In some countries, an increasing number of people are suffering from health problems as a result of eating too much fast food. It is, therefore, necessary for governments to impose a higher tax on this kind of food. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Quảng cáo
Trả lời:
Giải bởi Vietjack
Sample 1:
There is no doubt that fast food is bad for our health and that people typically eat too much of it. However, there is quite a lot of debate over whether governments should step in and reduce the amount of fast food that people are eating. This essay will argue that they should certainly try to convince people to eat less fast food by taxing it.
Some people might say that it’s up to an individual to eat less fast food, and that governments have no right to govern our diets. However, humans have evolved throughout the millennia of scarcity to crave substances that were once quite rare and nutritious, like sugar and fat, but which are now so commonplace that they are in fact bad for us. Many people simply lack the ability to resist that temptation, and they gorge on sugary snacks every day, rotting their teeth and developing obesity and diabetes. They should be able to have the willpower to say no, but it is quite clear that they do not.
On the other hand, governments have a vested interest in maintaining a healthy population, and even if they try to avoid exerting too much control over the lives of their people, the obesity epidemic is fast becoming a health crisis. The only responsible thing to do is to make some effort to cut fast food consumption in the wider population before these health problems spiral to an even worse extent. Governments around the world have already taxed particularly unhealthy items with substantial degrees of success. This should continue as it appears to lower sugar and fat consumption significantly.
In conclusion, there are arguments both for and against government intervention, but it is probably best that governments intervene because it seems people simply cannot resist the allure of fast food.
Sample 2:
The growth of the fast-food industry has, without doubt, impacted on the eating habits and the health of many societies around the world. Diabetes, high cholesterol, heart and respiratory problems are all on the rise due to fatty and sugar-rich food. However, the question is whether higher tax would improve this situation or not.
From an economic point of view, higher tax might seem sensible. In countries such as the USA, Australia and Britain, the healthcare system spends a large part of its budget on people with diet-related health problems. It could be argued that these people have caused their own illnesses because of their choice of food. In this case, why should they expect the state to pay for their treatment? The tax could help fund the healthcare system.
However, we also need to consider which socio-economic group consumes fast food as the main part of their diet. Statistics indicate that lower income groups eat more of this food than wealthier people. One possible reason for this is that fast food is far cheaper than fresh produce. This is because many governments offer large subsidies to farmers who provide products for the fast-food industry, such as corn, wheat and beef. Fruit and vegetables, on the other hand, are not subsidised. Research suggests that many families simply cannot afford to buy healthy food or pay higher taxes on fast food. For them, fast food is not a choice but a necessity.
In conclusion, imposing a higher tax on fast food does not seem to be the answer. If the government chose to do this, it would only lead to greater poverty and families facing further hardship.
Sample 3:
Overeating fast food is believed to be a direct contributor to a number of serious health problems in different parts of the world. Therefore, some argue that imposing high taxes on such food should be considered a potential solution. While I completely agree with this proposal, I also believe that additional measures should be implemented alongside the tax increase to make it more effective.
Increasing the tax on the purchase of food items filled with fat, sugar, and other such additives will make them unaffordable to some consumers. While this can lead to fewer purchases and ultimately better health in consumers, some express concerns that such high taxes on these products will harm businesses. Simply put, over the past few decades, fast food chains have been able to open numerous branches and create jobs by offering these foods as affordable alternatives to more expensive, healthier options. Some argue that if the government removes this pricing advantage, fewer people may purchase such food, potentially leading to restaurant closures and job losses. However, in my opinion, by taxing unhealthy food and using the revenue generated to provide incentives for these restaurants to add more nutritious options to their menus, a wider range of consumers may be attracted to their establishments, ultimately helping the businesses thrive without any job losses.
While the above-mentioned tax increase could be beneficial, I believe that many people are addicted to fast food, and they may continue purchasing it regardless of the cost. Therefore, it is essential that the government requires the food industry to include clear warning labels on products, informing consumers of high levels of fat, sugar, or sodium, and the associated health risks, such as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases. As people generally value their well-being, this informative labeling may encourage them to reduce their consumption of these unhealthy, ready-made foods in favor of healthier choices.
In conclusion, in addition to a tax increase, the government should adopt a more comprehensive approach by also mandating clear nutritional labeling, to ensure the policy has a meaningful and lasting impact. Implementing such policies is a step in the right direction toward promoting a healthier population.
Sample 4:
Nowadays, people are always on the go and rarely spend time cooking by themselves. In this case, fast food becomes an important part of their life. However, the number of people who suffer from diabetes, high cholesterol, cancer, etc as a consequence of overeating fast food is increasing day by day. Some people think that it is necessary for the government to apply heavy taxes on fast food. Personally, I partly agree with this idea because of the following reasons.
On the one hand, it cannot be denied that implementing high tax on junk food would discourage consumers, especially children, from eating so much it. Clearly, only when they have to pay a big amount of money for the food causing their health problems, can they stop buying it. As a result, they will turn to spend their part time cooking at home to save money. Take Denmark as a telling example, it was one of the first countries to introduce high tax on fast food such as butter, potato chips and many processed foods. In addition, the fast-food processing companies would have to face the threat of bankruptcy because of high taxes. Therefore, the consumers will have less choice of fast food, and it leads to the reduction of fast food in their meals.
On the other hand, imposing heavy tax is believed not to be the only way to solve this problem, other effective methods need to be considered. First of all, governments should restrict the sale of junk food or limit advertising, especially on school campus. Health education is said to be the second strategy. Not only children need to be aware of the danger of fast food which causes them to suffer from many severe diseases such as: obesity, heat-attack… but their parents also supply nutritious food as well as encourage them to participate in outdoor activities.
In conclusion, it is clear that government needs to pay more attention to reducing the rate of people suffering from sickness caused by fast food. However, it is up to each individual’s choice of the food he/she wants to eat, they need to care more about their meals and exercise regularly in order to have a healthier life.
Sample 5:
More and more individuals have become obese in some nations as a consequence of excessive junk food consumption. Consequently, it is imperative for governments to implement a heavier tax on this kind of food. Although this policy is ineffective towards those who are busy, I believe that its adoption is necessary to ensure the overall well-being of the population.
Detractors argue that this policy is unlikely to be successful for a particular segment of the population. A fast-moving world means that most individuals do not have time to cook meals for themselves, which makes fast food a convenient and ideal choice for them. As a result, busy individuals typically still buy and consume fast food despite higher prices to save time. Recent surveys conducted for regular fast-food customers indicate that they mostly choose this unhealthy food mainly because they find preparing home-cooked meals time-consuming.
However, a higher tax rate would lead to costlier fast food and consequently fewer consumers. Fast food restaurants generally will raise their products’ prices to limit losses from heavier taxation to maintain profits at a desirable level. Buyers would therefore be unable to purchase fast food as much as before as this food becomes more expensive. They might then switch to other affordable options that are possibly healthier for them. A pertinent example of this is that in Vietnam, where fast food is sold at a much higher price, the number of citizens with obesity-related diseases in this country is relatively low.
In conclusion, although busy workers may still have to continue eating fast food, I think that a higher tax rate plays a crucial role in solving the obesity epidemic.
Sample 6:
With the changing lifestyle in modern society, eating habits have also changed drastically among people. Consequently, folks across the world are suffering from diseases like obesity, indigestion, diabetes, and so on. To counter this problem, it is asserted that ruling bodies should increase the tax on junk food items. However, I do not think it will serve the purpose, instead, the government has better solutions on hand which could be more effective.
Imposing a higher tax on fast-food items would leave the government incapacitated in this matter. Primarily, if despite knowing the ill effects of junk food on their health, people do not abandon the habit of eating such food items. Then a small amount of tax cannot prevent them from consuming fast food. Moreover, the buying capacity of the individuals is increasing day by day, whether middle class or affluent class people. So again, the method of levying more charges will not discourage people from buying and eating unhealthy food.
Rather than imposing higher taxes, authorities can work on the root cause. For instance, they can ban the sale of fast food at the eating outlets. Furthermore, it is seen nowadays that hotels, restaurants, and cafes are present at every nook and cranny which attract people. So, the ruling bodies can hamper the proliferation of fast-food selling places. Besides this, the government can ban the use of harmful ingredients in food preparations such as monosodium glutamate, artificial food sweeteners, and coloring agents. All these ingredients have notable effects on health and thus cause severe diseases such as cancer, food poisoning, obesity, and many more.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that imposing heavy taxes on fast food will not help significantly in inhibiting people from consuming such food items. However, the government needs to take stringent steps to ban this kind of food.
Sample 7:
Nowadays, a high proportion of people consume fast food around the globe. This has caused some severe health problems for these people. Everyone loves fast food because it is delicious. Additionally, people can save time preparing food for their children, especially workaholic parents. However, they ignore the harmful effects of fast food, such as obesity. Therefore, I agree that governments shall impose a tax on fast food.
First of all, I think a higher tax shall be imposed on fast food because the health of the citizens is essential to the country’s development. For instance, if a person consumes fast food daily, he is likely to face the problem of obesity after a while, followed by high blood pressure and high cholesterol. With the health problems suffered, he is likely to be the worker with the lowest productivity. It will affect the economy of the country as a result.
Secondly, fast food can impact people’s choices when choosing what food to consume. People undeniably decide to devour junk food as it is cheaper and can be prepared within minutes. With an increased tax imposed, people will not choose these foods as the cost of consuming fast food will burden their expenditures. Consequently, people will prefer home-cooked food, which is much healthier and cheaper.
Regardless, imposing a tax on fast food will not reduce the number of people suffering from health problems. The fast-food advertisements telecasted in the multimedia, such as television, could be a reason for people to consume fast food. As fast-food advertisements are often relayed during dinnertime, children are attracted to the images of fried chicken. The result is that children will ask their parents to take them to fast-food restaurants and enjoy the meals there. It explains why children face health hazards at a younger age. Therefore, I suggest governments limit the time of fast-food advertisements broadcast on television. The advertisements should be beamed at midnight instead of at dinnertime.
In conclusion, I agree that with the higher taxes imposed on fast food, the number of people ingesting fast food will decrease significantly, thereby reducing the health problems people face.
