Câu hỏi:

10/01/2025 262

Some people believe that air travel should be restricted because it causes serious pollution and will use up the world’s resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Quảng cáo

Trả lời:

verified
Giải bởi Vietjack

Sample 1:

Air travel has become highly popular, and this can easily be understood by looking at the number of incoming and outgoing flights at a busy airport. Since air travel saves a great deal of time, most business people today choose it over other modes of transportation. Travelling by air has many advantages, as well as disadvantages. In my opinion, essential air travel should not be restricted, but when air travel becomes a means of luxury, it should be limited.

Firstly, no other mode of transport can take a business person as quickly as air travel can. People, especially affluent business executives, use this mode of travel to reach their destinations quickly. Additionally, for long-distance travel, such as traveling to a distant country, air transportation is a necessity. For instance, traveling from India to the USA is quite impossible by road, sea, or any other vehicle, and in these cases, people have no alternative but to use air travel.

However, nowadays it has become fashionable for people to use air travel even for very short distances. Air transportation systems consume a large portion of the world's fuel reserves and contribute to environmental pollution. Therefore, restrictions should be applied in such cases. For example, if a destination is only 2-4 hours away by road, the idea of traveling by air is pointless and highly extravagant. Governments should impose strict regulations so that aviation companies can differentiate between a genuine business executive and a tourist, allowing business people to use air travel while encouraging tourists to take alternative routes.

Sample 2:

The impact of air travel on the environment has been a topic of continuous debate in recent years, following the concern that more and more people refer to it as a convenient means of travel. I feel that restrictions should be imposed on air travel.

The first undeniable factor is that aircraft accounts for a large proportion of air pollution. Planes, either idling or taxiing, contribute a large part to local emissions annually. There are some suggestions that air travel is one of the most suitable modes of transport for long-distance trips. This idea is, however, fallacious. Trains, for instance, can also serve as an optimal alternative, consuming less energy and causing less contamination. So, it is highly recommended that the government imposes restrictions on intra-country travel.

Along with air pollution, aircraft can cause noise pollution. Although it is impossible to precisely measure the actual impact of noise on people’s everyday lives, its ability to increase anxiety and disturbance levels has been confirmed. Especially for those living in the neighbourhood of an airport and around the flight paths, noise problems created by aircraft are a headache.

However, the air is indeed the only fastest means of transport to fly across countries. So, it should be operated in such a way that its strengths can be taken maximum advantage of. For instance, by replacing old engines with cleaner ones, people can mitigate the negative effects caused by flying.

In light of the facts discussed above, substantial consideration should be given to the pollution caused by aircraft. Air travel should be preferred only when there are no other means of transport available.

Sample 3:

With the growth in aviation, the majority of people are more likely to travel abroad to spend their leisure time on special occasions. One of the most tangible influences of this phenomenon is the exponential increase of thousands of airlines which provide low-cost carriers, and it is argued as the trigger of environmental catastrophes on a global scale such as air pollution and lack of fossil fuel. As a result, critics claim that air travel should be controlled to preserve the natural ecology. While it is believed that air travel provides more benefits in terms of time consuming and reasonable prices, people also have to consider the negative side of this transportation.

Supporters of the aircraft deliberate that airplanes are by far the fastest mode of transport which connects all parts of the world by hours. Before the invention of aviation, people used ships to travel for trading and travelling in other countries, but it took more than a month to reach a destination. In the 20th century, when airplanes have been invented, many counties choose this means of transport to export food such as vegetables and fruits to places where they are not in season or cannot be grown. For pragmatic instance, New Zealand exports fresh milk and apples to developing countries, Africa and India, using airplanes only around 12 hours. Consequently, some food could be exported faster and would not deteriorate in the worldwide distribution.

In addition, the availability of cheap air travel allows many holidaymakers to visit abroad for vacations over the last decades. According to a survey published in the Times magazine the proportion of travellers who prefer travelling other countries increases to around 70% in 2014, and it goes hand in hand with an increase of annual income of low-cost airlines which is more than 35% compared to previous year. Air travel leads people to get novelty of other challenged vacations.

