth could not be justified by the growing need of humans. By contrast, this would never be the case when it comes to other alternatives as mentioned above. If governments continue to invest in exploiting those new sources, there will be an unlimited amount of inexpensive energy in the long run.
In conclusion, I believe that the use of other potential energy sources to replace fossil fuels is obviously an important step forward.
Sample 11:
Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, are extensively used in many countries and cause harm to the environment. The use of alternative sources of energy, including wind and solar power, however, is being encouraged in many countries. Is this a positive or negative development?
In several nations, non-renewable sources of energy, namely coal, petroleum, and gasoline, are used inordinately, which is severely damaging the ecosystem. However, other countries are promoting the usage of non-conventional sources of power, such as wind and solar energy. I personally consider that this has been a positive development because the non-traditional approach will aid in efficient energy output and protect the ecosystem from feasible hazards.
Primarily, the remarkable advantage of the aforementioned alternative sources is that they are renewable. These energy sources have a constant supply of power and there is no requirement for significant raw materials. Although it could be argued that the initial cost of setting up solar panels and wind farms is extremely high, I would assert that once the installation cost has been met with, their maintenance is practically negligible. Apart from this, it is widely accepted that fossil fuels take millions of years to form, and once consumed, they cannot be re-used. To illustrate, if modern individuals burn immense petroleum and coal, these resources are likely to vanish, and future generations would not be capable of using these precious energy sources.
Another major benefit of eco-friendly energy sources is their non-polluting nature. The intensive usage of natural resources forms carbon emissions and emits noxious gases that are nurturing global warming and depleting the ozone layer. Even worse, by inhaling such poisonous gases and carbon fumes, human beings are susceptible to various health ailments such as asthma and lung cancer. However, when energy is harnessed from wind turbines and solar panels there are no such deleterious by-products. Unlike other automobiles, for instance, commuting through a solar car would not emit carbon dioxide.
In conclusion, not only do alternative sources provide an inordinate amount of energy supply constantly, but they also preserve the environment in a very effective way. Therefore, I completely believe that this trend is a wholly positive development and one that authorities ought to promote.
Sample 12:
In this day and age, the consumption of non-renewable resources is burgeoning day by day. Owing to this it reached an alarming rate. It takes millions of years to form. However, some nations are taking a step forward and using non-conventional sources of power. This essay will highlight that this is certainly an optimistic approach that needs to be opted.
At the outset, non-conventional sources can be recycled and utilized again. Although, the use of alternative sources has some hurdles like the initial cost of setting up solar panels and wind farms is very high and these also rely on geographical locations. When masses use this energy source for a long period of time, the energy can be renewed and produced, no extra cost will have more economic benefit than the others. Besides this, the use of renewable energy could help to conserve foreign exchange and generate local employment if conservation technologies are designed, manufactured, assembled, and installed locally.
Moving further, alternative sources- wind power, tidal power, solar power – sources are totally safe for the environment, have lower carbon emission, and are eco-friendly. The research concluded that there are some countries that have utilized alternative sources namely German, France, and Denmark as these nations save the planet from a disaster of global warming. Some countries use automobile cars that work on solar power. Consequently, it has reduced the carbon footprint of such countries and made its greenery.
Based on this study it can be reiterated that the use of alternative sources of energy is an optimistic evolvement, which can save the whole globe from the catastrophic impact of greenhouse emissions as well as global warming. Furthermore, more and more folks should adopt renewable sources to ameliorate the conditions of the environment. In this way, by taking joint efforts individuals can preserve the world.
Sample 13:
Due to the shortage of fossil fuels, whether other natural power resources should be encouraged to harness or not, becomes a paramount concern for many countries. I believe, while this advancement may decrease awareness among people about protecting the fuels, it also solves the problem of the lack of energy sources.
