Câu hỏi:

07/01/2025 318

Some people think that the range of technology available to people is increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. Others think it has the opposite effect. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Quảng cáo

Trả lời:

verified
Giải bởi Vietjack

Sample 1:

Some people argue that in modern society, technological advancements are increasing the gap between the wealthy and the poor while others believe that technology is decreasing the gap between them. In my opinion, while certain innovations are inaccessible to the poor because of their high cost, certain technologies are available to all people in society and help reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.

Some inventions and discoveries decreased the gap between people of different income levels. This is because they are accessible to all people due to their availability at cheaper rates. For example, internet technology is available to almost all sections of society. It is affordable to all people, and certain places such as railway stations, bus stations, and airports are WiFi hotspots where the internet is freely available. Online shopping facilities, e-learning opportunities and social networking sites are available to both affluent and poor people in society and they decrease the gap between the rich and the poor.

However, certain advancements in technology are not affordable for the poorer sections of society. In fact, new drugs, diagnostic procedures, and even modern medicines are very costly. Therefore, only rich people can access these treatments and improve their health by spending only a small portion of their income. For example, affluent people who developed cancer took treatment with a special kind of protein which was very expensive but had fewer side effects compared to conventional chemotherapy. Poor people, on the other hand, have to spend all of their money for conventional treatments and yet there is no guarantee that their condition will improve.

In conclusion, certain innovations in technology bridge the gap between the rich and the poor while certain developments make society more polarized.

Sample 2:

It is true that the advent of technology has brought tremendous benefits to human life. While technology can narrow the gap between social classes to some extent, I believe that some technological products have set affluent individuals apart from others, as will now be discussed.

On the one hand, it is true that technology has transformed our lives and reduced the gap between individuals. The availability of technological products has allowed massive numbers of people to live a comfortable life in almost the same way. For example, today, nearly every household has at least a television, a fridge, or an air-conditioner, all of which help increase the overall standard of living and narrow the gap between the haves and the have-nots in society. The spectacular growth of low-cost airlines also means that more people can take a flight to the place they want to go to.

Looking at the argument in this light, some feel that technology has bridged the gap between the rich and the poor. On the other hand, I side with those who argue that some technology has separated wealthy individuals from poorer ones. Many technological products are prohibitively expensive, and only the rich are able to afford them. Luxury cars and private jets, for instance, have created a shining image for the owners, giving them an aura of confidence when they appear in public. Those who live on a meager income, in contrast, could merely enjoy a frugal life with mediocre but necessary consumer products. The idea of possessing the latest technology in the home might be far-fetched to bourgeois individuals.

In conclusion, although some technological products are produced for the masses, I believe that some others contribute to the difference in lifestyles between rich people and poor ones.

Sample 3:

It is often thought that the wide variety of technological advancements are raising the gap between rich and poor people, whilst others think these advancements are bridging the gap between rich and poor. Many arguments have been made for and against the effect of technological inventions on rich and poor people. In this essay, I will discuss both views and give my own position.

On one hand, many people think that the growth in technology reduces the difference between the rich person and poor person. This can be attributed to the growing inventions in all fields, which facilitate people to use a range of machinery for accomplishing the tasks, that in turn reduce the dependency on people for accomplishing the task. A good illustration is the invention of machinery for weeding, planting, harvesting and food processing which evidently reduce the time and people involved in these tasks and result in huge profit for agrarian society.

On the other hand, technology has spread over many areas which act as a trigger point for the increase in gap between wealthy and needy person. Even though there is plenty of new machinery rushing to the market each day, they are almost extremely costlier, which cannot be afforded by an indigent person. This, in turn, results in the needy person to go penniless, in contrast, facilitate moneyed man to become wealthy individual.

Finally, in my opinion, we are in the 21st century where tremendous growth in technology facilitates people to lead a better life with high quality. There are a lot of positive outcomes due to technological innovations which play a key role in bridging the gap between rich and poor people.

In conclusion, with the recent technological invention, there is a lot of scope for poor people to get rid of manual work and thrive towards raising their standard of living. Therefore, new innovations play a vital role in reducing the gap between rich people and poor people.

Sample 4:

Some argue that technological availability is widening the gap between the affluent and the underprivileged groups of people, while some people view it the other way around. However, although the poor are unable to afford high end technologies and the associated wellness benefits, in my opinion, the easy access to some technological platforms have created incredible opportunities for the common people to gain required skills that bridge the gaps between rich and poor.

On the one hand, as high-tech devices are very costly, not all the people in a society could access to such type of products. For example, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Internet of the things (IoT), both technologies are facilitating rich people to lead a more productive life which helps them keep growing even more in their career. Furthermore, the cutting-edge expensive technologies are not only favouring rich, but also creating barriers for the poor people in availing some fundamental rights such as health and wellness services, as these sectors are mostly relying on high-tech appliances. For instance, private hospitals are normally equipped with the most advanced technologies which are only available to individuals who could financially afford their services.

On the other hand, certain types of technologies are available for the majority of people around the world. These days almost everyone has access to the Internet and smart phones which brings a vast number of opportunities for people to develop their skills and knowledge. In addition, regardless of the business size, individuals are able to promote their products and showcase their talents through social networks. Furthermore, not only wealthy people have access to the world class knowledge and education nowadays, but also poor people can avail the opportunity to reach smart-pay jobs by acquiring the necessary skills using the online open learning platforms and showcasing their talent through social media networks. Thus, when poor people get better in terms of knowledge and earnings, the gap between the well-off and the less privileged individuals declines.