On the other hand, the detrimental effects of this development are the impact on the environment. Firstly, a study records that there are more than hundreds of international and domestic flights which require more than a thousand liters of fuel every day. As time passes by, the natural environment is absorbed to produce more fuel while there is prevention to limit this activity. In the linear relationship of this condition, burning fossil fuel in terms of oil will add significantly to this problem as just one flight releases large amounts of carbon dioxide and other gases into the environment and damages the ozone layers. It can be concluded that the development of aviation contributes to climate change as the global problem.

In conclusion, the development of air travel in recent years has its own merits and demerits for the environment. In the glance, air travel benefits people to commute between different regions sooner whereas people are blame for environmental influences which are more important issues so that the restriction should be implemented to reduce damages. From my perspective, using air travel for travelling should be controlled, and green taxes should be increased to control low-cost airline companies as a novel solution.

Sample 4:

It is irrefutable that air travel causes pollution and uses a lot of fuel, but I disagree that air travel should be restricted. I believe that restricting air travel would solve some problems but would lead to many other problems.

At a time when people all over the world worry about the decreasing level of fossil fuels and global warming, it is right to take action to save the planet Earth. However, to simply discourage flights is not the answer. International tourism has become the backbone of many economies of the world. Many countries are earning from tourism. Many people are employed in this industry. Many businesses, like hotels and leisure centres, are dependent on tourists. So, if we discourage international tourism, it would create new and even worse problems. Many businesses would go broke, and many people would be without jobs.

Air flight also enables intercultural exchanges between countries. The advent of cheap air fares makes it possible for people the world over to travel regularly, regardless of the purpose of the trip. Therefore, people have the opportunities to learn from different cultures and have a better understanding of countries they used to be unfamiliar with. This, in turn, enhances cultural communications between countries.

It is true that air travel consumes oil, but other modes of transportation are also causing pollution and using fuel. Discouraging private cars and encouraging people to use public transport could help save the environmental resources in a big way. Therefore, it would be a very unpractical decision to restrict air travel at the cost of people's mobility, or worse, at the cost of the development of the economy. Technology could also be used to produce more environmentally friendly and fuel-efficient engines.

Summing up, instead of restricting air travel, we should develop a more efficient engine that produces more energy output with less fuel and fewer major air pollutants. We should also focus on limiting private vehicles and encouraging public transport.

Sample 5:

As a major contributor to carbon emissions, the aviation industry is an appropriate target for environmental legislation. Restricting the number of flights taken each year would reduce not only pollution but the demand for carbon-based fuels. We must be careful though to ensure that any restrictions do not make air travel unaffordable.

A common proposal to restrict air travel is to impose a levy on ticket prices. Higher prices would discourage people from flying; individuals would look for alternative forms of transport or cancel their trips. The money raised could then be used to fund environmental projects. The drawback to this proposal is that it might prevent poorer people from travelling.

Research has shown that most air travel is the result of a small number of travellers making very frequent journeys. Any restrictions that are imposed should take this into account. A flat levy on ticket prices would disproportionately penalise relatively infrequent travellers, so a fairer solution would be to allow travellers to make two tax-free trips a year. Any subsequent flights could be subject to taxes aimed at discouraging air travel.

Advances in technology may make restrictions on air travel unnecessary. In the past ten years the aviation industry has made progress in making planes more fuel efficient. Government subsidies could help continue this trend until aircraft are hybrid vehicles, similar to many of today's road vehicles.

In conclusion, restrictions on air travel are part of the solution to the problem of limited resources and carbon emissions. However, any changes that are made should be fair and accompanied by increased investment in energy technology.

Sample 6:

There is a growing belief that restricting air travel is the best solution to preventing the air pollution it contributes to. To begin with, airplanes produce an enormous amount of carbon dioxide, which, according to Greenpeace, is about 13,000 tonnes every year. This leads to even more increases in the temperatures leading to increased global warming.

Air transportation uses a huge amount of the world’s fuel reserve. Air travel should be reduced if it becomes a luxury more than a necessity. If there is an alternative to travelling by road, then there is no need to travel by air, it becomes unnecessary and extravagant.

Planes, either idling or taxiing, contribute annually to the local emission rates. Some people might argue that planes are the only mode of transport for long distances. This is not true as trains are an equally good alternative and consume less energy. They are also much more reasonably priced. Some trains have been said to be even more luxurious than the first-class airplane seats.