First of all, fossil fuels which are the major energy resources in many nations are facing the threats of becoming obsolete due to the overuse by the human race in daily life. As a result, people should be encouraged to raise awareness of fuel conservation. However, the utilization of alternative natural energy sources could prevent people from doing this by reducing the fears of coal or oil that might be running out. Because there are other sources to use, they would use more energy generated from gas or oil without hesitation. In my personal opinion, the negative sides of using different resources of power could deteriorate the shortage of fuels.
Harnessing alternative power sources (such as solar or wind power), in contrast, could reduce the usage of fossil fuels in generating energy for a range of demanding activities such as heating and driving. While coal and oil mines are limited, natural resources such as wind and solar power are considered unlimited. This wind power or solar energy is consequently able to produce enough energy for human demand without the help of fossil fuels. As a result, it should be encouraged to be utilized in more countries in the world to gradually cut down the usage of fossil fuels.
To sum up, the encouragement of using natural resources (such as solar or wind) for producing energy has both negative and positive sides. However, I deem that humankind should consider using more power from solar or wind and less from coal and gas to protect the remaining parts of fossil fuels.
Sample 14:
Coals, oil, and gas are some fossil fuels that are the most common sources of energy for the majority of countries. On the other hand, some countries encourage the use of renewable resources like wind and solar energy. I believe this is a strongly positive development as we will be in grave danger if the world runs out of these natural non-renewable resources like fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels are used in almost all industries and for running motor vehicles. We can minimize this by using alternatives wherever possible. If it goes on like this, we will soon have such a shortage of these fuels that can pose a threat to running things efficiently. For example, some industries can only run on coal or oil, though this is not the case for cars. Automobiles can easily run on electricity, and so we should limit the use of such fuels. Burning too much of these fossil fuels also contributes to air pollution. Thus, it is important to minimize usage wherever possible.
On the other hand, wind energy and solar energy take comparatively longer time to generate, and they are largely dependent on the sun and the wind. We do not have any control over them, so the production of goods might slow down if there is less generation of energy as we cannot, in fact, control the weather. Perhaps tropical countries, where there is an abundant amount of sunshine and wind, can be encouraged to use these natural sources and not waste fossil fuels. However, for temperate climates, this might not be an option. Dependency on nature can have slower production rates and lead to not meeting the deadline or having scarcity in the market.
On the whole, I believe all the countries should be aware of the hazards of wasting too much of our natural reserves of energy and use them consciously and responsibly. Initiatives such as building consciousness about the issue should be taken to build a more environmentally friendly atmosphere.
Sample 15:
Fossil fuels harm the environment and to save our planet we need to encourage the use of green energy. The use of alternative sources of energy, or ‘green’ energy, is a positive trend of development, and indeed their use should be encouraged further.
As the demand for energy worldwide is increasing the strains on the existing and already limited resources also increase. To solve this problem, we must consider two issues: how to better use the existing, limited fossil fuel resources and how we can encourage the use of alternative energy sources.
It is universally acknowledged that there is a limitation on the use of fossil fuels, especially coal and oil. Some countries are rich in oil deposits like OPEC, whereas China is rich in coal deposits and Russia in natural gas. Others, such as Japan and Germany, are completely dependent on the import of resources. For all countries- resource-rich versus resource-poor, alternative energy should be encouraged and utilised to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels as well as to keep the global environment in balance and ‘healthy’.
The only way is to turn to other sources to get energy supply. Wind power and solar power are at present feasible alternatives. France is one country that has the advanced technology needed to produce extremely efficient solar panels to store energy from the sun. Both kinds of power can reduce a country’s dependence on fossil fuels. Furthermore, they do not pollute the environment and in turn, help keep the ecosystem stable.
To conclude, while fossil fuel resources are diminishing, the energy demand continues to increase year after year. It is a positive trend to develop other alternative sources of power and experiences should be shared and promoted. If this switch to alternative energy is encouraged early enough, then we may yet avoid the pending energy crisis and environmental disaster.
Lời giải
Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 250K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.
Lời giải
Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 250K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.
Lời giải
Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 250K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.
Lời giải
Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 250K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.
Lời giải
Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 250K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.