(299 Words)

(239 Words)

It is easy to understand why some people think computers are more of a hindrance than a help. Things like getting my money back from bank or changing a ticket are easy without using computer, yet once one is involved, the process can become time-consuming, complex and prone to errors. In all the offices I’ve seen, it can sometimes seem that for every hour saved by computers, at least set of problems caused by the computers breaking down. This wastes a lot of time.

Also, over-enthusiastic use of computers in the home has the potential to divert large amounts of free time away from things like socialising, tasking exercise or having dinner with your family. Spending a lot of leisure time looking at a computer monitor screen hinders achieving other goals in life, like being healthy and socially integrated.

However, it would be simplistic to say that computers are bad. They have caused enormous improvements in communications, medicine, design, education and lots of other things. These days, virtually everything we know is as far away as the nearest internet point. Computers have brought about a profound change in the way most people in rich countries live. (Although it should not be forgotten that the majority of the inhabitants of this planet have never even used a computer once.)

There are definitely more good things than bad things about computers. The question is not do computers help or hinder, but do we always use them in a sensible and responsible way?

(250 Words)

Generally, people read newspapers to find out about world current affairs and they read magazines to be entertained. Therefore, one would expect to find articles that feature the private lives of famous people in magazines rather than newspapers. However, nowadays, more and more newspapers include stories like these which are neither informative nor useful.

In my opinion, this type of gossip about people’s private lives should not be in newspapers for several reasons. Firstly, for example, the fact that Princess Diana is going out with a sportsman is not important news. Secondly, if newspapers want to publish articles about famous people they should focus on their public events and achievements. In other words, if there is an article about Princess Diana it should be about her works of charity, which will increase public awareness of important problems. In addition, journalists should make sure that they write about the facts only, not rumours. One should be able to rely on newspapers for the actual truth.

Magazines, on the other hand, focus on social news. But I feel it is more acceptable for them to contain some features about famous personalities. In addition to being popular reading, these stories often benefit the stars by giving free publicity to them, thereby helping their careers. However, I also believe that magazine stories should not mention things that are too embarrassing or untrue just to attract people to buy the magazine. Sensational stories, such as these, cause great unhappiness to the people concerned.

In conclusion, I think newspapers should concentrate on real news but magazines can feature some articles on people’s private lives.

(268 words)

It is true that there have been great advances in technology over the last forty years. For example /, For instance, the use of mobile phones and e-mail communication is common these days. However, machines that translate from one language to another are still in their early stages.

It seems to me that a machine could never do as good a job as a human, especially when it comes to interpreting what people are saying. Of course, machines can translate statements such as “Where is the bank?” but even simple statements are not always straightforward because the meaning depends on more than just words. For instance /, For example, the word “bank” has a number of different meanings in English. How does a translating machine know which meaning to take?

In order to understand what people are saying, you need to take into account the relationship between the speakers and their situation. A machine cannot tell the difference between the English expression “Look out!” meaning “Be careful!” and “Look out!” meaning “Put your head out of the window”. You need a human being to interpret the situation.

Similarly, with written language, it is difficult for a machine to know how to translate accurately because we rarely translate every word. On the contrary, we try to take into consideration how the idea would be expressed in the other language. This is hard to do because every language has its own way of doing and saying things.

For these reasons, I feel that it is most unlikely that machines will take the place of humans in the field of translating and interpreting. If machines ever learn to think, perhaps then they will be in a position to take on this role.

(289 Words)

Whether women should be allowed to serve in the military has triggered spirited debate. Some assert that women should be allowed to defend their country in the same capacity as their male peers. Personally, I agree with their assertion for two reasons.

History has shown that women are fully capable of performing well in the military. Historically, there were a host of valiant women soldiers whose achievements really put their male counterparts to shame. One need only look at the classic examples of Joan of Arc and Mulan to see how exceptionally women could perform on the battlefield. In my observation, their determination, courage, and dignity, to this day, are still being admired by male soldiers and civilians alike throughout the world.

Moreover, from an enlightened standpoint, female patriots should be granted the right to go to the front line when their motherland is involved in a war. Admittedly, gender inequality was a highly controversial issue in the twentieth century. However, now twelve years into the new millennium, women can learn and teach, work and supervise, vote, and voted in most countries just like men. In light of this sweeping progress in gender equality, there is no sense in denying them the right to defend their home country when a war breaks out.

In sum, keeping military services out of the bounds of women in the information age is unwarranted. I have been convinced that it is in the best interest of a nation if women are also granted equal rights in this particular arena.

(254 words)

In the last decade, there has been considerable debate over the role of free speech in a free society. Some object to absolute freedom of speech. Others advocate free speech, arguing that the freedom of speech is the single most important political right of citizens in a civilized society. Whilst I believe that there are strong arguments on both sides, I would suggest that freedom of speech should be protected in all but extreme circumstances.

The freedom of speech is important at all levels in a society. Yet it is most important for the governments. A government which does not know what the people feel and think is in a dangerous position. This is how the communist regimes of Eastern Europe were toppled in the 1980s. The same is happening again in other regions of the world today. The governments that muzzle free speech run a risk of pushing their people to behave destructively or to rebel.

Furthermore, without free speech no political action is possible and no resistance to injustice and oppression is possible. Without free speech elections would have no meaning at all. Policies of contestants become known to the public and become responsive to public opinion only by virtue of free speech. Between elections the freely expressed opinions of citizens help restrain oppressive rule. Without this freedom it is futile to expect political freedom or consequently economic freedom.

In conclusion, I believe that the importance of free speech as a basic and valuable characteristic of a free society cannot be underestimated. It may be challenging for society to allow differences of opinion out into the open; however, the consequences of restricting free speech are likely to be more damaging in the longer term.

(285 words)

People everywhere like watching sports. Many top athletes are admired throughout their countries, and some even have fans all around the world. Young people especially, view many athletes as role models and want to emulate the way these stars dress, act, and live their lives. While some athletes aren’t deserving of their “role model” status, others act like role models and responsible community citizens.

Top athletes get the attention of young people. Most children and teenagers like to follow professional sports. For many of them, star athletes represent heroes, and children want to be like their heroes. This means they will want to play sports, which is good for their health. Playing sports also teaches valuable life lessons such as teamwork, discipline, goal setting, and the realities of dealing with success and failure. Professional athletes demonstrate the importance of working hard to achieve a goal or practicing regularly to become good at something. This is a good example for children to follow.

However, professional athletes are not always good role models. For one thing, when young athletes reach a level of fame, it comes with media attention, large financial benefits, and social attention. This can lead children to believe that money and fame are an important part of sports. Children might focus more on these aspects than on the fun of the game or on the challenge of learning how to play well. Then there are those athletes who behave badly. For example, some cheat to win their games or take drugs to improve their performance. This kind of behaviour sends the wrong message to children.

Athletes are people who are held at a lofty place in society owing to their popularity and wealth. These attributes are what make people want to look up to them and model various facets of their lives along those of the athletes. We can thus be led to conclude that professional athletes can be very good role models for children, as long as they focus on the positive aspects of playing sports.

(339 Words)