Along with the obvious air pollution, airplanes also contribute to noise pollution. Several studies have proven that noise has the ability to increase anxiety levels. People living around the neighborhood of an airport have complained about noise problems as well as headaches caused due to airplanes.

The government should look into this and make sure air travel doesn’t become an unnecessary luxury. Before aviation existed, people used ships to travel long distances. If it isn’t necessary to travel fast like maybe in the case of a businessman, people should consider options. Tourists should be encouraged to look into alternatives to travel instead.

Sample 7:

With the growing aviation sector, the majority of the people today prefer to travel abroad through this means. Today air travel has many more uses than just transporting people from point A to B. Many countries. Use this means of transport to export foods like vegetables and fruits to other countries where these might not be grown or aren’t in season.

If there is a delay in transporting food items, they might deteriorate and not taste as they are supposed to. Thus, air travel is considered to be the most efficient.

The availability of cheap flights has encouraged more people to travel abroad to new countries and locations to experience culture and traditions firsthand, in less time than if traveling by train or road. Air travel is the most comfortable and fastest means of transport. They have many facilities which ensure comfort among the passengers when they travel long distances.

Moreover, in modern times and advancements in technology, proper training is conducted. And preventive measures are taken to minimize the damage done to the environment. Fuel consumption reduction and safety of the airplane and passengers are taught. The newer mechanisms in airplanes are invented keeping the state of the environment in mind.

Airplanes offer many discounts on tickets at various times of the year. This means, along with saving time, it has also become a good money saver for long distances.

Sample 8:

It is irrefutable that the aviation industry has posed a direct threat to our environment, as it consumes too much fuel and emits an insurmountable amount of air pollutants. However, I disagree that air travel should be restricted, because this would solve some problems yet lead to even more serious ones.

International tourism has become the backbone of many countries in the world. Many countries are earning substantially from this smoke-free industry and the local people are highly dependent on hospitality services like hotels, restaurants and recreational centers. Discouraging air travel may lead to the breakdown of tourism, thus leaving an unbearable loss in a nation’s economy. In addition, air travel acts as a catalyst for intercultural exchanges between countries. The advent of cheap airfare makes it possible for people to travel the world and broaden their minds about the countries that used to be unknown. This, if restricted, could be compared to closing borders and blocking cultural communication.

Air travel is indeed using up oil and causing serious environmental problems, but so are other modes of transport. Therefore, I strongly believe that simply discouraging flights is not the solution to the problem. It is a better idea to narrow down private transport and encourage people to switch over to public ones, including airplanes, to protect Mother nature in the long run.

In conclusion, I reaffirm my conviction that setting limits on air travel is not a judicious decision as its potential merits are likely to be overshadowed by the downsides. Reducing the use of private vehicles, however, is of greater significance.

Sample 9:

A few individuals opine that to curb increased air pollution and excessive fuel usage air travel should be limited. I completely disagree with this statement because firstly, it is a more comfortable and fast means of transport and secondly, strict guidelines are followed.

There is no denying this conviction that air travel is the most comfortable and fast means of transport. Air travel offers a wide range of facilities, which are comfortable for people when they need to travel large distances. Moreover, this helps people to reach their destinations at a fast pace, due to which a lot of time is saved. Limited connectivity of airplanes will increase problems for passengers and will add a burden on them. Air travel has helped the world to connect in the best possible way. A recent survey in France depicted that the people prefer air travel as major means of transport in comparison to other means of transport because of comfort and less travel time.

Moreover, in this modern era, due to the advancements in technology, a lot of preventive measures and strict guidelines are followed to minimize the damage done to the environment. Proper training is conducted for pilots to enable them to not only reduce fuel consumption but also maintain the safety of the aircraft. Furthermore, new technologies that are used in aircraft are invented keeping the environment in mind. As a result, a lot of these technologies have contributed to reducing pollution levels. For example, the recent invention of a new type of emitter has drastically reduced pollution done by aircraft.

To summarize, air travel should not be restricted as it is a convenient mode of transport, and the aircraft industry is continuously taking preventive measures to reduce environmental damage.