To conclude, it is true that wealthy people have exclusive access to certain types of technologies that can make them richer. Nevertheless, easy access to some essential technologies, such as free online portals, is broadly helping everyone to nourish their knowledge and expertise, which is eventually contributing to narrowing the gaps between the rich and poor.

Sample 5:

Some people believe that technology has made people become closer, whereas others think that a wide range of technology nowadays increases the gap between the rich and the poor. In fact, there are both sides, regardless of reach or poor, people are easily connecting with each other using the advantages of technology, although the poor are getting deprived of wellness service because of its heavy dependence on sophisticated technology. This essay firmly believes that if people can make good use of different technologies, it could help to reduce the gap between people who are and who are not wealthy. I am going to elucidate the idea in detail in the following paragraphs.

First of all, technology plays an important role in reducing the gap among people from all walks of life. It is without a doubt that wealthy people would prefer to go to prestigious private schools. They, therefore, make friends the people who are with similar family backgrounds. With the help of technology such as social media applications, nowadays they can make friendship with diverse groups of people. In fact, technology provides a platform for the rich and the poor to get to know each other. In other words, it enables them to connect without boundaries. For instance, poor people would try to get into the field of technology in order to change their life. That means, by resorting to technology, they not only gain the scope to work for wealthy people, but also create connections with them, which eventually results in narrowing the gaps between them.

However, high-end technologies are very costly, all the people in a society cannot get access to them. As a result, it is not only increasing the gap in terms of accessing to cutting edge products but also creating barriers for the poor people in availing health and wellness services, as these sectors are mostly relying on high-tech equipment, whereas poor people are lagging behind. For instance, reputed advanced hospitals are normally equipped with the most expensive and advanced technologies, which are beyond the reach of the poor people in terms of both complexities and cost.

To conclude, technology plays a crucial role in connecting people among the different strata of a society. However, it is not free from downsides, as the service sector is becoming heavily based on complex and expensive technology, poor people are being pushed out of reach. Weighing both sides, I must say, people have to use technology wisely in order to see its benefits. Otherwise, it might further widen the gap between the poor and the rich.

Sample 6:

The debate over whether the burgeoning range of technology available to people is widening the socioeconomic divide is multifaceted. On one hand, it is argued that technology exacerbates the gap between the affluent and the indigent, while on the contrary, some believe it acts as a great equalizer. This essay will examine both perspectives, ultimately advocating that technology's role is nuanced, influencing both sides of the socioeconomic spectrum in complex ways.

Advocates for the viewpoint that technology is increasing the gap between the rich and the poor cite the digital divide as a primary concern. The argument rests on the premise that access to cutting-edge technology, including high-speed internet, sophisticated devices, and advanced educational tools, is predominantly within the reach of the wealthy. This access not only enhances their economic opportunities but also augments their educational and social advantages, perpetuating a cycle of inequality. For instance, remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted this issue, as children from affluent families could continue their education seamlessly online, while those from poorer backgrounds often struggled without the necessary technological resources.

Conversely, proponents of the idea that technology can diminish economic disparities point to its democratizing effects. They argue that technology, especially the internet, has drastically reduced the barriers to information, education, and business opportunities. Platforms such as MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) provide free or low-cost education to anyone with internet access, potentially leveling the playing field. Additionally, the rise of e-commerce and digital entrepreneurship allows individuals from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds to start businesses with minimal capital, challenging traditional economic barriers.

In conclusion, while technology's proliferation can indeed accentuate the gap between different socioeconomic groups by privileging those with access, it also harbors the potential to bridge these divides through its democratizing capabilities. The crux of the issue lies in ensuring equitable access to technological resources, thereby harnessing its potential to empower rather than exclude. As such, the relationship between technology and socioeconomic disparities is not one-dimensional but deeply intertwined with broader societal structures and policies.

Sample 7:

It is true that technological improvements have brought tremendous benefits to human life. While technology can narrow the gap between social classes, I would argue that innovative products have separated wealthy individuals from poorer ones.

On the one hand, technological innovations have decreased the gap between people of different income levels. This is because the availability of high-tech facilities has helped those living in poverty lead a more comfortable life compared to the earlier time. For example, nowadays blue-collar workers can easily afford to buy a multi-tasking smartphone, allowing them to gain equal access to abundant sources of online information and entertainment regardless of their social status. As a result, their living standard and life quality have been enhanced considerably. Similarly, the popularity of the Internet enables students with financial hardships to approach affordable high-quality e-learning from reputed websites like Udemy without worrying about tuition fees, contributing to greater equality in life.

On the one hand, I believe technological advances have set the affluent apart from others. In terms of medical sectors, although a great number of advanced medical treatments for fatal ailments like cancer can save thousands of individuals worldwide, the price of those medications is still beyond the purse of many, and therefore only the wealthy can afford them, which is unfair. In terms of luxury goods, as high-tech firms seldom make products for poor customers, only the rich can afford the leading brands like Ferrari or Vertu, so the chance to possess tech and luxury items is far-fetched to bourgeois individuals, contributing to the growing inequality.

In conclusion, although scientific breakthroughs can lead to a better life, it seems to me that the gap between the haves and the have-nots is being widened.

Sample 8:

The rapid advancement of technology in recent years has sparked a debate regarding its impact on socioeconomic disparities. Some argue that the widening range of technology is exacerbating the gap between rich and poor individuals, while others contend that it has the opposite effect. In this essay, we will explore both perspectives and provide an informed opinion on this critical issue.

