1. Do you agree or disagree with the statement? These days, children spend more time on doing homework or participating in organized activities related to school or sports. However, they given more time to do whatever they want.
Traditionally, doing homework and taking part in organized activities are considered as wise ways to help children become ready for social life, intellectually and emotionally. However, I believe that more time should be given to children to do whatever they want, for it can cultivate their independence, stimulate interests and enhance family relationship.
Firstly, allowing children to do whatever they choose to do can better cultivate independent ability. If only focusing on the school arrangements, doing the fixed homework and participating in organized activities, children would lose the ability to arrange their own activities and manage their time rationally. Once children have been accustomed to the arranged life, they would follow rules others make, rather than breaking up them. What’s more, children’s innovation will be harmed greatly if everything has already been set for them.
Secondly, giving children more time to do whatever they like is beneficial for them to stimulate interests. On the one hand，just as a saying goes: interest is the best teacher. Only when children do the things they like can they realize their talents. Their potential can also be stimulated. On the other hand, children will stick to what they are fond of and learn a priceless lesson that perseverance will pay off. Life abounds with such examples. Bill Gates took interests in computer programing and was excused from math classes to pursue his interest when he was young. However, his parents never hamper his interests. It is his enthusiasm toward computer software designing that makes him one of the most renowned business magnates.
Thirdly, family relationship can be significantly boosted, if parents give more free time to children. If parents set too many restrictions on what children can do, children would gradually feel disgusted about these limits. Suppose a young child goes back home after a whole day’s classes, feeling exhausted physically and mentally. However, instead of caring about their child’s emotions, parents still push him to do homework and participate in organized activities. In this case, this child will become rebellious. Hardly does his communicate with his parents in the future, which, in the long run, does harm to his psychological health. By contrast, if parents can give him more freedom to choose whatever he likes, this child would realize that parents show great respect and trust to him. Therefore, family relationship would, undoubtedly, be enhanced.
Based on the above analysis, giving children more time to do what they want to is definitely a wise idea.
2. The more money a person has, the more he or she should give away to the charities.
With the development of the economy and the consciousness of helping others, more and more wealthy people donate their money in charity to help the poor. So people differ greatly towards whether the amount of the donation is determined by how much money people possess. Some people claim that it is compulsory and important for rich to give away their money to the charities, while others hold a diametrically opposite opinion. Personally, I am more convinced by the former statement.
Admittedly, it is their right and freedom to decide whether and how much they donate to the charities because they can use their money in the way they like.
However, concerning the help to their reputation, wealth and security, it is better for them to donate money referring to their own wealth. For one thing, by donating to the charity, customers, especially the poor people, will respect the rich’s benign behavior, which may impel them to buy the products made by those rich people and therefore enhance their reputation and profits in their career.
For another, donating money to the poor can shrink the gap between the poor and the rich, which can prevent social disrupt caused by the poverty and maintain the stability of the society.
3. Schools have always offered students three types of after-school activities. But due to recent limited budgets, they can only support one kind of activities. Which one would you choose? Why? 1)Sports 2)Arts 3)Volunteering (eg. for the community)
All three activities are beneficial for students, and will help them build various skills, as well as teach them important values; however, I am convinced that, in case of a budget cut, schools should only maintain volunteering as an after-school activity.
It has been proven that students that have been assigned to volunteer work finished their semester healthier and happier than their peers who did not volunteer. They became more altruistic and empathetic, and had less negative attitudes. Moreover, volunteer bring students into contact with individuals from all walks of life, which helps broaden their minds and challenge their vision of power and privileges. All and all, volunteer has all kinds of positive impact on students’ mind.
On a more practical note, volunteering experiences will boost a student’s resume. Employers like seeing that the student volunteered his or her time, it shows that he or she is able to manage time well enough to take on an unpaid position. Volunteerism also suggests that the candidates is a team player, a quality that many employers will look for in potential hires. Indeed, students may find in volunteering opportunities for a future career path. By volunteering students can try out different careers, and have first-hand experience of certain sectors.
Finally, volunteerism fosters personal growth. Volunteers feel good about themselves. The work they do will be rewarding and beneficial to segments of the population and areas of the community that need volunteers to thrive. In a volunteer situation, one person can make a real difference, and students will get that feeling once they start. Not to mention that the community itself will benefit incredibly from the volunteers’ work.