Sample 10:

With the accelerating pace of lifestyle, traveling by air has become a favorable option for people to move from one place to another. However, some people blame the exhaustion of some natural resources and air pollution on this kind of transportation. This essay aims to outline evidence that supports the opposing position.

Apparently, there is little doubt about the constructive benefits that humankind derives from air travel. Firstly, traveling by plane would be more affordable and time-saving, when it comes to long-haul distance trips. It means that in some cases, traveling by other transportation may cost people a higher expenditure of time as well as money. From another perspective, the possibility remains that other means would consume a greater number of natural resources and release more pollutants into the environment. Therefore, it probably merits one’s attention that whenever humanity still relies on natural resources, the emergence of environmental degradation is inevitable regardless of any transportation that is in vogue.

Moreover, the advent of modern technology has promised a distant future that could make air travel more environmentally friendly. For instance, alternative resources may release air travel from the reliance on natural reserves, which is a contributing factor to the imminent demise of some resources. Besides, technological advances in the aircraft industry have brought profound impacts that lead to savings in fuel. It is, therefore, reasonable to look forward to more contemporary inventions that would allow people to make optimal use of air travel as well as prevent destructive outcomes of this means.

By way of conclusion, I would reaffirm the position that air travel contributes an integral role in modern lifestyles. Therefore, there are compelling reasons to direct spending toward making air travel more eco-friendly rather than imposing constraints on this mode of transportation.

CÂU HỎI HOT CÙNG CHỦ ĐỀ

Lời giải

Sample 1:

Many young people work on a voluntary basis, and this can only be beneficial for both the individual and society as a whole. However, I do not agree that we should therefore force all teenagers to do unpaid work.

Most young people are already under enough pressure with their studies, without being given the added responsibility of working in their spare time. School is just as demanding as a full-time job, and teachers expect their students to do homework and exam revision on top of attending lessons every day. When young people do have some free time, we should encourage them to enjoy it with their friends or to spend it doing sports and other leisure activities. They have many years of work ahead of them when they finish their studies.

At the same time, I do not believe that society has anything to gain from obliging young people to do unpaid work. In fact, I would argue that it goes against the values of a free and fair society to force a group of people to do something against their will. Doing this can only lead to resentment amongst young people, who would feel that they were being used, and parents, who would not want to be told how to raise their children. Currently, nobody is forced to volunteer, and this is surely the best system.

In conclusion, teenagers may choose to work for free and help others, but in my opinion, we should not make this compulsory.

Sample 2:

Some individuals nowadays feel that youngsters should accomplish unpaid volunteer work in their leisure time for the benefit of society. I completely believe that it is critical to involve children in volunteer activity. The primary issues will be discussed with examples in this essay.

To begin with, teenagers who participate in unpaid employment are more responsible for local society. When adolescents interact with other individuals, they become aware of the issues that people face daily, such as poverty, pollution, and others. Furthermore, we have all been affected by the present COVID-19 outbreak, and many people have suffered a loss. According to "The Voice of Vietnam - VOV” a volunteer who is anti-virus and empathizes with the mental pain that the patients are experiencing, he always gives oxygen and food to those who need it the most. As a result, volunteering helps students become the most responsible citizens in the country.

Furthermore, unpaid employment can assist youngsters in broadening their social contacts and developing soft skills. Because when they work in an unpaid job, they will meet a variety of individuals and acquire a range of skills and abilities from others, such as leadership, teamwork, communication, and dealing with challenging situations. For example, a recent study in Japan discovered that students who participate in volunteer work are more sociable, enthusiastic, and tolerant of others. They will grow more extroverted, energetic, and hard-working as compared to youngsters who do not perform unpaid employment.

To conclude, I feel that rather than paying, young people should perform unpaid social work because they can acquire many important skills and are more responsible to society.

Sample 3:

There is a growing debate about whether all adolescents should be asked to perform mandatory volunteer work in their leisure time to help assist the surrounding area. Although there are a variety of benefits associated with this topic, there are also some notable drawbacks, as will now be discussed.