Advocates of the view that technology widens the gap between rich and poor individuals highlight several compelling points. Firstly, the high cost of cutting-edge technology places it out of reach for many low-income individuals, limiting their access to tools that could enhance their skills and opportunities. Additionally, technology’s integral role in modern education creates an education divide, with economically disadvantaged students lacking access to the resources and tools that their wealthier peers enjoy. Furthermore, as technology advances, job automation becomes more prevalent, resulting in job displacement for those in low-skilled sectors. This exacerbates income inequality, as individuals with the skills to work with technology benefit from job opportunities and higher wages. Lastly, digital literacy is increasingly crucial for accessing essential services and employment opportunities, further marginalizing disadvantaged individuals who lack these skills.

Proponents of the opposite view argue that technology can actually narrow the gap between rich and poor individuals. One argument in favor of this perspective is that the internet provides access to a wealth of information and educational resources, empowering individuals from all socioeconomic backgrounds to acquire knowledge and skills. Moreover, technology facilitates economic opportunities through online platforms and e-commerce, allowing individuals, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to start businesses and access global markets. Additionally, technology has made remote work more feasible, enabling people in remote or economically disadvantaged areas to participate in the global job market without the need to relocate. These factors suggest that technology can, in fact, mitigate socioeconomic disparities.

In conclusion, the impact of technology on the gap between rich and poor individuals is a multifaceted issue. While technology offers access to information, economic opportunities, and remote work possibilities, it also exacerbates disparities through limited access, education divides, job automation, and digital literacy gaps. Considering these factors, it is our belief that the increasing range of technology available today tends to widen the gap between rich and poor individuals.

Sample 9:

There is no doubt that modern technology is reshaping our planet and affecting every aspect of human lives. From a social perspective, many people argue that the gap between the upper class and lower classes is widening as a result of technological advancements. Others, however, believe the opposite.

There are several reasons why one could think that wealth inequality is, indeed, increasing. The most common reason is the automation. Driven by technology, automation reduces the need for manual labour. As a result, less work opportunities are available for unskilled people. With each iteration of the cycle the competition increases and wages decrease. Secondly, technology has increased the minimum level of needs that should be satisfied. Nowadays, everybody should have a mobile phone and an internet connection, including the poor. This increases the monetary burden on them as they must borrow to cover these new needs.

However, I firmly believe that the aforementioned opinion is ludicrous. The most obvious reason is that modern technology has facilitated the road to riches in an unprecedented manner. For instance, many of the internet billionaires are from lower and middle classes. Moreover, the major leaps in agricultural technologies have magnified food production. As a result, food has become more affordable and available. Finally, leveraging technology has dramatically increased workers' productivity. Consequently, compensations and salaries have increased.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that technology could possibly narrow the difference between social classes. Increased food production, opportunities and productivity are just a few examples of technology's contribution to bridging the wealth gap.

Sample 10:

A group of people think that the rich-poor gap is widening because of modern technology, while others oppose this view. In my opinion, modern technology plays a key role in minimizing this gap to a great extent.

Even though technology has developed to a great extent, not all of it is accessible to all classes of the society. Some technological developments require immense research and heavy investment. As a result, such state-of-the-art technology is often priced high and is very much aimed at a niche market mainly consisting of the affluent who are willing to pay a high sum to access such sophisticated technology. In such cases, those belonging to the low economic class would be denied or would find it extremely challenging to access such high-end technology even if it is of a dire need contributing to the economic gap in society.

On the contrary, one cannot deny the fact that the gap between the rich and poor has been reduced to a great extent as a result of growth in modern technology. In the past, technological developments and inventions were seldom. However, over the last few years monumental changes can be seen in the field of technology like telecommunication, automation and robotics which are available in a range of prices making it affordable to many. This has aided in reducing the opportunity gap and has made it a lot easier for people to gain access to different technologies and employ the same in their day-to-day life as well as in the industrial activities thereby minimizing the rich-poor gap in society.

In my view, technological inventions with advanced features are available in the market in a range of prices making it easy for everyone to gain access to technology regardless of their economic background. This has significantly helped in bringing down the rich- poor differentiation at present in society.

In conclusion, although people have different opinions regarding the impact of modern technology on the rich-poor gap in society, I believe that it has played a considerable role in bringing down the inequality curve.

Sample 11:

Technology has undoubtedly become an integral part of our lives, and its impact on society is a topic of much debate. Some argue that the increasing range of technology is widening the gap between the rich and the poor, while others believe that it is actually bridging this divide. Both views have valid points, and in this essay, I will discuss these perspectives and provide my opinion on the matter.

On one hand, those who argue that technology is increasing the gap between the rich and the poor point to the rising cost of advanced technology. The latest smartphones, computers, and other gadgets are often unaffordable for those in lower income brackets, leading to a digital divide. Additionally, the access to high-speed internet and digital resources is often limited in economically disadvantaged areas, further exacerbating the gap. This means that the wealthy have greater access to information, education, and opportunities, while the poor are left behind.

On the other hand, proponents of the opposite view argue that technology has the potential to level the playing field. They argue that advancements in communication technology have made it easier for people from all backgrounds to connect and collaborate. The rise of e-learning platforms and online resources has also provided access to education and skill development for those who may not have had the opportunity otherwise. Furthermore, the increasing affordability of basic technology, such as smartphones, has allowed even the poorest individuals to access information and services that were previously out of reach.

In my opinion, while it is true that technology has the potential to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor, the current reality is that it is widening this divide. The high cost of advanced technology and the unequal access to digital resources are clear indicators of this trend. However, with the right policies and initiatives in place, technology can be harnessed to create more equitable opportunities for all members of society.

Sample 12:

Today, modernization has revolutionised humans’ lifestyles fundamentally. Industrialisation has made our world a better place to live, although some individuals believe that this has been more useful to more affluent citizens. From my perspective, these advancements have led all humans to live better, even the deprived ones.

