Some people think that only the best students should be rewarded. Others, however, think that it is more important to reward students who show improvements. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
It is universally believed that providing students with many rewards is an effective way to improve academic performance. Although some would argue that only those top students are eligible to receive these rewards, I am in the camp that anyone who makes progress should be rewarded as well.
Firstly, advocates believe that it is reasonable to offer prizes to the high-level performers. This is because one needs to pay a great amount of effort than other classmates in order to earn a high grade in the exam. In addition, top performers normally act as a facilitator to encourage other students to work harder and they can create a competitive learning setting in the school.
However, rewarding top players merely is likely to result in some undesirable results in some occasions. The reason is that those best students are relatively few in the class. If we only pay attention to those few high-level learners and ignore the rest of the students, the enthusiasm for study might be reduced. Some opponents, therefore, feel that it is necessary for teachers to give certain awards to those who put forward reasonable efforts in study. The extrinsic reward provided to them is not only a recognition of their former performance, but also a motivator for further study since a sense of accomplishment can boost their confidence and help them become the high-level students eventually.
In conclusion, my view is that both types of students should be rewarded, which is beneficial for the learning environment in the campus.
Nowadays, most people learn academic study in university, but others think we should encourage to learn vocational skills more, do you agree or disagree?
1. 人们的精力和时间有限，广泛涉猎，难免蜻蜓点水。相反，集中精力学习一门课技能，可使人成为一个领域的专家。 人生的奋斗的过程就是追求稀缺的过程，你要成为那个不可替代者。
2. 职业培训学校培养的学生， 择业更有竞争力，因为他们可以适合特殊企业的需求。
Education is one of the key words of our time. A man without education, many of us believe is the victim of adversity. However, people’s views differ greatly as to whether or not specialist is superior to generalist. To voice my opinion, focusing on academic study in university enjoys more benefits.
Granted,those who advocate vocational training are, to some extent, never without their reasons. First，zeroing in on vocational skills can help learners secure well-paid jobs quickly, therefore, the family’s financial burden can be greatly reduced. From our life, we can find some examples to prove that job candidates from vocational training schools are very popular because what they have learnt are career-oriented and job-related. Also，Jack-of-all-trades is master of none. In comparison with studying a wide range of subjects，specializing in specific field can make one stand out in a crowd considering that one’s time and energy is limited
What I want to rebut, however, is that we can never ignore the immense value of academic study at university. The most glaring merit is that those who receive university education have plenty of room for career development because they have access to manifold knowledge and techniques. In addition to tapping one’s unlimited potentials in various aspects and helping one realize overall development, experiencing university life can bring more wonderful memories of colorful campus life. Last, this can benefit a nation, all-round education can train more comprehensive talents for a country，which will inject new life into the further development of a nation.
Overall,my stand is that compared with attending vocational training schools,receiving university education is more feasible and rational because it helps students realize comprehensive development and cultivate more personal talents. Likewise, our society need talents with a wealth of knowledge.
International travel often lead to people have some prejudices rather than broad minds. What are the main reasons of this phenomenon? What do you think people can get better understanding of the countries they visit?
Such is human nature to explore those exotic countries and feel the sense of refreshment. Many people desire to expand their minds and enrich their experience of the world during the process of visiting their dream tourism destination. However, some problems inevitably ensue. Instead of feeling the pleasure of travel， what some sightseers feel are only culture prejudice, conflicts and misunderstandings.
First, historical differences and diverse customs, to some extent, contribute to the bias, misunderstandings and even hostility. A case in point is that eating dog meat is permissible and understandable in some minority areas in China. More precisely, Taiwan people might be quite amazed when hearing or seeing dog meat is edible, for it is illicit and forbidden to persecute dogs in Taiwan. It is conceivable that Taiwan tourists might be quite shocked and disappointed when visiting some Korean minority areas in Mainland China. People there always take dog meat as delicious foods.
Further, some sightseers’ deeply rooted concept, and diverse life experience account for the appearance of culture prejudice. To illustrate , a kind of benediction like may you child become a dragon might be acceptable in Chinese culture. However, westerners might consider this kind of malediction as a curse for their children, for dragon equals to monster in western culture.
Several methods should be adopted to help tourists minimize the potential culture bias or emotional misunderstanding. Primarily, before paying a visit to one tourism destination, it is feasible to specialize in the customs, histories and local people’s lifestyle. For example, if a western visitor aims to do some sightseeing in the Chinese minority areas like Tibet, it is wise to get to know some taboo, learn some simple minority language and the minority tradition. Also, efforts should be made by those tourist guides or local mass media to disseminate local cultures and popularize some relevant travel taboo. In this sense, people will acquire the first-hand knowledge and thus have a deeper insight into a new country.
Overall,it is no easy task to iron out possible bias and conflicts before visiting some hot scenic spots. However, memorable travel experience favors the prepared minds.
Some people think governments should focus on reducing environmental pollution and housing problems to help people prevent illness and disease. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
There is no doubt that people’s health will be influenced directly or indirectly by the environment and housing condition. Whether governments should focus more on the environment and estate has triggered a controversy. I feel that individuals should take more responsibility for their well-being other than government’s increasing attention.
Indeed, the environmental problems and housing conditions are two main sources for illness and diseases. In many large cities in northern China, haze weather has become a daily killer, especially causing respiratory diseases in winter. Also, populace will easily access to viruses and bacteria if they live in a poor housing condition without any advanced sanitation. Therefore, governments should give more attention and higher investment in these two areas.