The advantages of teenagers doing voluntary work are self-evident. The first relevant idea is work experience. A valid illustration of this would be to increase their tangible skills. For example, an adolescent who volunteers to help in a customer service department will learn how to communicate effectively with people in different age groups. On a psychological level, the youth’s life skills will also be enhanced by having empathy towards others. This can be demonstrated by volunteering and assisting families living in low socio-economic backgrounds with their day-to-day tasks.

There are, however, also drawbacks that need to be considered. On an intellectual level, the teenager may get distracted from their study. This situation, for instance, can be seen when voluntary work is also being undertaken during school terms. There would be time constraints for both areas. On a physiological level, youth might experience fatigue as they are unaware of the acceptable working or volunteering hours and, as a result, sometimes they can be overworked.

In summary, we can see that this is clearly a complex issue as there are significant advantages and disadvantages. I personally believe that it would be better not to encourage the youths to do compulsory work because their studies might take them to a higher level in society, whereas volunteering could restrict this progress.

Sample 4:

Children are the backbone of every country. So, there are people who tend to believe that youngsters should be encouraged to initiate social work as it will result in flourished society and individualistic growth of youngsters themselves. I, too, believe that this motivation has more benefits than its drawbacks.

To begin with, social work by children can be easily associated with personality development because, during this drive, they tend to communicate with the variety of people, which leads to polished verbal skills. For example, if they start convincing rural people to send their children to school, they have to adopt a convincing attitude along with developed verbal skills to deal with the diverse kinds of people they encounter. This improved skill will help them lifelong in every arena. Apart from this, the true values of life like tolerance, patience, team spirit, and cooperation can be learned. Besides that, young minds serve the country with full enthusiasm that gives the feeling of fulfillment and self-satisfaction. This sense of worthiness boosts their self-confidence and patriotic feelings. Moreover, experiencing multiple cultures and traditions broadens their horizons and adds another feather to their cap.

However, it is truly said, no rose without thrones. Can the drawbacks of this initiation be ignored? Children go to school, participate in different curriculum activities, endure the pressure of peers, parents, and teachers and in the competitive world, they should not be expected to serve society without their self-benefits. This kind of pressure might bring resentment in their mind.

In conclusion, I believe, the notion of a teenager doing unpaid work is indeed good but proper monitoring and care should be given to avoid untoward consequences.

Sample 5:

Youngsters are the building blocks of the nation and they play an important role in serving society because at this age they are full of energy not only mentally but physically also. Some people think that the youth should do some voluntary work for society in their free time, and it would be beneficial for both of them. I agree with the statement. It has numerous benefits which will be discussed in the upcoming paragraphs.

To begin with, they could do a lot of activities and make their spare time fruitful. First of all, they can teach children to live in slum areas because they are unable to afford education in schools or colleges. As a result, they will become civilized individuals and do not indulge in antisocial activities. By doing this they could gain a lot of experience and become responsible towards society. It would be beneficial in their future perspective.

In addition to this, they learn a sense of cooperation and sharing with other people of the society. for instance, they could grow plants and trees at public places, and this would be helpful not only to make the surrounding clean and green but reduce the pollution also to great extent. Moreover, they could arrange awareness programmes in society and set an example among the natives of the state. This will make the social bonding strong between the individuals and this will also enhance their social skills.

In conclusion, they can “kill two birds with one stone” because it has a great advantage both for the society and for the adolescents. Both the parents, as well as teachers, should encourage the teens to take part in the activities of serving the community in their free time.

Lời giải

Sample 1:

Medical studies have shown that smoking not only leads to health problems for the smoker, but also for people close by. As a result of this, many believe that smoking should not be allowed in public places. Although there are arguments on both sides, I strongly agree that a ban is the most appropriate course of action.

Opponents of such a ban argue against it for several reasons. Firstly, they say that passive smokers make the choice to breathe in other people’s smoke by going to places where it is allowed. If they would prefer not to smoke passively, then they do not need to visit places where smoking is permitted. In addition, they believe a ban would possibly drive many bars and pubs out of business as smokers would not go there anymore. They also argue it is a matter of freedom of choice. Smoking is not against the law, so individuals should have the freedom to smoke wherever they wish.