Sample 8:
It is widely acknowledged that consumption of fast food has become a complex problem, leading to a growing number of individuals experiencing health problems. In my opinion, though it is essential to impose a higher tax on fast food, it is important to also consider other factors, such as individual responsibility for maintaining their own health, which deserve greater consideration.
Firstly, it is worth considering that taxing unhealthy foods makes them relatively more expensive, potentially encouraging people to buy more healthy alternatives. Broader taxes that increase the prices of various types of unhealthy food, such as fried chicken, pizza, or hamburger, could be effective tools for tackling obesity, as individuals may reconsider their food choices and opt for healthier options that contain less fat or more nutrition. Governments should, therefore, impose higher tariffs on fast food to make it more expensive than other foods, which would have positive effects on public health.
Nevertheless, it is undeniable that personal preference and individual responsibility play a significant role in dietary decisions for their health. In fact, it is likely that the full effects of their decision-making about what to eat may not be considered by individuals themselves at the time of consumption. Some people may be oblivious of the long-term effects of a high-sugar diet on their health or, indeed, of which products are high in sugar.
Children are a particularly compelling example of this; it is unlikely that they are fully able to understand the effects of consuming excessive sugar on their future health and wellbeing. In such a scenario, they choose to consume more fast food irrespective of the cost. Thus, education and awareness campaigns may be more effective than punitive taxation measures in promoting healthier eating practices.
In conclusion, although the pervasiveness of higher taxes on fast food is acknowledged, I believe it is imperative to take the measure with considerations of personal choice in mind by empowering individuals with knowledge and raising awareness campaigns to address the root causes of unhealthy eating habits.
Sample 9:
Nowadays, there is a high proportion of people consuming fast food around the globe. This has caused some severe health problems for these people. Everyone loves fast food because it is delicious. In addition, people can save time preparing food for their children, especially the parents who are workaholics. They ignore the bad effects of fast food such as obesity. Therefore, I agree that governments shall impose tax on fast food to some extent.
First of all, I think a higher tax shall be imposed on fast food because the health of the citizens is important to the development of the country. For instance, if a person has his daily meals with the consumption of fast food, he is likely to face the problem of obesity after a period of time. Besides, high blood pressure and high cholesterol will be followed. With the health problems suffered, he is likely to be the worker with the lowest productivity. This will affect the economy of the country as a result.
Secondly, the reason why a higher tax shall be imposed on fast food is because it can remove the choice of people when making a choice as to what type of food to consume. It is undeniable that people choose to eat fast food as it is cheaper, and it can be prepared within minutes. With a higher tax imposed, people will not choose fast food as the cost of consuming fast food will become a burden to their expenditures. Consequently, people will prefer home-cooked food which is much healthier and cheaper.
Many people make the assumption that imposing a higher tax on fast food will not reduce the number of people who suffer health problems. They argue that the advertisements of fast food telecast on multimedia such as television could be a reason for people to consume fast food. As fast-food advertisements are often relayed during dinner time, children are attracted to the images of the fried chicken. The result of this is children will ask their parents to take them to fast-food restaurants and enjoy the meals there. This explains why children face health issues at a younger age. Therefore, I suggest governments can limit the time fast-food advertisements broadcast on television. The advertisements should be beamed during midnight instead of dinnertime.
In conclusion, I agree that with the higher taxes imposed on fast food, the number of people consuming fast food will decrease significantly and thereby the health problems faced by the people will decrease as a result. However, to solve the problem effectively, the government should take action by changing the time of advertisement broadcast-ed on television. It is undoubted that fast-food advertisements portray fast food during dinnertime can affect people in making decisions as to what to eat, especially when they are hungry.
Sample 10:
Nowadays, it is doubtless that food-related illnesses are increasing in our modern society. Furthermore, the issue regarding the impact that eating junk food could have on our health is widely debated. As far as governments’ decisions about taxing fast-food consumers in concerned, I believe that they should find another strategy in order to promote a healthier way of eating.
Firstly, governments should not impose extra taxes on eating habits. Every human being is basically free to act as he or she likes, our behavior should be dictated by some moral and ethical principles, rather than by the fear of a fee. For instance, every patient can refuse therapy, even if he is in a life-threatening condition, if he thinks that it is better for himself. In the same way, everyone should be left free to eat whatever they want, even if it causes some sort of disease. Governments should, therefore, improve awareness campaigns to prevent food-related diseases, in order to sensitize the citizens towards harmful behaviors, rather than simply add a tax to the food people buy.
Furthermore, another alternative to the imposition of new taxes could be an improvement in citizens’ knowledge about nutrition. By giving people the right information about a proper dietary intake, governments could benefit from minor costs in terms of healthcare. For example, in my opinion, nutrition and health courses should be implemented and organized in every school, from the lowest level of education, up to the highest ones. Thus, in the future, we would witness an increasing self-consciousness about diet-related diseases, such as diabetes and cardiovascular accidents.
In conclusion, I strongly disagree with the given opinion, because I believe that governments should pursue other strategies in order to face these problems. Only by increasing the knowledge about the risks of harmful eating behavior, and from widespread information about the rules of a healthy lifestyle, it is possible to fight against these medical conditions. In this specific case, prevention is the key.
Sample 11:
An increasing number of people suffering from health problems occurs in some countries because consuming fast food frequently impacts on health problems. Tackling this problem should be the government’s responsibility to impose a higher tax on this sort of meal. I believe that the government is positively formed to prevent their citizens from eating unhealthy meals, but imposing a higher tax does not surely decline a fast-food consumer.
Firstly, the higher tax on fast food can increase its price, leading people to prefer cooking their own meals. Secondly, most restaurants will emphasize serving a variety of healthy foods. This policy may reduce the availability of unhealthy meals, as many restaurants may choose not to pay the high tax. Another advantage is that the government will collect significant revenue from the fast-food tax, which can be used to improve health services for those suffering from health problems.
The availability of fast food does not solely consist of unhealthy meals. Although there are junk food restaurants, there are also some that serve healthy meals. For example, seafood restaurants offer dishes that are highly nutritious. This situation is unfair to those restaurants that prioritize healthy options. Therefore, the government should not impose a higher tax on all types of fast food, as many people nowadays do not have the time to cook and often rely on fast food.
In conclusion, I would argue that step of increasing tax will not diminish the number of fast food consumer, nevertheless the government should restrict any selling of unhealthy fast food. However, people’s health depends on their decision-making for what kind of food should be consumed.
Sample 12:
In the present era, the world’s people are facing the ultimate fact that our young generations are experiencing severe health-related illnesses from the very beginning of their life, and it is due to excess junk food consumption. To forbid the worrying conditions, the state is approaching some essential steps and one of them is an enhancement of taxes on convenience food. Thus, I partially agree with the given opinion. As in today’s world, it is one of the most sparkling heated debates. I believe that our leaders should have an eye for finding out some other solutions because only increasing the taxes on fast foods will not hamper the ratio of junk food intake.
First of all, as we know that, our teenagers are the prime customers for convenience meals, where most of them are unaware of devastating health hazards of eating junk food. At the same time, we can ask, is it their fault? I don’t think so. They should be made aware of the long-term consequences of junk food consumption, and it is plausible in several ways. For example, broadcasting health related adverts on children’s TV channels, introducing topics into their conventional education regarding dangerous health effects on fast food taking. In addition, parents could play an important role in combating this worldwide problem by giving their children proper advice and guidelines for having a balanced diet.
Moreover, nowadays people are leading a busy pace of life. Thus, they scarcely think of their regular diet, even some of them have no idea about what they are eating. Therefore, people are depending on takeaway meals for their daily livelihood. The government should impose rules on the working schedules so that folks could enjoy their meals with adequate nutritious knowledge.
To conclude, in some of the global areas, folks are becoming more habituated to convenience food despite realising that they will suffer from heart diseases, obesity and dyslipidaemia in very near future, where only raising the food revenue will not slow down the tasty and unsafe junk food consumption.
Sample 13:
In many parts of the world, there are increasingly more people having health issues because of the excessive consumption of fast food. While some argue that increasing tax on junk food will discourage people from eating it, I believe the drawbacks of this action to people’s health are more serious.
The main reason why people support a higher fast-food tax is that it may encourage consumers to eat other healthier foods such as vegetables and nuts. However, such a change in diet is often unacceptable, so most people will refuse to eat new foods. There will also be less choice of food as not all sold on supermarket shelves are affordable. This will reduce the variation in the meals and sometimes cause a lack of nutrition. Thus, imposing a higher tax may limit the quality of daily meals on the table.
Another issue of a heavier tax on fast food is the negative impact on low-income people. Being one of the cheapest dishes to fill a person’s stomach, junk food is necessary for the poor to survive. But if fast food prices climb higher, they will be forced to make a cut in their budget for food. A child who often eats a medium hamburger for his lunch at the school canteen, for example, has to buy one with a smaller size, which is insufficient for his normal needs. Consequently, the health of the poor will be negatively affected.
In conclusion, raising the tax on fast food can force a small number of people to eat healthier food but will eventually limit their choice of food and damage the health of more vulnerable people. What governments can do to improve their citizens’ well-being is by making healthier alternatives more accessible and affordable.
Sample 14:
It is a proven fact that what we eat has a significant impact on how we feel. This is the rationale for some people's contention that governments ought to impose a tax on junk food. This essay will explain why I firmly concur with this viewpoint. Because it is spreading through our population and affecting how to fit our school-age children.
Eating processed food and junk food is incredibly bad for people of all ages. They have high levels of unsaturated fats, calories, and salts, all of which contribute to major health issues. The most prevalent of which are cardiac arrest, stroke, hypertension, diabetes, and obesity. This sedentary, Western-influenced lifestyle is a result of chain restaurants and businesses. Especially the ones that sell frozen dinners and fast foods spend a large portion of their profits on advertising. It ultimately convinces customers to purchase their products. For instance, we can observe that KFC, McDonald's, and Pizza Hut are consistently packed with customers whenever we visit. In addition, eating sausages, chilled or canned food, such as mushrooms and fish, is now increasingly popular among most families because they are ready to eat. The only way to solve this issue is for governments to impose taxes. Sales taxes on manufacturers may be increased in order to limit their sales, which would then halt customers.