Compared to individuals, governments have more power to arrange a wide range of social resources to address severe issues; however, it does not mean that addressing this problem totally depends on governments. The state is an organizer or a coordinator in our society instead of a responsibility taker. Although governments can claim people to enhance the awareness of environment protection, make policy to strengthen the environment management and invest estate where they need, public health condition is still a personal problem to some degree. People have the obligation to form and keep a healthy and positive lifestyle, or they will still face the threat of illness and diseases even environment and housing condition getting better.
In conclusion, people can also need to take responsibility of their well-being as governments only hold a position as organizer and coordinator. The most feasible solution may be that governments provide a fine setting on one hand and public should pursue a healthy lifestyle for themselves on the other hand.
In some countries around the world men and women are having babies late in life. What are the reasons? What are the effects on the society and the family?
When Laura Wade-Gery,the boss of Marks and Spencer gave birth to a baby at 50,it immediately made headline news.As a matter of fact,quite many men and women in some countries nowadays have made up their mind to have kids only late in life.To my mind,this trend of the older parents brings more benefits than harms to both the baby and the parents.
Couples wait to have kids for many different reasons.To begin with,many young couples are not financially ready for a new member coming to the family.More often than not,the newly married couples have just started their career and are still struggling to make their ends meet,and an additional member would be a great burden.But even if free from financial problems,many young couples still refuse to start a family with kids because they wish to develop their various potentials or experience the world before they have kids.Most importantly,many young people put off having babies because the society has very strong parenthood penalties.A mom,for instance,is less likely to stay up in her office to get ahead if she has a baby at home,the consequence of which is that her chances of promotion become slimmer.
Many people argue that the delayed parenthood may pose physical challenges to couples,especially the older mom,and it is quite unfair on the child to have old parents because they probably won’t live long enough to see the child grow up.This may be true,but modern medical technology has significantly reduced the risks involved in birth-giving and equally significantly prolonged our life span so that the older parents,like their younger counterparts,can just as well accompany their kids in their life’s journey.But on top of that,having kids later in life can be beneficial in unique ways:it is good to the baby because its parents are now financially and emotionally better conditioned;it is good to the parents because now they have been well established so that they have more time for their kids;it is good to the society because those parents who delay having kids and advance to positions of authority at work now have the power to set policies other older parents would benefit from,like offering paid maternity and paternity leave or allowing flexible work schedules.
The leaders or directors of organizations are often older people. But some people say that young people can also be a leader what extent do you think?
It is true that many leaders and senior executives in global companies are elderly people. However, I would argue that those superb young people are also eligible to take important positions in today's world.
On the one hand, compared to the young generation, elderly people possess more edges. First and foremost, they have better cognitive skills, such as big-picture thinking and long-term vision. This is because years of work experience and failures teach them to take every aspect into consideration before making important decisions.By contrast, due to a lack of social experience, young leaders seem to make shortsighted decisions sometimes. Moreover, since the old have already overcome countless difficulties and challenges prior, they can quickly adjust their mood in turmoil and lift the morale of the whole organization.
On the other hand, there are two reasons why younger directors are also competent to be leaders in important positions. In the first place, with well-educated backgrounds, young leaders are more likely to have a deep understanding of cultural difference, and they can empathize with other employees and clients much better. Today, empathy plays a key role in retention of talents. For example, it is easy to misunderstand others in a cross-cultural dialogue. When good employees resign, they -might take the company's knowledge with them, which is a brain drain for the company. Secondly, compared with the senior leaders, young directors can apply the latest technology and theory into practice, and this can counteract negative stereotype of management and greatly improve the productivity.
In conclusion, in my opinion, age should not be the criterion when selecting the leader of leadership can play his or her role in the organization.
Some people think that the amount of noisy people should be controlled strictly, while others say that people are free to make as much noise as they wish. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
An issue facing many big cities recently is that a quiet living environment has turned to a densely-populated area with inevitable noise pollution. Therefore, whether the amount of noise should be restricted or not has always been a question of much contention. Personally, I believe that citizens have the freedom to make sounds but noise definitely needs to be reasonably controlled.
First of all, it is probable that noise pollution could pose a huge threat to citizens’ well-being. Disturbed by annoying noise, people would find it difficult to fall asleep, and a lack of sound sleep would lead to fatigue the next day, which would adversely affect their physical health. Besides, people under the exposure of noise may suffer from anxiety and irritability, which could aggravate the mental state of those who already undergo long-lasting work-related stress.
Another significant reason of limiting noise lies in governments’ responsibility to work for the benefit of their citizens. To put it another way, it is the duty of governments to maintain a favorable living environment for residents. The apparent reason is that people might expend a large amount of savings on their residence, and thus they are supposed to be provided with a high quality dwelling environment.
However, it has to be admitted that people also have the right to make noise for their own good because they are in possession of their dwelling places. For example, when people hold a birthday party at home, they could enjoy the pleasant atmosphere with friends around and music delighting everyone. It is the freedom of them to make sounds for their benefit yet it would not be the legal right if the sound is loud enough to disturb others.
Therefore, I am convinced that people could be given certain freedom to make sounds, but the amount needs to be reasonably restricted by governments so that citizens’ well-being and living quality could be guaranteed.
8.Some people think that it is more important to plant more trees in open area which in towns and cities than build more housing. To what extent do agree or disagree?