On the one hand, those who believe that by the development of technology, the rich have gained more beneficiaries have their own reasons. One is that luxury lifestyle has become more popular globally. The more luxury goods are produced by different companies, the more well-to-do citizens have more choices to purchase more variety of magnificent items. For instance, in 2015, Apple, a well-known electronic corporation in the USA, produced a new version of Apple cell phone as size as a watch with the price of over $20000. Therefore, this watch will be affordable to those having tremendous saving. In addition, in trading, richer countries have a better access to the latest technology of e-commerce, while the poor ones, higher expenditure avoids them to compete with the former and the globalisation has increased the gap between the developed and underdeveloped nations.

On the other hand, I personally agree with those believing that modernization has had more positive influences on both rich and poor people. One important impact is that all nations have better access to more highly developed health systems. For example, even in remote areas of Africa, MRI is used for diagnosing diseases, and its technology can be compared to the one which is being used in the USA. In addition, travel facilities have been altered dramatically. Had aviation technology not been developed so fast, less general people would have used low-cost airlines. In the past, only the rich could pay for the ticket of an airplane, but now even a simple worker and his family can afford the fee of a flight annually.

In conclusion, some may believe that the more technology develops, the more wealthy citizens have better living conditions. However, I personally agree that this can influence the level of access to medical services and travelling facilities, and the poor’s lifestyles have been and will be improved far significantly.

Sample 13:

Modern technology has played a crucial role in molding and shaping society and the world the way it is today. Some people believe that the upcoming modern technology has resulted in an increased gap between the rich class and the poor people of society. But, in my opinion, modern technology has resulted in closing the gap between the two classes rather than increasing the gap and has proved to be a bane in the lives of the people.

One of the major reasons which make people believe in this ideology is because of the fact that modern technology is expensive and cannot be afforded by everyone in the society. For example, with the commencement of the lockdown due to COVID-19 and the digitalization of teaching via online classes, almost every family had to buy a new gadget such as a smartphone, laptop, computer, or tablet to ensure uninterrupted studies. As we know that the prices of electronic gadgets are very high, it becomes tough for poor people to afford such gadgets. Thus, many people fail to buy them, which in turn affects their education.

However, technology is one of the areas which has turned many people filthy rich. The individuals running their businesses in technology are some of the richest people worldwide, for example, Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp altogether, and Bill Gates, the owner of Microsoft has become the richest man worldwide because of his software business i.e., technology.

Though modern technology is expensive, but several measures have been taken by the Indian Government to ensure that technology reaches to several people in the old households, the made in India project, the cheap network plans, and cheap smartphones provided by the Indian companies like Jio, makes it possible for several people to get the gadgets and become aware with the technology.

Sample 14:

Some people believe that modern technology is increasing the gap between rich and poor people, and I completely agree with their opinion. In my point of view, technology plays a crucial role in increasing the gap and barrier between the rich people and the poor people of the society. This topic is one of the most controversial topics of all time, however, I would like to state a few relevant points and examples that would justify my opinion.

Everyone knows that the technology of the present generation and the gadgets that support it are very expensive and always come at a price. Thus, this technology is way more affordable for the rich people as compared to the poor people. Let us be practical, for example, in a developing country like India, where several people are below the poverty line and have a daily income of 50 to 100 rupees, it is hard for them to buy electronic gadgets worth 7000 rupees or even get a net plan worth rupee 20. In the current scenario of the pandemic, where online education is the most preferred way of education, the lack of resources makes it difficult for poor people to pursue their education. This is clearly one of the best examples to prove how rich people and poor people are indifferent because of technological barriers.

Moreover, even if someone buys a gadget, the lack of electricity in the rural areas is a barrier, preventing them from using the gadgets or the technology. However, the lack of money is one of the biggest barriers which further increases the gap between these two classes in the society, but one should never lose hope and get disheartened.

However, the advancing technology has been a gift to the human population, everything is available at a click, thus measures should be taken to ensure its availability to everyone.

Sample 15:

Technology is constantly modernizing, improvising, and advancing and thus in turn is reshaping people’s lives, which have affected everyone in several ways. While many people accept the fact that technology has heightened the gap between rich and poor people, I would like to argue that it is the opposite. In my opinion, modern technology has successfully reduced these barriers and gaps amongst these two classes of people and would soon equate them.

It is true that, in the past years, the barriers between rich and poor people have been widely seen amongst groups of people in society. For example, the possession of luxurious and expensive Apple products by most of the rich individuals is still commonly viewed as a symbol of being a part of the upper class of society, since Apple products are having high popularity and high value. Despite these factors, technology has entered and improvised as years passed by, allowing everyone in the society to enter the world of the wealthy. I would like to give a clear example, the use of the online stock market has become easily accessible to the market at minimum fees due to its availability on the internet, and now everyone can access it online. Online conferences, webinars, seminars, courses can be conveniently viewed on social media accounts such as LinkedIn, Facebook, WhatsApp, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube. Signing in on such websites has now become an easy task, since everyone can do it, and is not limited to the richer people only now. To conclude, although technology has resulted in generating a gap between wealthy and deprived people of society in the past, I now believe that it has successfully created a bridge between these people too, thus reducing the gap of the societies they live in and improving their lives further through constant awareness and knowledge.

Sample 16:

Some people believe that modern technology is widening the gulf between rich and poor, whereas others feel that it is bridging it. I agree with the former point of view because technology by and large benefits wealthy people.