Teenagers and school-going gentry who receive unhealthy food in their school cafeterias are at risk as well. Children between the ages of 6 and 12 are seen to enjoy burgers and pizza, but the problem is that the obesity rate is also rising quickly. We can say that the epidemic of obesity is now sweeping throughout many continents, mainly in Europe, America, and then Asia. According to estimates, for example, the percentage of fat students in Pakistani schools was just 10% in 1975. But it is currently 40%. According to the report, millions of individuals suffer health risks each year as a result of their poor eating habits.
In conclusion, an unhealthy diet that is high in fat depletes our health because our body is controlled by what we consume. Governments could put taxes on easily available and frozen foods to address this problem. If the authorities changed our lifestyle to keep our children safe and healthy, I think it would be a good move.
Sample 15:
Today, considerable changes in people's eating habits can be seen as a result of incremental changes in their lifestyle. People choose fast food over a balanced diet. That is why it has been up for debate for a long time whether it is crucial for any government to raise the tax on junk food. Specifically in order to protect citizens from health problems. I sort of agree with the earlier statement, and this essay will explain why with relevant justifications.
There are a number of arguments in favour of the idea that taxes should be raised in order to deter the sale of goods of this nature. But the most obvious one is that fast food is far less expensive than healthy food. The largest fast-food chain, McDonalds, is the least expensive place to dine in Australia, for example. Simply put, these prepared meals are less expensive, and if the government started to apply more taxes, the cost of these goods would rise. As a result, people will begin to consider their purchases more carefully.
If affordability is the only factor driving consumerism, increasing taxes will simply serve to decrease the consumption of these foods. There are other additional aspects, including immediate accessibility, taste, and marketing. It follows that significant changes cannot be made solely by lowering the pricing of these goods. People ought to be inspired to lead healthy lifestyles, which include consuming home-cooked meals. Therefore, rather than wasting time on new measures to impose additional taxes, governments should focus more on inspiring people.
However, as there are more people experiencing health problems as a result of consuming fast food, governments must adopt preventive measures. But raising the price alone won't stop people from buying them, so the agencies need to propose more effective solutions to this problem.
Sample 16:
All around the world, the health issues brought on by consuming fast food in excess have reached epidemic levels. Some believe that in order to deter people from consuming junk food, a hefty tax must be placed on it. This will, in my opinion, only dissuade middle- and lower-income groups.
First of all, raising the tax will make fast food unaffordable for the poor. They'll have to prepare healthy meals at home as a result. They may experience some discomfort, but their health will benefit from this. Taxes won't stop wealthy consumers from consuming fast food, though. They will keep consuming it. Therefore, raising the tax on fast food will only have a minor impact on its consumption.
It is therefore doubtful that raising awareness of the negative impacts of fast food will be very beneficial. The majority of people who eat fast food are actually aware of its negative effects on their health. For example, a poll was done in Singapore, one of the world's industrialised countries. It indicated that people feel compelled to consume fast food due to their hectic schedules, despite being aware of the health risks.
Making wholesome food more inexpensive and available would be a better option. Because they can be prepared quickly, one of the key factors driving up fast food consumption. Foods that are ready to eat are also offered in supermarkets. Because more convenient healthy options are not readily available, many individuals choose fast food.
In conclusion, raising the tax on fast food will only discourage people with low incomes from consuming it. Making healthy options more available and affordable is the best solution if governments truly want to decrease the use of fast food.
Sample 17:
Nowadays, more and more people are affected by health issues such as diabetes and heart disease which are linked to overconsumption of cheap, mass-produced food. Some people believe the only solution is to make fast food less affordable by taxing it highly. Despite the severity of the problem, I think this is quite wrong. Increasing the tax on fast food would unfairly penalise people and may not necessarily bring about the desired health benefits.
First, fast food is about more than just nutrition. Many teenagers spend money on fast food not because they need to eat out but because this is how they socialise. Fast-food restaurants provide a safe, convenient place for young people to meet friends. For another group, low-income families, fast food can provide an inexpensive treatment for their children. Denying people a small pleasure in life could affect their social lives or happiness.
Another important point is that if the reason for taxing fast food is to reduce obesity, it may be ineffective. It is true that fast food is high in sugar, salt and fat, all of which cause weight gain and are detrimental to our health. However, we also know that there are other factors which contribute to the risk of obesity, such as lack of exercise and inappropriate portion size. While home-cooked food is generally healthy, this is not always the case. I personally know a family that used to eat high-fat, home-cooked food in enormous portions. They all suffered from health problems due to obesity.
On the other hand, I do understand the point of view of those who say drastic action is needed. If fast food were taxed and became expensive, people would be forced to seek out healthier options. In addition, food producers would have an incentive to provide healthier foods. However, there is likely to be resistance from consumers and producers who want to have a wider choice.
To conclude, although imposing a higher tax on fast food could have some positive effects, these would be outweighed by the drawbacks. For one thing, some sectors of society would feel victimised, and there is also the fact that simply raising taxes would not result in a much healthier society. What we really need is greater awareness of diet and cheaper healthy food.
Hot: 1000+ Đề thi cuối kì 1 file word cấu trúc mới 2025 Toán, Văn, Anh... lớp 1-12 (chỉ từ 60k). Tải ngay
Sách thầy cô Vietjack biên soạn:
- Sổ tay Lịch Sử 12 (chương trình mới) ( 18.000₫ )
- Sổ tay dẫn chứng nghị luận xã hội năm 2025 (chương trình mới) ( 18.000₫ )
- Sổ tay lớp 12 các môn Toán, Lí, Hóa, Văn, Sử, Địa, KTPL (chương trình mới) ( 36.000₫ )
- Tuyển tập 30 đề thi đánh giá năng lực Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội, TP Hồ Chí Minh (2 cuốn) ( 150.000₫ )
CÂU HỎI HOT CÙNG CHỦ ĐỀ
Lời giải
Sample 1:
In the current era, with the level of scientific advancement that has been achieved, technology has become a necessitous part of our existence and has eased many issues in our lives. This has led many people to think that all vehicles will be automated and will no longer require drivers in the imminent decades. From my perspective, I think the advantages of driverless automobiles eclipse their drawbacks.
Firstly, automated conveyances will reduce the risk of accidents caused by drivers. The element of human error, which is responsible for making 94% of all accidents, will be terminated. People will be able to travel safely even when they are too weary or otherwise unfit to drive. Additionally, senior citizens and others who may have problems with driving can commute safely in driverless cars. It will allow people to disburse the time spent commuting in other ways. Lastly, research has suggested that the introduction of automated vehicles on roads will reduce energy expenditure and pollution, which indicates that they will be a much more environmentally friendly option of transport.
However, there are some disadvantages to ushering in driverless modes of transport. Firstly, it will eliminate the jobs of several drivers whose livelihoods are directly contingent on them driving vehicles. Some people may also struggle with comprehending the technological aspects of automated transportation which may lead them to be fearful of such vehicles. Lastly, the costs involved in driverless conveyances may not be affordable, leading those to be inaccessible to several people.
Thus, in conclusion, it can be said that while automated transportation may have a few shortcomings, its beneficial aspects largely overshadow them, making driverless vehicles a welcome technological innovation for the future.
Sample 2:
In the future, vehicles can function without drivers, and the only ones inside will be passengers. In my opinion, the benefits this trend can bring totally outweigh the drawbacks.
On the one hand, the use of driverless vehicles may put human drivers out of work, which increases the unemployment rate in this sector. This situation can cause a number of financial and social problems that both the unemployed drivers and the authorities have to deal with. However, it can soon be compensated as there are still a range of other employment opportunities for unemployed bus or truck drivers. For example, businesses that use driverless vehicles will need more people in other departments such as vehicle maintenance, and this can bring work to those who have lost their job as drivers.
On the other hand, autonomous cars can offer a number of benefits once broadly developed. First, they can reduce the number of road fatalities as computer drivers are not prone to common mistakes like drunk driving or speeding that human drivers often make. This can ensure better road safety in general. Second, this development is beneficial for those who are restricted from driving, such as the handicapped or the elderly. With driverless cars, they can travel by themselves and no longer have to depend on other people or public transport.
In conclusion, I believe that the development of driverless vehicles is a beneficial trend. It may cause human drivers to lose their jobs, but these vehicles can increase road safety and allow even those unable to drive, like the handicapped, to travel on their own.
Sample 3:
In the face of rapid technological advancements, the emergence of driverless vehicles has become a reality, and it is projected that within a couple of decades, all cars will operate without human intervention. From my perspective, the benefits of driverless cars will far outweigh the potential drawbacks.
Firstly, it is important to acknowledge that driverless cars pose certain risks, including accidents and casualties, in the event of technological malfunction. As these vehicles are controlled by software and technology, the risk of devastating accidents due to bugs or hacking cannot be entirely eliminated. Furthermore, not all roads, particularly those in developing nations with poor infrastructure and insufficient road signals, are suitable for autonomous vehicles to operate smoothly.
However, the benefits of driverless cars far outweigh the potential risks. In terms of road safety, technology-made mistakes are significantly fewer than those made by human drivers. According to statistics, human drivers are responsible for hundreds, if not thousands, of casualties each day worldwide. With the introduction of autonomous cars, accidents would reduce dramatically, making roads safer for all. Additionally, millions of hours could be saved each day as individuals would no longer need to spend time driving, leading to increased productivity and a boost in the national economy.
In conclusion, driverless vehicles offer numerous benefits such as road safety and economic benefits. While there are potential drawbacks, these can be mitigated through proper regulation and addressing software-related issues. Overall, driverless cars represent a revolutionary technology that has the potential to greatly benefit society.
Sample 4:
As technological advancements continue to accelerate, the emergence of autonomous vehicles has become a tangible reality, with projections suggesting that within the next several decades, all cars will operate without the need for human intervention. In my opinion, the advantages of these driverless cars will far outweigh any potential drawbacks.
One of the primary drawbacks of autonomous cars is the risk of accidents and casualties resulting from technological malfunctions. The vehicles are controlled by software and technology, and while efforts are being made to minimize the potential for bugs or hacking, the possibility of devastating accidents cannot be entirely eliminated. Additionally, not all roads, particularly those in developing nations with inadequate infrastructure, are suitable for the operation of these vehicles.
