Personal information at job interview Some would argue that applicants for a job should reveal personal information at the interview, while others think that that it is inappropriate. While awareness about a job seeker’s private life could help to find the most suitable team member, I believe that this kind of information is too intimate. On the one hand, personal life outside of working place define personality of applicants and a recruiter can find the best candidate to the position. That is to say that the lifestyle allows to make a conclusion about the way the person interact with others and psychological image of the future worker. For example, the Scientist magazine has published a research that show that individual who has a permanent partner or spouse is more likely to show responsibility and works at the same place for many years. However, I believe that disclosure private information is ethically wrong because person have the right to spend his life outside of an office the way he or she like. On the other hand, pursuits and family situation are confidential information that should not be asked on a job interview. This is because company should be interested in a suitable performer for the current position and useful job experience. For example, a recent research shows that even having a wild hobby or collapse of marriage, most adult people can divide his personal matters and working life. I believe that this school of thought is preferable because people should not account for their family and interests and be afraid that it will influence on their work. In conclusion, although information about hobbies and marriage could be useful for hiring the most suitable member of working team, asking personal information should not be permitted because the only thing that should have valuable for the company that is in search of a new worker is his or her professional skills, relevant education and working experience.

The best way to solve environmental problems is to increase the cost of fuel. Some people think the best way to solve environmental problems is to increase the cost of fuel. So what extend do you agree? Some would argue that bigger fuel prices could be an easy solution for problems with the environment. I disagree with this statement because it can have a negative impact on lives of average people and does not encourage them to spot using cars. I believe that the best measure of diminishing air pollution should not touch raising fuel cost because this decision would be implemented by ordinary citizen's cost. It is not a secret that fuel spendings are included in product's price and if the fuel price would start growing the goods prices would show the same growth. The similar picture will be with prices for personal and public transport that people use for their daily commute. For instance, the Russian government decided to enlarge price to petrol by 15% in the 2015 year, it immediately leads to increasing cost of living by 16%. I convinced that expensive petrol would not force people to withdraw the cars because it is the most convenient way for movement by now. If there was a better alternative to a car than people could exchange their transport to something that doesn't spoil the environment. But if the price for fuel was hier than millions of people whose daily routine depends on the driving car would be forced to spend more money. For example, 67% of Russian population lives in regions with poorly developed transport infrastructure and the social subway showed that 85% of respondents would have to buy petrol to get their work. In conclusion, increasing price to fuel is not the best way to save the planet from air pollution because it penalizes average citizens and they will go on using cars for everyday needs.

Prisoners should be made to do unpaid community work Some people think certain prisoners should be made to do unpaid community work instead of being put behind bars. To what extend do you agree or disagree. It is argued that some wrongdoers should be punished by doing social work for free instead of being sent to prison. I absolutely agree with this statement because working for community's benefit they would save the government's money instead of consuming it, moreover, they won't be involved in the criminal environment. Being employed to social work without salary, offenders would save taxpayer's money instead of consuming it. I think that people that weren't indited for major crimes could be exploited in works that predict a hard physical labor or a minimum wage like retirement home's personal, streets cleaning and others. This approach would allow the government to save a large sum of money on salary and meeting daily requirements a person in prison that could be spent on medicine or educational development. For instance, an experiment that was conducted in Brazil in 2010 shows that exchanging jail time to social valuable job allows to cut prison's foundation by 15% and save for budget 10% of a social workers payment. I believe that some people that were put behind bars could avoid being involved in the criminal environment if they did work for community's sake for free. Unfortunately one of the hardest things of imprisoner's life is criminal surrounding that can be dangerous for person's mental and physical health, in some cases people can't go back to the normal life. For example, a recent survey shows that 75% of ex-prisoners in Russia were forced to devote themselves to criminal's career because of the criminal surrounding, whereas only 10% of all people that get done free work for the community perpetrated crimes again. In conclusion, I want to say that people that weren't convicted of a major crime should be made to do unpaid community work it could allow to reduce spending budget money and offenders would brush with criminal world, as a result, the country there would be additional money for social development and person could live without immersion in criminal world.

Artificial intelligence can repleace teachers in a classroom in the nearest future There is a popular point of view that traditional teachers will soon be substituted by learning machines. I disagree with this state because self-programming computer algorithm can't give to learners additional encourage like real human being. But I believe that the Internet education can compete with teaching in the classroom. One of the most important part of learning process is motivation that can give a teacher to their students. Even modern artificial intelligence can't immitate it. Being able to understand changable human's state like mood, feelings and family situation, experienced teacher can chose a proper way to keep interest to a learning process and subject. For instance, school teachers are frequently awared about weak and strong features of characters and psychology state of their pupils as a result they can use it to increase willing for education among the pupils. The Internet form of education is becoming so popular that it can drive the classroom lessons out in the nearest future. A well-crafted internet course use human intelligence exept of AI and can also simplify both process teaching and learning, but avoid absence of human contact. Prerecorded lessons allows tutors save time and energy because they shouldn't repeat the same information several times. Meanwhile students can watch lessons as often as it's necessary for understanding. At the same time, this type of learning allows keep the real contact between two people involved in process such as live session by Skype, providing feedback, work assessments. For example, the latest research shows that graduates of traditional university have an equal volume of knowledge as their counterparts that finished the same course by distance, but the Internet educatition can save about 25% of overall amount of money spent on education. In conclusion, AI is not competitor of traditional classroom tutoring because it is not take into consideration peoples changeable nature, whereas the Internet courses proved itself to be a decent alternative.