On the one hand, it can be argued that the poor can now educate themselves online for free. In the pre-Internet era, those who had little education almost had no opportunity to 'escape' to better employment. They had to do low-skilled jobs and earn minimum wages all their working life. However, now poor people can acquire knowledge by reading articles and watching tutorials on the Internet without charge. The knowledge they have gained can help them change their fate. However, I disagree with this argument because those that are truly destitute might not have access to a computer or the Internet.

On the other hand, technology mainly works to the advantage of the rich. This is because they can afford to use advanced technology to create more wealth. Manual workers, in comparison, are being replaced by automation. For example, while Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is getting richer and richer as he keeps investing in logistics automation for the company's warehouses, farmers and miners are losing their jobs to robots. I agree with this opinion because the poor cannot even keep their manual labor jobs, let alone close the gap with the rich.

In conclusion, I think modern technology is exacerbating economic inequality because it is primarily in favor of already wealthy people.

Sample 17:

There have always been considerable discussions in terms of the influence of technology on human beings. It is argued by some that the advent of technology is responsible for expanding the gap between social classes, I believe that technology is an ideal vehicle for people to get closer to each other.

On the one hand, I understand why some people think that technological devices increase the gap between rich and poor people. They argue that technological advances have led to the appearance of various luxurious products which are so costly that only the rich in the society are able to afford. Take supercars as a typical example, these cars are often equipped with upper-level performance engines and other state-of-the-art equipment. Also, they must under rigorous safety tests before delivering to customers, and therefore they are too expensive in the market. It is impossible for poor people who live on a small salary to buy this kind of car which may cost them a fortune, but many rich people buy exorbitant cars to separate them from their society.

On the other hand, I believe that there do exist many technological inventions which reduce the differences between wealthy and poor people. The advancement of technology has brought many opportunities for most people from a variety of backgrounds to approach a range of technological products which are affordable in the market. It is exemplified by a high proportion of families in Vietnam who use air conditioners and washing machines on a daily basis. In the past, it was difficult for impoverished people to possess these products which are limited in numbers and expensive. However, not only well-off households in cities but also rural families in the countryside can buy them to improve their living standards as they are not only diverse in size and quantity but also cheap.

In conclusion, there are some high-tech devices which are prohibitively expensive for poor people, but I believe that many low-cost technological products help to reduce the gap between rich and poor people.

Sample 18:

It is considered by some that the extensive use of modern technology is widening the gap between affluent and poor people, while others refute the statement. Although affordable technologies continue to permeate the developing world and help reduce the disparity between the rich and the poor at the initial stage, I believe, it risks widening the divergence between the rich and impoverished in the long run by shifting investment to advanced economies and wealthy people.

On the one hand, poor nations narrow the gap between people from different walks of life with the use of affordable technology such as computers, laptops and the internet when the technology is embraced by all. In simple words, access to technology allows lower-income groups to develop specialised skills and, help connect to employers to find jobs online. A good example here is “impact sourcing”, which refers to the businesses employing underprivileged people to carry out processing tasks that need human interaction but can be carried out on an outsourced basis. A study commissioned by the Rockefeller Foundation revealed that the market for impact sourcing was $30 billion in 2020. However, this is just the initial state, and the rich start to reap the wider benefits of technology by controlling that in the long run and eventually being richer. This risks the wealth disparity among people even more.

Moreover, many technologies like robotics, computer architecture, artificial intelligence, and machine learning also widen the discrepancy between the rich and the poor by shifting investment to either the developed world or to wealthy investors. This means that robots replace many unskilled workers, and the artificial intelligence revolution causes an increase in productivity, this in turn fuels overwhelming demand to invest in robots. Consequently, investment diverts from the poor nations to finance robot accumulation in the developed world, thus resulting in a decline in GDP in the developing nations. A recent study carried out by the World Bank revealed that the divergence in per capita income between the rich and the poor has increased dramatically because investment gets to divert to industrial countries.

To conclude, although access to affordable technology initially helps bridge the gap between the rich and poor people, costly technology makes society more polarized. Therefore, the government should invest in raising skill levels so that the labour force can complement sophisticated and complex technologies like robotics and artificial intelligence.

Sample 19:

People are divided on the role of technology in our lives. Some individuals opine that technology increases wealth inequality, whereas others believe that technology has brought the rich and the poor closer. I believe, although wealth inequality has increased in the last few years, technology is not the reason. Technology has actually reduced the gap between the rich and the poor.

There are many reasons why some people think that technology increases the gap between the rich and the poor. To begin with, new technology tends to be affordable by only the affluent sections of the society and the poorer elements are denied the opportunities that this provides. In other words, new technologies favour the rich as they can afford them and use these technologies to further earn more money. Furthermore, technologies in the form of machines are being used by rich corporations to either replace labour or force them to work for cheap. Thus, while the profits of the rich are increasing, the poor are losing jobs and becoming poorer. It is a fact that real wages have not increased in the past few decades in most of the developed countries.

On the other hand, those who believe that technology is actually beneficial, cite the following reasons. Firstly, technology has created huge opportunities for the poor where none existed previously. For example, some technologies such as communications or networking give poor people a chance to earn a better living and also increase their education opportunities. To cite an example, online education is not only cheaper but also much more affordable and this has enabled many poor people to access university education which they previously couldn't. What is more, technology has been the answer to many problems faced by the poor like water purification without electricity, cheap transportation and so on. Last but not least, technology has increased transparency in governance, bringing down corruption and thus helping the poor immensely.

I believe that technology is not the reason for the increase in the gap between the rich and poor. The real reason for the increasing gap is actually the lack of regulation on new technologies, which allows their benefits to be hoarded by the rich. For example, no price control on even life-saving medicine and latest research, which makes these medicines unaffordable for all but the super-rich. The same medicines after price checks and regulations can not only save lives but also save the poor from falling into poverty. Thus, technology, when regulated properly, decreases the rich-poor gap rather than increasing it.