Nevertheless, when it comes to road safety and casualties, technology-related mistakes are significantly fewer than those made by human drivers. Despite isolated incidents involving accidents with driverless cars, it is important to note that human drivers are responsible for a vast number of casualties on a daily basis worldwide. The widespread implementation of autonomous cars has the potential to greatly reduce accidents and improve road safety for all. Furthermore, the elimination of the need for human drivers would result in saving millions of hours each day, increasing productivity and boosting the national economy.
In conclusion, while there are potential drawbacks to the widespread use of driverless vehicles, the advantages, particularly in terms of road safety and economic benefits, far outweigh any potential negatives. It is expected that through proper regulation and addressing software-related issues, we can fully realize the benefits of this revolutionary technology.
Sample 5:
A future filled with driverless vehicles is an inevitability. In my opinion, though there are concomitant moral risks, the practical import for health of such a seismic shift will be positive on the whole.
Critics of this trend suggest that machines should not be responsible for the potential loss of human life. This argument rests on the fact that when there is an accident involving humans, it is possible to either assess blame and assign punishment or accept that human error played a role. In contrast, an individual severely injured as the result of a collision caused by a machine may justly feel that all human autonomy and free will is absent from their fate. This is analogous to a natural disaster with the crucial distinction being that humanity has engineered the situation. It is human nature to prefer to control a situation rather than surrender the outcome to an autonomous machine.
Proponents of automated vehicles, on the other hand, argue the tangible ramifications concerning public safety. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that driverless vehicles cause fewer accidents than humans. The reason for this is that humans are prone to errors related to fatigue, distractions such as smartphones, and, in some cases, altered states. Machines might experience the occasional technical error; however, they are far more consistent by comparison. In fact, the few accidents that have occurred with automated vehicles were the fault of human drivers. If all cars were driverless, this would enable a greater level of sophistication that could, theoretically, all but eliminate automobile accidents.
In conclusion, though many accidents will occur without human agency playing a role, safer roads fully justify this innovation. Companies and consumers must be wary of the influence of automation while also embracing its most transparent benefits.
Sample 6:
Autonomous technology and its implementation vehicle manufacture have gained enormous publicity in the past few years. Since the first car with limited self-driving capabilities was on trial, progress in this field has gathered pace rapidly. For this reason, driverless vehicles are believed to rule the roadways in the future. While such development brings certain benefits, I believe that the drawbacks are far more significant.
On the one hand, there are some major advantages when automated vehicles are delivered on the roads. Firstly, these models provide easy access to individuals with physical difficulties. To illustrate, disabled travelers normally have to rely on other people if they need a ride. Yet when their cars can automatically handle driving, they enjoy the travel autonomy, getting food from a restaurant or picking up the laundry themselves. In other words, the mobility obstacles they have to encounter day to day will be surmounted. Secondly, automation may help reduce the detrimental effects that regular vehicles have on the environment. As drivers often misuse gas and brakes, they carelessly allow the car to burn more fuel than it needs; conversely, self-driving vehicles can be programmed to work in an energy-efficient way, and to travel on the most convenient routes, hence consuming less fuel, curbing the emissions released into the air.
On the other hand, I think the hurdles that stem from hands-free driving cannot be overlooked, one of which includes the difficulties in ensuring its reliability. Resembling a computer system, programmable driverless vehicles are prone to technical glitches, which cause them to malfunction on their journey. To make matters worse, if a collision occurs with passen- mat gers (occupants) on board, the consequence must be destructive. In addition, the fact that drivers are no longer needed for vehicle operation can deprive people of their livelihoods. For example, those who work in trucking, public transits, and delivery services would find their roles obsolete in an autonomous future. This can contribute to the increasing unemployment rate of the nation.
In conclusion, although the introduction of fully driverless vehicles could lead to both positive and negative consequences, I am of the opinion that its advantages are shadowed by the grave disadvantages.
Sample 7:
The advent of autonomous vehicles heralds a transformative era in transportation, envisaging a future where cars, buses, and trucks navigate without human intervention. This essay contends that the benefits of driverless vehicles, particularly in enhancing safety and optimizing traffic flow, substantially outweigh their potential drawbacks. The ensuing discussion will delve into the implications for road safety and traffic efficiency.
Primarily, the integration of driverless technology promises a significant reduction in traffic accidents, which are predominantly caused by human error. Autonomous vehicles, equipped with advanced sensors and artificial intelligence, can react to hazards more swiftly than a human driver, thereby mitigating the risk of collisions. For instance, Google's autonomous car project has demonstrated an exemplary safety record in trial phases, underscoring the potential for such technology to save lives. Moreover, driverless vehicles can communicate with each other to maintain optimal speed and distance, effectively reducing the incidences of traffic congestion and enhancing the overall flow on roadways.
Furthermore, the advent of autonomous transport systems offers the prospect of optimizing traffic management, leading to more efficient use of infrastructure and reduced environmental impact. Driverless vehicles can operate closer together and at higher speeds in a coordinated manner, maximizing road capacity and significantly curtailing traffic jams. This coordination could lead to smoother traffic patterns and lower emissions due to decreased idle times. Additionally, the increased efficiency and predictability in transportation networks can bolster economic productivity by reducing the time wasted in traffic, showcasing a profound impact beyond mere convenience.
In summary, despite challenges such as technological reliability and legal hurdles, the merits of driverless vehicles, notably in enhancing safety and improving traffic flow, are persuasive. They offer a significant reduction in road fatalities and the promise of transforming urban mobility into more efficient, less congested systems. Thus, the advantages of adopting autonomous vehicles decidedly eclipse the drawbacks, heralding a major leap towards a safer, more streamlined future in transportation.
Sample 8:
The horizon of transportation is on the brink of a revolution with the advent of driverless technology, promising a landscape where vehicles operate without human drivers, ferrying passengers alone. This essay posits that the advantages, particularly in revolutionizing urban mobility and reducing environmental impact, significantly outshine the drawbacks. The focus will be on the transformation of urban spaces and the environmental benefits.
Driverless vehicles stand to redefine urban landscapes significantly by liberating vast tracts of land currently consumed by parking lots and garages. With these vehicles in constant use rather than sitting idle, cities can repurpose these areas to facilitate the creation of lush green spaces and vibrant pedestrian zones, thus markedly enhancing the quality of urban life. For example, Singapore's ambitious Smart Nation initiative aims to reduce the need for private vehicle ownership, envisioning a future city enriched with more green spaces and communal areas, made possible through the adoption of autonomous vehicles. This visionary approach exemplifies how driverless technology could transform urban environments, making them more livable and sustainable.
Furthermore, the environmental advantages of driverless cars are both profound and wide-reaching. By utilizing advanced algorithms to optimize routes, these vehicles can significantly reduce traffic congestion, thereby lowering emissions. Additionally, autonomous vehicles can accelerate the shift towards electric cars, as their efficient operation aligns perfectly with the charging requirements of electric batteries. In pioneering cities like Los Angeles, where pilot programs for autonomous, electric fleets are already making strides, early data suggests a potential reduction in carbon emissions by up to an impressive 60% with a full transition to these cleaner, more efficient fleets. This underscores the critical role driverless technology can play in achieving environmental sustainability goals and reducing our carbon footprint on a global scale.
In conclusion, despite potential cybersecurity and ethical challenges, the benefits of driverless vehicles - transforming urban spaces and enhancing environmental sustainability - are clear. They promise a future of efficient, eco-friendly transport, leading to more livable, greener cities. Thus, embracing driverless technology is a key step forward in solving today's urban and environmental issues.
Sample 9:
While transportation revolution, driven by the relentless evolution of artificial intelligence, might introduce new concerns such as technological reliability and job displacement, the potential of these vehicles to significantly enhance road safety and boost productivity, coupled with the emergence of new job opportunities in sectors related to autonomous technology, solidifies my belief that the advantages of this transportation revolution outweigh the associated drawbacks.
Delving into the potential pitfalls first, one major apprehension is the reliability of this advanced technology. For instance, a glitch in the machine learning algorithms or sensor systems that guide these autonomous vehicles could have catastrophic implications for passenger safety and broader traffic flow. In addition, the transition towards driverless vehicles could significantly impact on the livelihood of those employed in the transportation industry, from taxi drivers to truck operators. This abrupt shift could exacerbate unemployment rates and subsequently stir social unrest. Nonetheless, juxtaposing these challenges with the benefits offered by autonomous vehicles offers a brighter outlook.
Technological concerns, while valid, are mitigated by the fact that meticulously maintained machines are less error-prone than humans, who often cause accidents due to driving under the influence, fatigue, or distraction. Thus, autonomous vehicles could contribute markedly to road safety enhancement. Additionally, self-driving vehicles could revolutionize productivity. Freed from the necessity to drive, professionals could utilize travel time for work tasks. A recent McKinsey study predicts productivity gains equivalent to 50 minutes per person per day with widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles. In addition, the technological shift causing job displacement is undoubtedly a pressing concern. However, history shows that when certain jobs become obsolete, new opportunities arise. The autonomous vehicle industry could create jobs in areas like data analysis, vehicle service, and software development.
In conclusion, despite apprehensions regarding technology reliability and job losses, I maintain that, with prudent regulation, autonomous vehicles hold the potential to significantly improve road safety and productivity. Therefore, while cars, buses and trucks will be driverless, the transition to this phase will promise a safer and more efficient journey in the future.
Sample 10:
As we witness the relentless march of technology, the prophecy of fully autonomous vehicles becoming the norm rather than an exception looms on the horizon. Despite the plausible challenges that this transition might present, I am firmly convinced that the potential benefits engendered by driverless vehicles profoundly outweigh the attendant disadvantages.
One of the fundamental challenges of this evolution pertains to the reliability of artificial intelligence. A slight malfunction in the system, such as a flaw in the navigation algorithms or sensor technology, could have dire implications for passenger safety and could disrupt the harmony of traffic flow. Furthermore, the tidal wave of automation threatens to engulf countless jobs in the transportation industry, potentially triggering spikes in unemployment and consequent social instability.