However, there are more convincing arguments in favour of a ban. First and foremost, it has been proven that tobacco consists of carcinogenic compounds which cause serious harm to a person’s health, not only the smoker. Anyone around them can develop cancers of the lungs, mouth and throat, and other sides in the body. It is simply not fair to impose this upon another person. It is also the case that people’s health is more important than businesses. In any case, pubs and restaurants could adapt to a ban by, for example, allowing smoking areas.

In conclusion, it is clear that it should be made illegal to smoke in public places. This would improve the health of thousands of people, and that is most definitely a positive development.

Sample 2:

The earlier we can ban smoking in public places, the better it would be for humankind. Having foreseen the same, many offices and governing bodies imposed a strict ban on public smoking. This measure is generally applauded by the majority of mass. However, the opposing minority interrupts this ban as an act of arrest on one's free will. Let us discuss this moot issue below.

It is generally agreed and even proven with scientific studies, that smoking is injurious to health. The health problems that smoking can induce are numerous. Cancer is among the major detrimental effects of smoking on one’s health. As clearly shown on cigarette packages, smoking is a primary cause of cancer. Furthermore, the effects of smoking on the systemic and peripheral circulation in the human body are appalling, as put forward by medical experts. The havoc of this insane habit is so horrifying that research points towards its possible harmful effects on unborn children, even. Smoking is considered as a culprit among the many, behind congenital birth defects and anomalies.

Another factor significant to this context would be the financial constraints imposed by smoking. In many developing countries, where people work on daily wages, the habit of smoking has an atrocious impact on their quality of life. In the majority of the mediocre families, around the world, smoking drains the significant part of their family budgets. For example, I witnessed many problems with reference to my father being a chronic smoker and the financial crisis it caused.

The amount of carbon and other toxic elements exhaled into the atmosphere by active smokers has reached such dizzy heights that its effect on passive smokers is more or less a reality now. In fact, the effect of first-hand smoke is seen permeable to even the second and third-hand smokers in the spectrum. The significance of the public ban on smoking is not just justifying but a necessity as it calls for. As a result, it is widely banned in some offices and institutions. Awareness programmes are being conducted all around the world against this habit.

Though the public ban on smoking is an individual constraint to one's freedom, considering the passive effects of smoking I would strongly agree with the ban. In my view, this would be a punitive measure to safeguard the health and wealth of the public or the society.

Sample 3:

Smoking has inevitably been a concern of governments around the globe considering how to manage and educate smoking people. This is due largely to the danger of the substance contained in cigarettes, nicotine. As its drawback may also occur for the people near the smokers, policies related to this, particularly in public places, should be taken into account; whether it should be banned or not.

I personally think that forbidding such a dangerous activity will be much more beneficial, as it can prevent others from developing a vulnerable respiratory system. Moreover, this can keep the places so clean that people could always find them fascinating with less air pollution. However, governments should consciously provide some special places which, in this case, can be used for smoking.

On the other hand, people who have currently become addicted to smoke would find it hard to avoid smoking in such places. As a result, they may smoke, breaking the rule and not even feeling guilty. For this reason, there are two steps then to encounter this probable emerging problem. First, some strict laws and appropriate punishments, such as to pay more tax or to give any charity orphans or others needing. Second, education is one of the most prominent and essential ways to change people’s belief in terms of having their cigarette burnt.

However, banning such activity in public places is not merely a way to prevent others from harming smoke, but it will, to a larger extent, possibly be able to elevate people’s awareness of how dangerous smoking is.

To sum up, despite it being difficult for smokers to quit, the policy which bans smoking in public places should be applied in order to save others. Nonetheless, people’s education in terms of the drawbacks of smoking is a part of this aim.

Sample 4:

Smoking has been a major public health issue for decades, and despite numerous efforts to discourage the habit, it continues to be a prevalent problem in society. Not only does smoking harm the individual who partakes in the habit, but it also poses a significant risk to those who are in close proximity to the smoker. For this reason, many argue that smoking should be banned in public places in order to protect the health and well-being of the general population.

First and foremost, it is widely known that smoking causes a myriad of health issues for the individual who smokes. From lung cancer to heart disease, the negative impact of smoking on one's health is undeniable. However, what is often overlooked is the fact that secondhand smoke can also have serious consequences for non-smokers. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), secondhand smoke contains over 7,000 chemicals, hundreds of which are toxic and about 70 that can cause cancer. When non-smokers are exposed to these harmful chemicals, they are at an increased risk for developing the same health issues as smokers, including lung cancer, heart disease, and respiratory problems. This means that not only are smokers jeopardizing their own health, but they are also putting those around them in harm's way.