Summing up, technology can actually lessen the gap between the rich and the poor. It is not the technology to blame for the gap, it is the access to technology, which is to blame.

Sample 20:

In the contemporary era, perspectives vary regarding the impact of modern technology on the socio-economic gap between affluent and impoverished individuals. While some contend that technological advancements are reducing disparities, others argue that they further exacerbate the divide. From my standpoint, technology tends to escalate the gap between the rich and the poor due to various reasons, primarily the unequal access to and utilization of technology.

Advocates of technology's role in diminishing the wealth gap argue that advancements provide broader access to information and opportunities. For instance, internet connectivity and e-learning platforms offer educational resources to underprivileged communities, potentially enabling them to acquire skills for better job prospects. Similarly, technological innovation in microfinance and online entrepreneurship might facilitate economic empowerment for marginalized populations.

Conversely, the proliferation of technology predominantly benefits the affluent, perpetuating the wealth gap. Wealthier individuals have superior access to cutting-edge technology, leading to better education, healthcare, and employment opportunities. This unequal distribution of resources widens the economic chasm between the rich and the poor. For instance, the digital divide persists in many developing regions, hindering equal access to quality education and job opportunities for disadvantaged populations.

In my opinion, technology tends to widen the socio-economic gap due to its uneven distribution and utilisation. While it offers prospects for advancement, the unequal access to resources and opportunities exacerbates existing disparities. The disproportionate technological access between the rich and the poor perpetuates socio-economic inequality rather than mitigating it.

In conclusion, while technology can provide avenues for socio-economic upliftment, its unequal distribution and utilisation aggravate the wealth gap. Bridging this gap requires addressing the disparities in access and ensuring equitable technological distribution to harness its potential for all strata of society.

Sample 21:

Modern technology is a matter of intense debate concerning its impact on the socio-economic disparity between wealthy and destitute individuals. While some assert that technological advancements are widening the gap, others argue that it plays a pivotal role in bridging this divide. In my opinion, technology has the potential to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor by offering new opportunities and resources to underserved communities.

Those who claim that technology is exacerbating the wealth gap argue that it primarily benefits the wealthy, leading to further disparities. Wealthier individuals have more access to cutting-edge technology, superior educational resources, and employment prospects, leaving the less privileged at a disadvantage. For instance, the digital divide persists in many developing regions, where limited access to technology impedes education and job opportunities for marginalized populations.

Conversely, proponents of technology fostering equality believe that it can serve as an equalizer. Technological advancements have brought about innovative solutions in various sectors, providing opportunities for socio-economic advancement. For example, internet connectivity and online educational platforms offer resources to underprivileged communities, empowering them with knowledge and skills. Additionally, advancements in mobile banking and e-commerce have facilitated financial inclusion, allowing access to markets and services previously unavailable to the marginalized.

In my view, while technological disparities exist, the potential for technology to reduce the gap between rich and poor is substantial. With initiatives focusing on providing equal access and opportunities, technology can bridge the divide by empowering the disadvantaged.

In conclusion, while technology has its disparities, its potential to provide opportunities and resources to underserved communities makes it a valuable tool in reducing the socio-economic gap. Initiatives for broader access and equal opportunities through technology can significantly contribute to a more equitable society.

Sample 22:

Modern technology, without a doubt, has revolutionised the world and has touched almost every aspect of human life. Some people opine that the gap between the wealthy and the poor is widening as a result of technological advancement. Others, however, disagree and say that the poor can take advantage of it and improve their condition like never before, and I support the opinion of the latter group.

According to some, wealth inequality is increasing between the upper class and lower class due to unprecedented technological advancement and automation. As technology reduces the need for manual labour, unskilled poor people find it hard to secure a job. Using advanced tools and machines, rich people increase their production capacity and make a huge profit as a result. Technology is at the centre of all modern innovations and inventions, and as a result, poor people are left out of this amelioration.

However, according to others, the most obvious reason technology can effectively decrease the wealth disparity is that most important technologies are open to all. Anyone from any part of the world can access the internet, develop skills, access important information and educational materials and walk the road to riches in an unprecedented manner. For instance, many modern billionaires are from the lower and middle classes, and they have changed their fates and the fates of millions of others with the help of technology.

To conclude, technology has already reduced the difference between social classes and has created millions of jobs just for anyone with the right skill set. It is expected that it will further narrow the gap between the rich and the poor in the future.

Sample 23:

Modern technology has revolutionised various aspects of our lives, and its impact on social and economic inequality is a topic of debate. While some argue that technology is widening the gap between the rich and poor, others hold a contrasting view. This essay will explore both perspectives and present that technology is enlarging the gap between the wealthy and the impoverished.

Those who believe that modern technology is exacerbating inequality argue that access to advanced technology is often limited to those with greater financial resources. High-tech gadgets, high-speed internet, and cutting-edge devices are often expensive, making them inaccessible to the economically disadvantaged. This digital divide further deepens existing disparities and prevents equal opportunities for education, employment, and economic advancement.

Contrarily, proponents of the opposing view assert that modern technology has the potential to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. They argue that technological advancements have led to the creation of innovative solutions, such as affordable smartphones and low-cost internet access. These advancements have enabled individuals from low-income backgrounds to access educational resources, remote job opportunities, and e-commerce platforms. Furthermore, technology has facilitated the dissemination of information and ideas, empowering marginalised communities and enabling social mobilisation.