Nevertheless, these prospective impediments should be assessed in the context of the transformative advantages offered by autonomous vehicles. Technological worries, albeit valid, can be alleviated by the reality that machine errors, assuming regular maintenance and software updates, are substantially less frequent than human-induced accidents. Current traffic mishaps primarily stem from human fallibility, such as impaired or distracted driving. Autonomous vehicles, devoid of these frailties, could significantly elevate road safety standards.
Moreover, the dawn of self-driving vehicles could herald an era of unparalleled productivity. Liberated from the reins of the steering wheel, individuals could effectively utilise travel time for personal or professional purposes. A study by Stanford University suggests that the widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles could potentially save billions of productive hours annually. Furthermore, the challenge of job displacement, while significant, could trigger the emergence of new, unforeseen employment sectors, such as advanced vehicle maintenance, autonomous vehicle route management, and data analysis related to autonomous transport.
In conclusion, although the advent of autonomous vehicles presents genuine concerns pertaining to technological reliability and job loss, the potential for significant enhancements in road safety and productivity, coupled with the emergence of new employment sectors, tips the balance in favour of this technological revolution.
Sample 11:
There is a belief that some land vehicles such as cars, buses and lorries will serve without any drivers in the coming years. So, people in these machines will just be passengers. This situation may result in a lack of job opportunities and immediate interventions. In contrast, transferring drivers’ salaries into other areas and decreasing traffic accidents are essential benefits. In my opinion, considering these positive effects the advantages of non-driver vehicles outweigh the disadvantages.
Firstly, driverless vehicles mean losing jobs for some people. In this case, it will be hard to learn a new skill to afford living costs and it cannot be achieved in the short term. To be more precise, most drivers are non-university graduates, and they do not have any option to work except their current jobs. Secondly, there may not be any individuals to take action in an emergency, such as heart attack, to administer first aid or take the person to the hospital quickly.
On the other hand, it is an advantage to invest in other areas such as proper vehicle maintenance and purchasing environmentally-friendly ones. Thus, it will be more beneficial for society in the long term. These investments will be possible because there will not be any drivers who must be paid wages. Additionally, the most important benefit of this attempt is the possibility of less traffic accidents. According to a survey which was done globally by Allianz, being sleepy and exhausted are mostly the reasons for car crashes. The rate of accidents can be decreased by eliminating drivers from the traffic.
In conclusion, there is an increasing trend to release driverless vehicles into the market. Although there are drawbacks such as less job positions and a lack of expert in emergent cases in vehicles, advantages, namely decreased traffic accidents and increased investments, outweigh disadvantages.
Sample 12:
Driverless vehicles, such as automobiles, buses, lorries, and public transportation, will be available in the future as technology advances. Personally, I feel that automated cars will offer more advantages to traffic participation than drawbacks.
To begin with, self-driving automation can assist people reduce traffic accidents since some individuals do not follow traffic regulations. Furthermore, while employing autopilot vehicle services, businesses. It would not need to engage drivers to deliver their items to clients and assure the safety of passengers. Furthermore, it is appropriate for older and impaired travellers while moving someplace and reacting swiftly. When there is an impediment ahead or something unexpectedly passed by, such as animals or reckless pedestrians. For example, if you utilise a vehicle with an automatic driver, you may spend more time doing other things while driving.
Meanwhile, we still have numerous disadvantages, such as the loss of drivers, which will result in increased unemployment in the future. Another concern is that autonomous cars would have substantial repair or yearly maintenance expenditures, which would be both inconvenient and costly. For example, it would be a long-term procedure that wastes time and money for organisations. This would have removed all old moto drivers instead of driverless autos with training that costs an arm and a leg. However, if the government has a suitable policy for the people, problems will be handled, and automation may assist to drastically lowering the rate of accidents.
Finally, as far as I am concerned, I believe that autonomous cars will have more advantages than disadvantages. Furthermore, in recent years, numerous firms and academics have developed autonomous automobiles to meet the needs of inhabitants.
Sample 13:
Some individuals are opposed to self-driving automobiles, claiming that such technology would reduce driver employment prospects. Nevertheless, I feel that the advantages of driverless vehicles outweigh the negatives.
There are several benefits to autonomous automobiles, but I believe the most important thing is their safety. Vehicle-control technology can prevent major accidents by eliminating human mistakes. Despite the development and installation of new features that protect drivers' or passengers' safety. Such as airbags and alarm systems, the number of individuals killed in automobile accidents is steadily increasing nowadays. The rationale for this is that if humans continue to grasp handles in the driver's seat, stupid mistakes will never be avoided. On the other hand, it has been demonstrated that a level 4 automatic driving system. It allows driving entirely without human intervention and may reduce incidents by more than 90%. This point is important because life should come first.
In terms of opponents' arguments emphasizing the significance of safeguarding present employees, our history gives a remedy to such worry. Whenever a new technology developed, such as during the industrial revolution. With the introduction of the Internet, the general people were concerned about their job security. Nonetheless, in such times, there were plenty of employment opportunities in the workplace, and totally new occupations were created instead of being lost. As a result, worrying about opponents is pointless.
In conclusion, while some individuals may be concerned about their jobs, the benefits of autonomous automobiles outweigh the risks. Safety considerations, per se, directly connected to human life, should be the most vital to account for.
Sample 14:
All vehicles, including automobiles, buses, and lorries, will be operated autonomously by artificial intelligence. The only individuals inside the car are passengers. When communities embrace driverless vehicles, I believe there will be more benefits than drawbacks.
For starters, having a driverless vehicle allows society to be more productive since people have time to do so while riding in the automobile. People can, for example, join an online meeting, read a book, or take a break while driving to work or another location. Furthermore, because autonomous cars do not require drivers, they can save money on driver expenses. This circumstance will have a favorable influence on the overheating costs of firms that have a large number of drivers to deploy their staff.
Then, because the cars will be handled by a robotic system rather than people, communities will gain from driverless vehicles. This is in terms of resource efficiency, particularly in public transit. For example, public transportation just needs a skilled programmer in the control centre to manage its mobilisation. They do not require driver allocation in all buses or other modes of transportation. Despite certain security concerns, researchers are creating artificial intelligence behaviour technology to minimise vehicle accidents. So robotic systems may learn from human behaviour when they have to make a judgement on the road.
In conclusion, driverless technology will provide more advantages to society in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. Nevertheless, there is a basic worry connected to security technology, which researchers will tackle.
Sample 15:
Some people have speculated that in the near future some modes of transport will be automated. Although there could be certain dangers connected to unemployment and flexibility, I tend to believe that there are more benefits.
Foremost amongst these advantages is the likelihood that less time would be spent on driver training. If driving is computerised, there will be less need to learn how to drive, so more time could be spent on more productive activities such as work. Related to this idea of efficient time use, less time will also be spent on reading maps and programming GPS for human use. Once cars, buses, and trucks have become driverless, people will be less distracted by having to read maps which could reduce traffic congestion and some road accidents. Similarly, driverless vehicles do not require sleep, so the chances of accidents related to the drivers falling asleep while driving could be minimised.
However, there could be certain risks connected to vehicles operating without a driver. In the case of driverless buses and lorries, people who used to drive such vehicles will be made redundant which could contribute to high levels of unemployment. Though this may be a problem in the short term, in the long term it may be possible for jobless drivers to find a new field. For example, former drivers can become new mechanics for driverless cars, so this could address any employment deficit. Less easily addressed might be the benefits that come with having a human driver. For instance, people may be more adept at driving in certain places such as mountain ranges which may require more versatile off-road driving skills.
To conclude, there are numerous positive aspects to the implementation of driverless vehicles including greater efficiency and safety. While these advantages may have drawbacks connected to unemployment, there is reasonable scope to address them.
Sample 16:
All automobiles, buses, and lorries will be operated automatically by artificial intelligence. Only passengers are present inside the car. When towns embrace autonomous cars, there will be more benefits that outweigh the drawbacks, in my view.
First, when societies have autonomous vehicles, they will be more efficient with their time since they will be able to become more productive in the automobile. People may, for instance, participate in an online meeting, read a book, or relax while travelling to the workplace or another location. Moreover, it may cut costs since autonomous cars do not need drivers, which eliminates driver-related expenses. This circumstance will have a good effect on the cost of overheating for companies with a large number of vehicles used to transport personnel.
Then, communities will get resource efficiency benefits from autonomous cars, particularly in public transit, since the vehicles will be driven by a robotic system rather than people. For instance, a skilled programmer in the control room is sufficient to oversee the mobilisation of public transit. They do not need driver assignments for every bus or other mode of transportation. Even if there are security concerns, researchers are creating behaviour technology in artificial intelligence to prevent vehicle accidents, so that robotic systems may learn about human behaviour while making decisions on the street.
In conclusion, driverless technology will give higher benefits to society in terms of efficacy and efficiency, despite a fundamental security risk for which researchers will uncover a solution. These benefits will come about despite the fact that driverless technology poses a lil danger.
Sample 17:
I feel that the advantages of autonomous vehicles outweigh their disadvantages, despite the fact that some individuals are opposed to them on the grounds that they may reduce employment prospects for drivers.
There are several benefits to autonomous automobiles, but I believe their safety is the greatest. As vehicle control technology may minimise human mistakes, it can lessen the severity of collisions. Despite the development and installation of new safety features for drivers and passengers, including airbags and alarm systems, the number of individuals killed in automobile accidents is rising quickly in the present day. The reason for this is because careless errors cannot be eliminated as long as humans continue to grasp handles in driving seats. On the other hand, it has been shown that a level 4 automated driving system, which permits driving without any human input, may reduce incidents by more than 90%. As life should take precedence over everything else, this notion is crucial.
Regarding the opposition's arguments emphasising the significance of safeguarding present employees, our past offers a remedy for this worry. Whenever a new technological innovation appeared, such as during the industrial revolution or the introduction of the Internet, the general population expressed concern about their job security. However, throughout such epochs, there were many employment prospects in the workplace, and instead of job loss, totally new occupations had been established. Therefore, worrying about adversaries is pointless.