In conclusion, in case of limited budget, schools should focus their resources on promoting after-school volunteering programs. Volunteering experiences will help students feel more accomplished and become altruistic and empathetic. In addition, they will be advantageous for the students’ future careers.
4. Do you agree or disagree with the statement that the people in the past are more friendly than people today?
Some will say that the past is unduly romanticized as a friendlier time-that people then couldn't have been much better-disposed than they are now. But I'm not so sure. There are a number of reasons why people may have been more genial back in the day.
For one thing, people in the past interacted with each other in person more than we do today, and this naturally resulted in a comparatively higher level of friendliness. The reason people interacted more was because they had fewer technological distractions. Back then, it was both routine and enjoyable to shoot the breeze with others while waiting for a trolley or sitting on your front porch after work. Socializing face to face with complete strangers was commonplace. Nowadays, however, people have all sorts of devices like smart phones, e-readers, and iPods that draw them into their own private worlds even while out in public. While taking the subway to work, you'll rarely see two people strangers talking unless it's to yell at each other. More likely, they'll be totally absorbed by the miniature screens in front of them.
For another thing, the pace of life today is much faster than it was in the past, and as a result, people today are much more hurried and much less friendly. Those living in modern society tend to have little patience for idle conversation, as they are always on their way to do something or see someone. The leisurely daily rhythms characterizing past eras have been replaced by a frantic rush to accomplish as much as humanly possible. This has led to friendliness, and often even courtesy, taking a backseat to efficient and mechanical interactions.
Granted, people today are also much more connected via non-traditional mediums than they were in the past. Thanks to computers, the internet, and social networking services like Weibo and We-chat, people can keep in touch with each other no matter where they are in the world. However, this type of connection is a poor substitute for face-to-face interaction and does not necessarily encourage friendliness. In fact, it may make us even colder towards others because we become accustomed to viewing people as remote, disembodied data. The shallow interactions facilitated by technology may actually deepen the divide between us rather than bring us closer together.
People in the past moved through life at a more leisurely pace, and they didn't have the technological distractions that we have today. Though technology is often seen as a tool that connects people, it may in fact have the opposite effect. For these reasons, people in the past were probably friendlier than people today.
5. It is often not a good idea to move to a new city or a new country because you will lose old friends.
In this day and age, globalization allows people from every corner of the world to travel around and even settle down easily at almost any place they favor. Is it a good thing for people to move to a new town or new country? Opinions vary about this issue. Some people oppose it by arguing that moving away means the loss of old friends. From my view, it is not true. Instead, moving to a new place might lead one to a new world.
To begin with, moving to a new place does not necessarily weaken the bond between friends. This is mostly because modern means of communication allows people to keep close contact with friends even hundreds of miles away. Therefore, it is not uncommon that friends who have not seen each other for years might know about one another’s life quite well and still have much in common. For example, a person moving from Shanghai to New York can easily get in touch with his friends at home through the simultaneous communication tools such as MSN, We chat and so on. It is incredible that these tools can make it possible to transmit not only voice and image but also real time video! Chatting with friends like this is of no difference from talking face to face. Besides, the popular online social network such as Facebook provides a platform for people to share important moments with friends by posting pictures and videos online anywhere and anytime. It is not exaggerated to say that technology has transcended space and time; distance, a traditional friendship killer, would beat a retreat in front of modern technology.
Secondly, even if old friends are not as close as before, it is not justified to say that moving to a new place is not advisable. People move to different places for a variety of reasons ranging from career development to a new start of life. In this case, old friendship should not become a hindrance to one’s development. On the other hand, old friends might be strong supporters of those who have decided to move. A new job opportunity in a larger market might exploit the greatest potentials of a sales person, whose talents would otherwise be stifled in a small retail store at home. A lady troubled by marriage issues might start a new family and open a new page of life in another country, where no one knows about her past. Thus, the possibility of losing old friends is not strong enough to judge whether moving to a new place is good or not.
In conclusion, even though moving to a new town or country might risk the loss of friends, modern technology has managed to minimize such risk. Besides, choosing where to live depends on a combination of factors, which is too complicated to be justified by the state of old friendship.