In my opinion, technology has actually dilated the gap between the rich and the poor. Undoubtedly, there are instances where technology perpetuates inequality, such as when access to quality education or healthcare becomes reliant on digital platforms. Since poor people use basic technology and most of it for entertainment or personal communication, they cannot harness the true power of technology the way rich people do. This is widening the gap even further.

In conclusion, the impact of modern technology on inequality is a complex issue. But overall, it contributes to the widening gap between the rich and poor due to unequal access. Unless we allow poor people the opportunities for the use of advanced technology in education, employment, and empowerment, this gap will continue to get bigger.

CÂU HỎI HOT CÙNG CHỦ ĐỀ

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

Sample 1:

The issue of environmental crisis has been a major concern in recent decades, both globally and nationally. With the increasing urgency of the problem, many organizations have been working tirelessly to find solutions to these issues. However, there is a debate about who should be responsible for addressing these problems. Some believe that tackling an environmental crisis should be the job of a single global governing body, while others argue that the government should be in charge.

Advocates for a global governing body argue that world organizations can do a better job of solving environmental challenges because they have a global perspective and can collaborate with all nations to promote the best potential global development. Furthermore, international organizations have access to funding from many wealthy countries, which can help them quickly solve issues that may be beyond the reach of underdeveloped countries. Moreover, international organizations are not affected by political conditions in the same way that national governments are, allowing them to think and act objectively.

On the other hand, proponents of the government being responsible for environmental issues argue that they are better equipped to understand and address their own country's environmental problems. The government also has a better understanding of how these problems arise, as well as how to involve their people in problem-solving. Furthermore, the government is in charge of the country's education and can ensure that the people have easy access to information. Additionally, foreign organizations may not always be familiar with local difficulties, which can lead to changes in future plans.

In conclusion, both arguments have their merits, and the solution may lie in a combination of the two. If the host country supports and communicates their problems to international organizations and collaborates with them, it could lead to a more comprehensive and effective solution to environmental issues. Global organizations have always been objective in their functioning and have the support of many nations, which can contribute to positive outcomes. However, it is important to recognize the strengths of the government in addressing environmental problems and to utilize their knowledge and expertise to achieve the best possible results.

Sample 2:

The 21st century witnessed the dawn of industrialization, due to which numerous factories were set up. To generate higher revenues these factories increased their production manifold, which has put stress on the environment. Some factions of society contemplate that national authorities should take steps to resolve these, while I agree that international organisations can control this situation, and the following essay will cite the reasons for the same.

Firstly, international organisations can sign an understanding among various geographies to use green energy fuels, consequently the emissions from the set-ups will be cleaner. The G20 nations, for instance, have decided to use water to generate 50% of the nation’s electricity, as opposed to coal, and they will share the surplus power with the deprived nations. Furthermore, the developed nations have more exposure to technology for controlling poisonous emissions, therefore, the learnings can be shared with developing geographies, which can be implemented to lower the contaminations.

Secondly, the global bodies can implement a treaty to do some financial support, which will bolster the weaker nations to swap the setup in their factories with some advanced technologies, which will enable production units to utilize cleaner fuels, hence lower pollution levels. For example, Germany is helping Jordan to set up various dams to generate electricity, as opposed to coal being used. Moreover, because these latest technologies require less space as compared to traditional ones, as a result, the extra land can be used to plant vegetation, and they act as natural air purifiers. 

In conclusion, due to the above explanations, I am inclined to say that international bodies have a more crucial role to play to combat the pollution of the atmosphere, as compared to national lawmakers.

Sample 3:

The statement that solving environmental problems is the responsibility of international organisations rather than the national government is a topic of debate. I firmly disagree with this, as even though international organisations have some role to play, the primary responsibility is of the national government only as they are directly accountable to their citizens and can mobilize local resources and increase public participation. 

Although Environmental problems are global, they often have local causes and effects that can only be addressed by national governments. They are the closest to the issue, so they have the best potential to understand and address it. They can form policies that reflect their unique environmental challenges and socio-economic context. For example, a country that has abundant forests might prevent deforestation, while a country that has high industrial output might prioritise the reduction of air pollution. Moreover, national governments are directly answerable to their citizens and have a direct right to hold them responsible for the increase in environmental problems.  This accountability helps governments to take these issues seriously and make big decisions.

While international governments play a crucial role in facilitating cooperation and setting global standards, they often lack the power to ensure that all of the policies they are forming are implemented or not. They may also not be able to fully grasp the specific circumstances and complexities of each country, leading to the formation of one-size-fits-all solutions that will not be effective. Furthermore, international organizations are often hampered by political considerations and disagreements among various countries’ members, which can slow down decision-making and implementation of environmental initiatives. On the other hand, national governments are sovereign entities, having a greater freedom to act decisively and swiftly in response to environmental crises.

To conclude, while international organisations have a role to play in solving environmental problems, the primary responsibility lies with the national governments. They have the authority, accountability and the capacity to effectively address environmental issues within their borders.

Sample 4:

There is no doubt that environment-related issues ought to be held responsible for by an international organization instead of individual countries. I disagree with this statement for some reasons.

There are numerous environmental issues such as climate change, melting glaciers and intensifying greenhouse effect happening on a global scale. As the argument goes, an international organization would act as a leader, issuing principles for all member countries to conform to or it will have sufficient financial capabilities to support the improvement of the environment. Cited cases are the Kyoto protocol has contributed to the slowing down of climate change on the earth, or the United Nations’ support for Third World countries have helped improve the air quality there. This argument, however, fails to take into consideration the fact that compulsion often backfires if an individual nation has no intention to cooperate, or the incentives provided can make recipient countries over reliant and avoid coming up with innovative ideas to resolve their country’s environmental situation. This in the long term exerts a negative overall global effect.