In conclusion, the benefits of autonomous automobiles exceed the potential concerns of a part of the population over their employment. Safety problems per se, which are directly tied to the priceless lives of humans, should be given the highest priority.
Sample 18:
Current developments in the automotive industry indicate a future with self-driving automobiles, buses, and trucks. It may seem to be a scenario from a science fiction film, but the likelihood that it will become a reality is strong. This invention based on artificial intelligence may seem to be the perfect situation, but I believe the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.
People's trust is the most crucial element for the success of such developments; however, it seems that people are dubious. For instance, a pedestrian was recently killed in an accident involving a Tesla autonomous vehicle. People cannot accept even 0.1% inaccuracy, which is the primary drawback of this invention. Some may claim that, just as individuals do damage to others when driving, so do these vehicles. However, it is difficult to determine liability and administer justice in incidents involving autonomous cars.
On the other side, the primary argument in favour of these cars is that driving patterns will be uniform if all vehicles are driverless. Even if accidents occur, they may also attempt to limit the damage to human beings. Again, this needs people to constantly adhere to rules. It is practically difficult to attain such perfect conditions, and undesirable occurrences will occur. Extremely unusual situations are exceedingly challenging for artificial intelligence to predict. During each of these circumstances, the media will focus more on the negatives than the positives. It will build distrust among the populace.
Because it is a question of life and death, the disadvantages outweigh the rewards. Even the loss of one life is unacceptable, and people would see it as an injustice if no one is to blame. People may use AI in any other gadget except for automobiles and buses.
Sample 19:
Recently, there have been great strides made in technology required to transition to a system of driverless cars and it has been suggested that one day all vehicles will be automated, with humans merely passengers. This essay will argue that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
The primary reason for adopting driverless cars is the improvement in safety that would inevitably come. At present, cars are immensely dangerous and yet humans continue to drive them. The vast majority of accidents are caused by human error, but this would be totally eliminated in a system whereby all vehicles are automatically updated on the presence of other vehicles. Accidents would be reduced, thereby saving millions of lives per year. Beyond that, the system on which these cars function would ensure that they optimise their routes to avoid traffic, which would not only save people time but reduce the number of emissions produced by idling engines.
Of course, there are some disadvantages, but these are comparatively minor. One thing that worries most people is the loss of freedom that will come from driverless car systems. At present, in most western countries, the road is viewed as a symbol of freedom and people enjoy getting behind the wheel to move around. In a driverless car, this small pleasure would be diminished. However, this is of course trivial in comparison to the safety and environmental benefits of the proposed driverless system.
In conclusion, the advantages of driverless vehicles vastly outweigh the disadvantages. Although there are a few negatives, the fact that so many lives would be saved makes this future comparatively bright.
Sample 20:
With the rapid technological development, driverless vehicles are becoming a reality, and within a couple of decades, all cars will run without the intervention of a human driver. I personally believe that driverless cars will bring far more benefits than the possible drawbacks they have.
To begin with the drawbacks, driverless cars pose some risks, including accidents and casualties, should technology malfunction. Since the vehicles would be run and controlled by software and technology, the risk of devastating accidents due to bugs or hacking could not be eliminated. It will make us more susceptible to hackers and software glitches. An accident, in which a woman died, caused by a driverless car while still in beta mode, caused a great uproar a few years ago. Moreover, not all roads, especially those in poor nations with ditches, holes and insufficient road signals, are suitable for those automated cars to run smoothly.
However, technology-made mistakes are astronomically fewer than man-made blunders when it comes to road safety and casualties, and this is where driverless automobiles can make a significant improvement. Though we point out a single accident made by a driverless car, human drivers are responsible for hundreds, if not thousands, of casualties each day all around the world. With the introduction of automated cars, accidents would reduce remarkably, making roads safer for all. On top of that, millions of hours could be saved each day since we would no longer need to sit behind the wheel. It will increase our productivity and boost the national economy.
In conclusion, driverless vehicles have many great benefits including road safety and economic benefits, and it is expected that we could eliminate the software related issues to reap the maximum benefits of this marvellous technology.
Sample 21:
Driverless cars, thanks to the phenomenal development of technology, are no longer fiction, but a reality, and it is expected that most vehicles will be autonomous in the future. Despite both benefits and demerits, the writer of this essay does think that the advantages of driverless vehicles do not outweigh the disadvantages.
One of the major advantages of driverless vehicles is that they reduce the number of accidents on the road. Such cars provide better traffic efficiency since driverless vehicles can travel efficiently at an optimized and safe distance from each other by communicating among themselves in real-time, on the road, and by telling which routes to take. It reduces accidents and casualties to a great extent.
However, the systems or the technologies used to operate driverless vehicles can malfunction or stop working at any time, without any prior notice. And, if that happens, an autonomous vehicle could actually put the passengers in more danger than if a human driver was driving it. Besides, self-driving cars lack the ability to make judgments among multiple unfavourable scenarios and outcomes. For example, let’s say that a self-driving car had to face a situation with only two possible options: one is to veer to the left and strike a pedestrian, and the other one is to turn to the right and hit a tree, potentially injuring the passengers inside the vehicle. Now, since both options are undesirable, which option would the driverless car choose? The Moral Machine, developed by a group at MIT in the USA, is seeking to address this critical issue by collecting data on real-life people’s decisions, but the data collected, so far, shows broad differences amongst different groups of people, making it very difficult to programme any definitive answer for autonomous cars. Thus, autonomous cars are good to have but are not great to ride in!
So, based on the discussion above, we can fairly conclude that the shortcomings of driverless automobiles outweigh their possible benefits.
Sample 22:
The concept that all cars will be driverless has been gaining traction lately as advancements in technology have made it increasingly feasible and demonstrations have already been successful. The concept of a future where vehicles are solely occupied by passengers presents both benefits and drawbacks. However, in my opinion, the benefits of driverless vehicles outweigh the potential disadvantages.
One of the main drawbacks of driverless cars is the potential loss of jobs for millions of drivers. This is particularly concerning in industries, such as trucking, taxi service and ride-sharing, where driving is the primary occupation. Another major shortcoming of fully automated vehicles is the potential for hackers to gain control of the vehicle and cause mayhem. This could be a significant security concern, as technology is still in its infancy, and vulnerabilities may not yet have been identified.
On the other hand, several major advantages of driverless vehicles make them an attractive option for the future. To begin with, driverless automobiles are expected to remarkably reduce the number of road accidents caused by human error, as the vehicles are controlled by advanced software and sensors that are less prone to mistakes. Additionally, automated vehicles have the potential to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion, as they can communicate with one another and adapt to changing traffic conditions in real-time. Furthermore, driverless vehicles could also have positive impacts on the environment as they will reduce fuel consumption and emissions, for example.
In conclusion, while there could be some disadvantages to the notion of driverless conveyances, the advantages of such vehicles far outweigh the drawbacks. The fewer road accidents, improved traffic conditions, and environmental benefits that driverless vehicles will bring us, make them an appealing choice for the future.
Sample 23:
Due to the rapid development of technology, it is reasonable to claim that a wide range of vehicles will be autonomous in the near future. In my opinion, although this development raises certain safety concerns, the benefits in regard to reduced accidents and costs involved in traffic facilities make this development a change for the better.
Detractors of driver-free vehicles point out the potential unreliability of such vehicles. Specifically, some worry that when there is a technical problem such as malfunction of the navigation system, this may jeopardize passengers in both the vehicle and traffic. In fact, Tesla, a prominent corporation specializing in driverless automobiles, has received a number of complaints regarding the reliability of its driverless cars, making some skeptical about whether such cars are sophisticated enough to work consistently in varied weather and road conditions. However, the aforementioned issues have been minimized as technological advances.
I believe the popularity of driverless automobiles should be encouraged as it helps reduce human errors and expenditure on traffic facilities. Given numerous road accidents result from reckless driving behaviors such as speeding and driving while intoxicated, automated cars are a practical solution for such causes of accidents. This does not imply that automated cars are not prone to technical errors; however, these errors are rare, and in most cases, incidents with these cars have been the fault of human drivers. The wide application of driverless cars can also help governments save budgetary expenses on maintaining and upgrading traffic facilities. When vehicles are controlled by machines, there would be fewer need for installing speeding cameras, maintaining road signs and paying traffic police, allowing more funds for other key areas.
In conclusion, although some worry about the consistency of self-driving vehicles, I believe decreased spending on traffic facilities and increased road safety fully justify this innovation. Governments and corporations should therefore invest more in this promising technology.
Sample 24:
Recent years have seen the emergence of technologies to develop vehicles that can effectively drive themselves, and this may eventually make human drivers redundant. On the whole, I think that the benefits of this development will outweigh any drawbacks.
Automated vehicles have the potential to massively improve road safety because they could massively reduce accidents caused by human error. People are prone to making mistakes, often caused by getting tired or distracted while driving, leading to serious accidents. Computers which control vehicles don’t suffer from these weaknesses, and so as long as they are programmed correctly, errors like these should be eliminated. For instance, cars can be made to brake automatically in emergencies or if the distance from the car ahead is too small. Admittedly, we occasionally hear of fatalities caused by driverless vehicles being tested, but these are statistically insignificant when compared to deaths caused by human error both now and in the future.
An additional benefit to driverless vehicles would be a reduction in transport and haulage costs since there is no driver to pay. This would make food and other goods cheaper. For example, a major factor in food prices in supermarkets is the wages paid to delivery drivers.
However, there is a downside to this since drivers would lose their jobs. In modern economies, tens of thousands of people are employed as HGV drivers, as well as drivers of taxis and delivery vans, so the widespread adoption of automated vehicles would have a major impact on job opportunities. Nevertheless, this problem can be mitigated against with investment in training and job creation in other areas.
In conclusion, I do feel that despite the job losses it will entail, the benefits in terms of cost and road safety make driverless vehicles something to welcome.
Sample 25:
The debate relating to transportation has been in the spotlight for an extended period of time. Recently, there is a belief that automated vehicles like cars, buses and trucks will be dominated in the future. From a personal perspective, such a trend, though detrimental to a certain extent, could be considered as a major step forward.
