Some people believe that children’s leisure activities must be educational, otherwise they are a complete waste of time.
Do you agree or disagree?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your experience.
Nowadays children spend so much time at school and attend various additional classes and this makes some educational specialists feel pity for them. They suggest giving kids more spare time to play and have fun. Meanwhile, there is an opinion that youngsters should do only those activities that benefit their knowledge and educate them, and I totally agree with this point of view.
Of course, the volume of the information children receive at school and ought to memorize is enormous and they should be given some free time to relax. Playing with others is essential to develop communication skills and this also gives young brains some rest.
Although, we have to admit that in our competitive world the more time a kid devotes to the study process the better life he can achieve. There are ways to make playing with others very educational and parents should encourage their children to play games which make brain work. For example, kids could have a competition combining physical activity and some kind of trivia on geography, like we had in our childhood. Moreover, even computer games can be very intelligent. There are so many electronic entertainments which teach languages, gives information on history, geography, that child addicted to computers could become very smart and educated.
In addition, unattended kid hardly makes proper use of his leisure time. If it happens, children just watch TV or get under peer pressure. They unfortunately do not have skills of analyzing and filtering what is bad or what is good. Education through games instead makes them occupied and in the same time teaches analyzing.
To conclude with, education through fun is not very exhausting for kids but its usefulness can be great. It would be a shame to devote this time to the TV or other entertainment.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
IELTS Essay: Smoke kills!
It has been proved that smoking kills. In some countries it has been made illegal for people to smoke in all public places except in certain areas. All countries should make these rules.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
The idea of banning smoking from public places always was a very controversial one. Those who defend smoking on streets and in offices refer to human rights and the fact that tobacco is legal. Others hold an opinion that since there are undeniable proofs that cigarettes cause lethal diseases not only to smokers but to surrounding people, smoking should be allowed only in special places. I totally agree with the idea of making smoking legal in certain places only.
On the one hand, it is the society who makes smokers to smoke and it would be not fair just to put them into exile and consider the problem solved. Since we sell them tobacco they should have right to use it wherever they want.
On the other hand, those who do not smoke should have the right to breathe clean air. When somebody is smoking cigarette, health of non-smokers is under attack. Personally I am a former smoker, but even for me breathing tobacco smell is unbearable. It is not only makes people to temporarily feel bad but also causes long term effect. There are researches showing that so called ‘passive smoking’ could be even worse for health than smoking itself. Causing damage to anyone’s health is illegal, that is why there is no excuse for smoking in public places.
Another reason for this is the fact that not every legal action is allowed on public. Moral, cultural and juridical limitations are exist. For example, there are toilets for people’s bladder and nobody is allowed to urinate on streets. Tobacco is much more dangerous than that so there is no doubt every country should consider moving smokers to special places.
To conclude with, every country must think of the wellbeing of its citizens and make steps to protect them from dangerous effects of tobacco by banning smoking from public places.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
The idea of banning smoking from public places always was a very controversial one. Those who defend smoking on streets and in offices refer to human rights and the fact that tobacco is legal. Others hold an opinion that since there are undeniable proofs that cigarettes cause lethal diseases not only to smokers but to surrounding people, smoking should be allowed only in special places. I totally agree with the idea of making smoking legal in certain places only.
On the one hand, it is the society who makes smokers to smoke and it would be not fair just to put them into exile and consider the problem solved. Since we sell them tobacco they should have right to use it wherever they want.
On the other hand, those who do not smoke should have the right to breathe clean air. When somebody is smoking cigarette, health of non-smokers is under attack. Personally I am a former smoker, but even for me breathing tobacco smell is unbearable. It is not only makes people to temporarily feel bad but also causes long term effect. There are researches showing that so called ‘passive smoking’ could be even worse for health than smoking itself. Causing damage to anyone’s health is illegal, that is why there is no excuse for smoking in public places.
Another reason for this is the fact that not every legal action is allowed on public. Moral, cultural and juridical limitations are exist. For example, there are toilets for people’s bladder and nobody is allowed to urinate on streets. Tobacco is much more dangerous than that so there is no doubt every country should consider moving smokers to special places.
To conclude with, every country must think of the wellbeing of its citizens and make steps to protect them from dangerous effects of tobacco by banning smoking from public places.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
IELTS Essay: More money for The Art?
The Art should be better funded by the government but there must be more control over where the money goes. Discuss.
Since prehistoric ages The Art highlights our lives, adds beauty and happiness and cultivates the taste among the people. However, nowadays creative projects became very pricey and can not bring pay-off to its authors. Some people think that the government should pay for those projects and, of course, observe precisely how those funds are being spent.
This is quite obvious that no structure except government knows nations cultural needs best. It can evaluate which sphere of cultural life have the necessity of development and achieve its goals of public loyalty by funding a specific field of The Art, controlling budget by giving maintenance only to projects they are interested in.
However, funding The Art selectively can lead artists to the lack of freedom in expressing themselves. In other words, then those who have power use money to regulate cultural life, it can limit the imagination and put artists into borders they would be scared to cross. Thus, here comes the censorship, which has nothing in common with the main democracy principles. For example, similar situation was in the Soviet Union, there solely the government controlled The Art and therefore the only career an artist could pursue is praising the Communist Party by his creations.
As an alternative of letting a government to control spending money on The Art, a non-governmental independent organization could be established. It must consist of the best cultural activists from a country. This would add a certain level of budget control and would guarantee there are no limits for The Art.
To conclude with, I believe that funding The Art is one of the main tasks of a state, but the purpose of it should be development, not making it to serve government political needs.
Since prehistoric ages The Art highlights our lives, adds beauty and happiness and cultivates the taste among the people. However, nowadays creative projects became very pricey and can not bring pay-off to its authors. Some people think that the government should pay for those projects and, of course, observe precisely how those funds are being spent.
This is quite obvious that no structure except government knows nations cultural needs best. It can evaluate which sphere of cultural life have the necessity of development and achieve its goals of public loyalty by funding a specific field of The Art, controlling budget by giving maintenance only to projects they are interested in.
However, funding The Art selectively can lead artists to the lack of freedom in expressing themselves. In other words, then those who have power use money to regulate cultural life, it can limit the imagination and put artists into borders they would be scared to cross. Thus, here comes the censorship, which has nothing in common with the main democracy principles. For example, similar situation was in the Soviet Union, there solely the government controlled The Art and therefore the only career an artist could pursue is praising the Communist Party by his creations.
As an alternative of letting a government to control spending money on The Art, a non-governmental independent organization could be established. It must consist of the best cultural activists from a country. This would add a certain level of budget control and would guarantee there are no limits for The Art.
To conclude with, I believe that funding The Art is one of the main tasks of a state, but the purpose of it should be development, not making it to serve government political needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