I side with those who think that each governmental body should take responsibility for addressing domestic environmental problems. Firstly, this practice would have a chain effect, benefiting not only the host country but also neighboring nations. For instance, if China diminishes its emissions by downsizing its industrial activities to a certain acceptable level, the air contamination in Hanoi would be reduced as a consequence. Secondly, the root of a complete resolution of environmental issues comes at grassroots level, only achieved by the efforts of a country’s government. If walking or cycling are promoted amongst those with an inclination to use private vehicles, this can help diminish the colossal volumes of exhaust gas and ameliorate the communal air quality. Or, if people are encouraged to participate in the international Earth Hour when everyone is asked to turn their lights off in sixty minutes, huge amounts of power can be minimized. Enacting such events which are aimed at creating a mindset shift in the public regarding environmental protection and promoting a simple lifestyle can only be conducted by a country’s government.

In conclusion, uprooting environment problems should be the responsibility of each national government rather than an international organization.

Sample 5:

People hold different views about how to cope with environmental problems. While some people argue that it is the duty of international organization, rather than a single country, to solve environment-related issues, I believe that both parties/ sides should join hands in solving this problem.
On the one hand, many countries may share the same environmental concerns; however, they would stem from various causes. Therefore, each nation should implement different policies and measures to address the problem. For example, over-exploitation of natural resources and deforestation are identified as the biggest culprit for desertification in the USA, whereas the growing rate of desertified land in China has been mainly caused by rapid urbanization. In addition, the priority environmental issue is also varied in each country, calling for different approaches and strategies to tackle the problem. To illustrate, in emerging economies such as Vietnam, reducing the worrying level of air pollution from industrial activities is of highest priority.
On the other hand, the problems that each government is experiencing are indeed interconnected, hence, concerted efforts by all nations are necessary. Thus, international organizations such as the United Nations play a vital role in promoting and coordinating global action to reduce carbon footprint and curb the global warming threat. Furthermore, wealthy countries should provide financial and technological support for poor nations in the fight against green issues, since the detrimental effects of environmental problems could spread beyond national borders. In other words, an international effort is needed to yield an efficient environment protection scheme.
In conclusion, while international organizations could exert huge impact on a global scale, the combination of international and governmental efforts would have even more profound influences on the environment.

Sample 6:

It is often argued that sorting out ecological issues should be the responsibility of an international administration, while others believe that individual countries’ governments should solve environmental problems. In my opinion, solving environmental problems should be the responsibility of an international organization rather than each national government because environmental issues are global concerns that affect the entire planet. Therefore, their solutions require global cooperation.

To begin with, the environment is a global problem that requires a global response. To be more precise, a lot of ecological issues are available worldwide, such as climate change, global warming, carbon dioxide emissions and air pollution. Moreover, individual national governments can try their best to solve issues, but their efforts may not have a noticeable impact on the environment without the support of other nations. Therefore, an international organization is trying to make rules which are followed by all nations and can help to reduce the rate of environmental issues worldwide. Furthermore, if an international organization passes away an agreement, then every individual nation must follow the acts and take them seriously without arguing anything. For instance, recently, new rules were made by the United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP] for reducing greenhouse gases, which are followed by all nations in the world because it is an international action.

In contrast, each individual nation better knows about their nation’s own climate conditions. More specifically, every country faces unique environmental challenges that are best understood by its government, and there are specific solutions tailored to these issues. While international organizations address common global concerns, they do not focus on the unique environmental problems of individual nations due to the diversity of issues across countries. For example, in India, a wide range of mountains contain in northern areas, so there are various issues such as melting and snow falling, while in southern India has a lot of forests, so there are various problems like over rainfall and storm. Hence, every nation has different environmental problems, and they know better solutions than an international organization.

In conclusion, although every individual nation is well introduced to various types of problems, and they know solutions in a better way. In my opinion, international organizations are likely more responsible for solving some common global issues, such as global warming and air pollution, because cooperation must be required to solve environmental issues.

Sample 7:

Environmental problems are a major concern for the whole world, and addressing these problems requires a concerted effort from all nations. In my opinion, solving environmental problems should be the responsibility of both international organizations and national governments, as both have a role to play in creating a sustainable future for all.

International organizations, such as the United Nations and its specialized agencies, are important players in addressing global environmental issues. These organizations can provide a platform for international cooperation and coordination on environmental issues, such as climate change, deforestation, and biodiversity loss. They can also facilitate sharing of knowledge, resources, and best practices among countries to achieve common environmental goals.

At the same time, national governments also have a crucial role to play in addressing environmental problems. National governments are responsible for implementing policies and regulations that can protect the environment within their own countries. They can also allocate funding for environmental protection measures, enforce environmental laws, and work with their citizens to promote sustainable practices.

In addition, national governments have more direct responsibility for the well-being of their citizens and the environment within their own borders. They are better positioned to understand the unique environmental challenges facing their own countries and communities and tailor their responses accordingly.

Therefore, while international organizations can provide important support and coordination in addressing global environmental problems, it is ultimately up to national governments to take action within their own countries. This does not mean that international cooperation is not important. In fact, international cooperation is essential in addressing environmental problems that cross national borders, such as air and water pollution and climate change.

In conclusion, solving environmental problems requires a joint effort from both international organizations and national governments. It is essential that both work together to create a sustainable future for all. While international cooperation is important, national governments have a direct responsibility to protect their citizens and their environment and must take action accordingly.

Lời giải

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

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

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

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

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

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

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

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

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

Nâng cấp VIP