On the one hand, the driverless system of transportation has proven itself to be adverse. To begin with, personal driver's security may be deteriorated. In fact, many criminals now are gradually having more sophisticated and cunning plans in stealing the important information of other people. Thus, just by successfully accessing the storage systems, hackers can take the necessary data and control over a whole engine, easily triggering accidents on the road. Moreover, this trend may cause people to be unemployed. To illustrate, thousands of individuals are likely to lose their job as a taxi driver or bus controller since all the vehicles are substituted by automated ones, which may affect negatively their quality of life.
On the other hand, this trend seems to be advantageous from two aspects, as follows. First, humans' safety will be guaranteed. There is no denying that the majority of accidents nowadays are attributed to drivers' inferior awareness like using stimulants or crossing the traffic light. Therefore, driverless vehicles are promised to decrease unwanted cases as they can automatically control the speed themselves and utilize computer-based system to avoid collisions. Second, this trend may bring about a civilized traffic system. The fact is that there will no longer be traffic congestion and need police on the road since no more human could break the rules and the distance between two cars might be rigorously calculated in order to minimize collisions.
In conclusion, in spite of several demerits mentioned above, this essay still believes that putting more driverless vehicles on the road is revolutionary to the contemporary society.
Sample 26:
In the future, all vehicles will be autonomous. Passengers will be the only people inside them. I believe businesses can cut costs by using driverless cars, and this advantage far outweighs any potential disadvantages.
One downside of self-driving cars might be that they could lead to large employment losses. Nowadays, in many countries, a great number of people are making a living by driving, be they truckers, bus drivers, or delivery couriers. Imagine all these people are made redundant by autonomous cars. That would raise the unemployment rates in these countries significantly. However, I think this can be avoided if drivers reskill to get themselves a job in a new sector.
On the positive side, driverless cars could help businesses reduce operating expenses. This is because, with these cars, they would not need to hire drivers to deliver their products or services to their customers. For example, the American logistics company UPS currently has hundreds of thousands of truck drivers and pays them an average of 60,000 dollars per year, which adds up to tens of billions of dollars annually. Replacing these drivers with autonomous cars would mean that these huge salary payments could be eliminated. I think this could create a great advantage for society as a whole because companies could devote the money they save on labor to other aspects of their business, which could mean cheaper, better goods for consumers.
In conclusion, although self-driving vehicles would result in many job losses, I believe this downside is greatly outweighed by the upside that these vehicles could help businesses save operating costs.
Sample 27:
Technological advancements in automobile industries are leading toward a future when vehicles would be driverless. The benefits of autonomous vehicles, run by artificial intelligence and software technology, would far outweigh the disadvantages.
The possible downside of autonomous vehicles pertains to the technology itself. Since they would be run by software technology, hackers could take control of a vehicle and use it for their own nefarious purposes. They could even evade police chasing or use vehicles to cause vandalism. Moreover, the situation would lead to an increase in unemployment in many parts of the world where millions of people are employed as drivers.
But the advantages of autonomous vehicles are many. To begin with, it would allow people to use their travel time more constructively. Imagine the millions of hours saved each day because manual driving would no longer be required. It would be added up to the total man-hours of people to boost the national economy. Moreover, human drivers often compete on the roads and create traffic gridlocks. It would be a thing of the past with driverless, AI-driven cars. Finally, driverless cars would eliminate the drunk-driving, man-made blunders behind the wheels and make the roads safer. It would thus save thousands of lives each year that are lost due to road accidents. A recent research data by the automobile industry points out that road accidents with driverless cars would reduce by 85% – which is a hugely encouraging figure.
In conclusion, autonomous vehicles can reduce accidents and make the road safer while also allowing people more time to enjoy or work. Considering the benefits it offers; it is realistic to conclude that its advantages far outweigh its drawbacks.
Sample 28:
All vehicles, including cars, buses and trucks, are expected to go driverless in the future, leaving behind the passengers travelling inside. In my view, the benefits cannot outweigh the disadvantages because driverless cars will lead to unemployment and financial burden.
Admittedly, there are certain benefits of driverless cars such as smooth drive and fewer accidents. Firstly, driverless vehicles can ensure a smoother drive because these are going to be equipped with adequate technology to follow exact traffic rules, managing a safer ride. Secondly, these cars will eliminate the risk of accidents caused by drunken or sleepless drivers. For instance, most of the accidents in my country occur on highways due to sleep deprived and overworked drivers.
On the other hand, despite the latest sophisticated technology, going driverless in public transport is very risky. If there is a medical emergency, for instance, the driverless car will not be able to stop instantly and reroute to hospital if required. Another notable point is the need to adjust decisions according to road traffic, driverless cars can never match a real person in this case.
Launching driverless vehicles will also mean snatching jobs away from a significant portion of the population. Most of these drivers have no other skills, therefore managing the economic burden of this unemployed lot will be difficult for many countries. Additionally, although some people might be able to afford these expensive cars, lower socio-economic countries are not financially ready for such a big change in their transport system.
In conclusion, despite the few benefits, there is compelling evidence that not all types of vehicles can be driven without drivers, and it will be deleterious in many scenarios.
Lời giải
Sample 1:
Some people opine that trees should be planted in the unoccupied regions of significant towns and cities. Others insist that it is more critical to build residential complexes there. In my opinion, planting trees in vacant cities is more effective than building homes there.
On the one hand, there are numerous benefits of planting trees for residents. Firstly, it is omniscient that in the present times, air pollution and noise pollution are booming with every passing day due to fewer trees leading to harmful diseases. Therefore, sowing plants and trees in the city’s open space is indispensable for living things and the environment. To illustrate, plants take up dust and harmful gases like carbon dioxide and provide pure air. With the help of trees, the air pollution levels would decrease. Secondly, planting trees gives shelter to numerous birds. Several bird species have become bygones, and some are on the verge of extinction with the minuscule number of plants. Hence, more and more dreams in cities are required.
Additionally, these plants assist in keeping the environment cool by various natural processes. Experts have discovered that tree leaves are excellent absorbers, especially carbon dioxide and dust, giving out oxygen and water vapour. Besides, trees play a consequential role in bringing rain, thereby making it a crucial factor in maintaining a balance in the environment that is being disturbed by humans.
On the flipper side, lack of shelter will have many extreme downsides. Firstly, in urban regions, the majority of people migrate. Undoubtedly, the price of rented houses is too high. More masses might become homeless, resulting in crime rates increasing. Secondly, economic development may suffer if there are only a few buildings in the town. Subsequently, fewer shopping malls, banks, restaurants, and other shops will impact financial earnings and affect daily lives. Ultimately, the construction of more houses in an urban area is essential.
In conclusion, I believe that a significant part of the vacant spaces should be utilised for afforestation. This will help enrich the area with pure air and oxygen, allowing people to have a healthy life.
Sample 2:
The utilization of open areas for planting or building more houses has become a debatable issue. In my opinion, I agree that trees and gardens play a vital role in human development. In the forthcoming paragraphs, I shall explain my point of view and give supporting reasons.
To begin with, the cultivation of more trees in urban settings benefits city dwellers in a variety of ways. For example, extra tree shade is generated when more trees are planted in open areas, which not only promotes the aesthetics of the city but also helps to lower the city’s temperature. Also, it provides more space for elderly people and youngsters to do some physical activities in this relaxing environment.
Additionally, these plants assist in reducing urban air pollution and noise levels and promote higher living standards. Experts have discovered that tree leaves are great absorbers, especially of carbon dioxide and dust. In addition, trees generate oxygen, which can help to reduce pollution in cities and improve air quality.
However, it is true that more housing means more places to live. But it cannot be ignored that people are suffering from urbanisation induced air pollution and the only solution to protect them is to plant more trees.
To sum up, due to mass urbanization, the need for trees and gardens has drastically increased to improve the quality of life in overcrowded cities. Moreover, trees and gardens are natural combats that can help protect against various man-made disasters.
Sample 3:
Many city and town planners believe that trees, instead of residential buildings, are crucial for the development of the modern city. In my agreement, I agree with this contention despite the legitimate benefits to increased housing in cities.
Those who would rather build more residential buildings argue that both town and city populations are surging. Population figures globally are on the rise, and it is logical to provide quality housing for all citizens. This is particularly true in rapidly growing nations such as China and India. The migration of individuals from the countryside to cities and outlying towns means that higher residential numbers have led to deteriorating sanitary conditions and increased pressure on the services that sustain cities such as public transportation. More housing would at least partly alleviate the issues that urban planners face and allow for more cogent plans for densely populated environments.
Nonetheless, the importance of trees transcends the purely practical. For the average city and town resident, trees have aesthetic value. Take for example some of the best-known cities in the world including Paris and New York City. The parks and gardens stand out and mitigate living apart from the natural world. Moreover, the more underprivileged segments of society are unlikely to be able to afford trips outside their immediate living vicinity. There is therefore a good chance that many younger children, particularly those in inner cities, will rarely experience nature and their lives will be limited to the dreary confines of the city. Over time, this can have a demoralising effect that is evidenced in the defeatist attitude common among less affluent children.
In conclusion, the importance of housing to meeting rising population demands does not overshadow the importance of trees. Towns and cities must naturally balance these concerns to foster better living environments for residents.
Sample 3:
Many people argue that the planting of trees should take precedence over the construction of additional accommodation for residents in town and cities. I largely agree that planting more trees brings about greater environmental benefits overall, though erecting more residence is justifiably beneficial.
Supporters of added residential areas argue that they help combat overpopulation and stimulate economic growth. The growing influx of rural inhabitants seeking greater opportunities for education, healthcare, and services has recently driven a boom in the world populations and created the modern mega-city. While this trend is economically beneficial, it has also led to inflated real estate prices, higher rates of unemployment and exacerbated social issues related to overcrowding. Hence, the construction of residential properties would not only provide city dwellers with places to reside but also effectively offset potential bubbles in the real estate market. This development would also create millions of employment opportunities within the building sector.