Furthermore, smoking in public places can have a negative impact on the overall environment. Cigarette butts, which are the most common form of litter, contain toxic chemicals that can leach into the soil and water, posing a threat to wildlife and polluting the ecosystem. In addition, the smoke itself contributes to air pollution, which can have detrimental effects on the environment and public health. By implementing a ban on smoking in public places, we can reduce the amount of secondhand smoke that non-smokers are exposed to and mitigate the environmental impact of smoking.

While some may argue that a ban on smoking in public places infringes upon an individual's right to smoke, it is important to consider the greater good of the population. The potential health risks and environmental impact of smoking far outweigh the desire of an individual to smoke in public spaces. By implementing a ban on smoking in public places, we can protect the health and well-being of both smokers and non-smokers, as well as the environment.

In conclusion, smoking not only harms the smoker, but also poses a significant risk to those who are nearby. With the potential health risks and environmental impact in mind, it is clear that smoking should be banned in public places. By doing so, we can create a healthier and safer environment for all members of society.

Sample 5:

In the present era, there is a rising trend of smoking, especially among the younger generation. Smoking has evident detrimental effects on both the smoker and the people in his surroundings. It is claimed that smoking should be prohibited in public areas. I strongly agree that smoking should be banned publicly to prevent its negative aspects on people.

To begin, there are many drawbacks of smoking which have progressive impacts on both individual and environmental level. First and foremost, it increases the risk of many health related issues in human beings, due to presence of disease producing chemicals in tobacco . For instance, a rising trend of lung related diseases, like tuberculosis and lung cancer, has been reported in smokers. Furthermore, smoke not only damages the body of the smoker, but also results in many unfavourable outcomes in the surrounding people. Moreover, it is very distressful and challenging for non-smokers to work in smoking places. So, there is urgent need to halt smoking in populated areas.

There is, however, a faction that claims that there are some challenges in preventing public smoking. Firstly, many resources will be consumed to construct specified smoking areas to restrict smoking at workplace and other public places. Simultaneously, there might be no checks and balances on people who are constrained to stay in specific smoking places.

To recapitulate, although there are few disadvantages of stopping people from smoking publicly, it has many beneficial impacts. I strongly agree to halt smoking in populated areas because it will remarkably decline the percentage of health related problems. Moreover, in the same way, it can aid in developing a comfortable environment at the workplace, as well as at other public places like shopping malls, restaurants and public transport.

Sample 6:

In the contemporary era, it is a moot point that smoking has detrimental effects on the smoker as well as the people living around him. A significant chunk of the community welcomes the conception, whereas the remaining members oppose the same. In this essay, I will explain this point of view in detail with the relevant examples to support my argument.

I am in agreement to a large extent with the aforementioned notion. Multifarious reasons can be discussed to justify my stance. The most conspicuous one is the smoker himself welcomes deadly diseases like cancer (mouth and lungs), kidney failure to his body. For instance, a cigarette contains killing components like tobacco, nicotine, and carbon monoxide these destroy the airbus of the lungs. As a consequence, a person’s digestive system starts to stop working. Its impacts do not appear overnight but if its consumption lasts for years a brutal death can knock at your door. Additionally, it is more harmful to passive smokers. To illustrate this, I would quote an instance of my friend who is suffering from lung cancer. However, he had never smoked in his life. He got infected just because his father is an active smoker. Having lived in the same house inhaling cigarette smoke he got affected.

On the other hand, I do have some grounds against the central idea. First and foremost, rationale is it may bring some of the businesses to an end. For instance, pubs and discos are usually visited by a proportion of 80% of smokers. If it is banned completely, it will wash off the above-mentioned businesses.

To put it in a nutshell, I personally believe that it is difficult to persuade people to quit but it must be prohibited in public places. Moreover, in clubs, there should be a separate area for smoking so passive smokers would not suffer.

Lời giải

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

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

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

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

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

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

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

Nâng cấp VIP