Nonetheless, these temporary fixes have concomitantly brought about more pressing environmental hazards, all of which can be sustainably mitigated by growing more trees. One salient example of this is a natural phenomenon called "the urban heat island". Compared to natural landscapes, buildings absorb and reradiato a higher volume of sunlight which is then trapped by the city's smog, resulting in wider temperature fluctuations, deteriorating infrastructures, and compromised human health and comfort. Urban vegetation, in the forms of trees, provides shade, emits water vapors that cool infrastructures, and shields residents from extreme ultraviolet exposure. At the same time, they are also effective natural curtains that absorb and filter pollutant particulates out of the air by trapping them on leaves and bark, while simultaneously releasing oxygen into the atmosphere, thus contributing towards more habitable living conditions that are far more beneficial for human health in the long run.
In conclusion, despite the short-term economic gains that extra housing offers, I believe with few reservations that planting more trees would have a greater overall impact as it would significantly improve the standard of living and reduce the severity of environmental changes. In my opinion, a combination of both would ensure the sustainable development of cities.
Sample 4:
It is believed that it is more meaningful to plant trees in open urban areas, rather than building more houses. While housing is needed to meet the demands of the growing population, I strongly agree that trees should be planted in open areas as trees provide environmental, social, and economic benefits.
Admittedly, housing is essential to meet the demands of the burgeoning population; however, high-rise buildings should be constructed instead of spreading out low-rise houses, allowing open spaces to be preserved for planting more trees. New housing can also be built in the countryside to convert villages into towns. In fact, many people are opting to live there because of the fresh air and quiet atmosphere.
The main benefit of planting trees in cities is to the environment. Trees help purify the polluted air in the cities and towns. Research has proven that 100 trees can remove tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. Trees are also known to cut down the everyday noise of cities, thus tackling noise pollution. To add to it, rainwater doesn't run off into drains if there are trees in urban areas. It is filtered into the ground, thus saving the city money that is spent on drains and artificial controls. Finally, trees provide shade to homes, roads, office areas, and parking spaces, thus reducing energy consumption. In parking lots also, trees help keep cars cooler, which leads to less pollution.
Planting trees in cities helps the city grow socially and economically as well. They provide an area where people can meet, socialize, and also exercise. Children also get close to nature, where they can play. The commercial value of an urban property with trees is more than one without trees. Retail outlets and businesses located in areas with trees attract more customers.
To sum up, although houses are needed in cities to live in, trees are needed more to strengthen and improve the quality of life in overcrowded cities. They play a vital role in combating climate change and provide numerous economic and social benefits.
Sample 5:
Nowadays, there is an increasing concern about greenery around the country. However, whether these trees should be planted in a city’s open places rather than giving way to more accommodation remains a controversial debate. I agree with the view that if housing supply in a city has surpassed demand, the open areas should mainly be covered by trees.
Firstly, with enough housing for locals to live, trees are needed to cool down the cities and towns. While many cities have to heavily rely on air-conditioning to decrease the indoor temperature during summer, with more trees planted, the outside temperature can be adjusted to a lower level. As a benefit, it will be cooler in people’s homes.
Moreover, trees can function well to clean up the toxic substances in the air. If we want more people to stay away from some health issues that are caused by environmental degradation, trees can definitely help. And this is something those housing buildings cannot contribute to.
Of course, when the majority of residents in some towns cannot be provided with comfortable housing, it is a different case. As shelter is one of the most important elements for human survival, it should be considered as a priority in these places. As long as shelter is not an urgent problem, then greenery can be prioritised for open areas.
In summary, both trees and housing play an important role in urban lifestyle. When most city residents already have a home to live in, open spaces ought to be given to trees. On the other hand, building more accommodation on the available land is a wiser choice, vice versa.
Sample 6:
In present, there are a plenty of wide empty spaces in both cities and towns which can take advantage to plant trees or construct more building. Some opinions suggest planning more greenery in these spaces due to their necessity, I completely agree with that valuable statement.
Initially, the main benefit of growing more trees in cities and towns is that it will promote the amount of fresh air. More trees mean more carbon dioxide will be absorbed leading to more oxygen is produced. It is a nice way out for the hottest issues in some big cities and towns nowadays when these places release a large amount of air pollution every day because of the crowd and overpopulation. Secondly, planting more greens is directly raise citizen's awareness about protecting environment. Residents take more responsibility to conserving and develoing more green space in their living area. In addition, when more people are concerned about the environment and health, they will immediately lead to a healthier lifestyle.
Moreover, green trees also decorate the cities looking more peaceful and beautiful, which will attract more tourists to come. Because of the new trends of visiting an enviromentally-friendly place, a green city or town will be an interesting destination for all visitors. Therefore, national tourism will be developed while national reputation also significantly climbs. Another benefit is that more jobs will be created for the environment such as sanitation workers. Consequently, the unemployment rate of those cities and towns will dramatically decrease.
In conclusion, for several reasons mentioned above, I maintain the opinion that the government should reserve spare spaces for growing more greens instead of building more houses.
Sample 7:
Many people have views on how to absolutely utilize vacant spaces in cities and towns. While some believe that planting trees in blank spaces in cities and towns is more necessary than building houses, I partly agree with this method.
On the one hand, I agree that planting trees in open spaces in cities and towns is essential to help citizens get a fresher atmosphere in cities and towns. Firstly, the atmosphere in big cities and towns is getting worse than before due to the appearance of industrial parks and increasing in vehicles. Therefore, planting trees has contributed a pure green space to big cities and towns, helping people get a better life. Secondly, the forest area of the world has been narrowed nowadays, so a lack of wood resources to serve business activities as well as constructing activities is an unavoidably serious problem. Thus, cultivating trees becomes one of the most useful measures to help people to solve partially emptied wood resources today.
On the other hand, I do not believe that the benefits of building houses in cities or towns are outweighed by planting trees. First and foremost, the population of big cities or towns is increasing these days because of the immigration of people from the countryside or mountainous areas. Therefore, building houses or apartments to meet accommodation for everyone is really indispensable. Besides, some economic centers need to be constructed to widen infrastructure as well as provide jobs for citizens here. Secondly, planting trees in big cities or towns, especially big trees along streets, will cause some grave traffic accidents for citizens in the rainy season when these trees are fallen down by a storm, strong winds, or are struck by lightning.
In summary, I can clearly come to the conclusion that although growing trees in cities or towns help to avoid wasting blank spaces, this solution has its negative impacts.
Sample 8:
It is an irrefutable fact that, nowadays, a great deal of attention has been paid to Green or sustainable planting; while some believe that it must be necessary to plant trees everywhere in society rather than constructing mud and mortar building in open areas, others reject this notion. However, I totally agree with the former statement that will analyse my views by taking examples to demonstrate my points and prove my arguments.
On the one hand, the advantages of planting more trees are indisputable. The most significant benefit is that trees purify the air and reduce CO2 emissions in an environment polluted by transportation and construction. Furthermore, clean and fresh air contributes to a stress-free life and helps maintain a healthy atmosphere around living spaces. For example, floods in Jagrata affect health, safety, and prosperity due to soil erosion caused by deforestation for urbanization. Therefore, increasing green spaces could be an effective solution to avoid these predictable problems.
On the other hand, although there has been a dramatic rise in the population almost in all nations due to the enhancement in healthcare amenities. As a result, the average death rate has decreased, yet the majority of the populace still resides in countries. For example, the unemployment problem has been contributed significantly by increasing the number of people who have been residing in multicultural cities.
In conclusion, from my viewpoint, it is most agreeable to focus more on planting trees for a friendly environment, though building houses are essential. However, the balance between them should be an effective solution for environmental protection.
Sample 9:
It is argued that growing trees in vacant places in sub-urban areas or metropolitan areas are crucial rather than constructing homes for the people. I completely agree with the statement as it will make the place pollution-free, and linking people with nature can heal their mental and physical problems.
First off, planting trees in open spaces will make the urban and town areas pollution free. To elaborate on it, people drive their vehicles to move from one place to another. When the fuel burns, it produces toxic gases. These gases mix in the environment and create pollution. Therefore, having more trees will absorb them and purify the air, and our biodiversity will not experience the problem of pollution. The absence of vegetation and congested places due to having more homes can exaggerate this problem. Thus, it is better to grow more trees. For instance, Chandigarh is a beautiful city for having more green spaces, and the rate of pollution is less than in any other city.
Moreover, greenery helps establish a link between human beings and nature and cures the public of various physical and mental illnesses. To explain it, nature has the power to heal the illnesses of humanity. Having plants, trees, and flowers all around makes the individuals feel ecstasy. In the lap of nature, people forget their anxiety and sadness and develop strong feelings of positivity. In addition, they do some exercises or run in the parks for gardens and burn their extra fat as well as improve the functions of the body organs. Individuals can keep themselves fit both psychologically and physiologically. For example, many physicians advise patients to walk over grass or to do meditation or yoga in a park or a garden. So, these places help a lot of humanity to cure itself. Even great writers or storytellers consider green spaces ideal for writing any work of art. Their writings also remove the depression of the person and make them cheerful.
To conclude, it is clear that planting trees in unoccupied places in cities or towns will make the place clear, and nature has the power to treat the physical as well as mental problems of individuals. They can get a feeling of glee at those places.
Sample 10:
As metropolitan areas are becoming more overpopulated and tree density is dropping, many people think we should focus on planting more trees rather than building housing. I strongly support this idea.
There are many direct advantages as to why people should plant more trees in urban areas. Firstly, many scientists proved that trees improve a lot of environmental metrics within a short time. For example, planting more trees results in cleaner air, lower average temperature, and a reduced carbon footprint. Secondly, allocating more space to trees can improve the aesthetic look of cities. For example, cities can build more botanical gardens that host various flowers and other beautiful plants. From an architectural aspect, this can add more contrast between the sharp look of buildings and the softer look of plants and flowers.
Moreover, there are indirect benefits when there are more open spaces dedicated to trees. The first one is that to implement this policy, the government might need to demolish many old residential areas to have areas for parks. This decision is beneficial in many ways. For example, new apartment buildings can accommodate more people and ensure a higher quality of life. The second one is that with more parks, citizens can witness an improvement in both their physical and mental health. Children can hang out and exercise in these parks and botanical gardens, thus improving their physical health. Senior citizens and even working people can take afternoon or night walks to relax, thus improving their mental health.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that urban areas should plant more trees due to their various benefits, both directly and indirectly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nhắn tin Zalo
Hỏi bài tập