다양한 영어 선생님을 검색해 보세요...
게시물
Learning languages
It is widely accepted that learning a foreign language is of great importance for people living in this modern era. However, there are discussions centering on whether adults are better at learning foreign languages than children. Personally, I believe that children have inherent advantages in language study.
Some people who favor a view that children have an inherent edge over adults acclaim that kids are good at building up a rich range of vocabulary, which is beneficial to learning a foreign language. This is because a good memory and a great curiosity that children naturally have will help them memorize a large number of foreign words in a short term. These people argue that compared with kids, adults usually face more difficulties in mastering the same amount of vocabulary. I agree with this viewpoint also because children have no extra burden and are supposed to learn new things at their ages. Unlike them, the grownups have to work and face huge invisible social pressure, which defines they could not concentrate on study whole-heartedly as kids do. Therefore, children will greatly benefit from their inherent advantages.
Other people who insist that adults are better at learning a foreign language may believe that adults are more likely to dedicate all their spare time to study as they are aware of the purpose of learning and have enough willpower to persevere with study, while kids tend to waste their time for the sake of fun. I admit that most adults study harder than children. However, due to their limited learning time, the overall efforts put into language study is still far less than children. Thus, adults virtually have no obvious advantages in learning a foreign language.
In summary, I reaffirm my position that children have more advantages in language study than adults do. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that kids should take the initiative to study hard as efforts also exert an important role in one’s road to success.
2013년 3월 14일
3
0
Reading alone
It is widely accepted that children should read plenty of books. However, there are some discussions centering on whether parents should tell stories to their children or children themselves should read books independently. I believe it depends on children’s personal situations.
Some people who favor the proposal that parents should spend time reading to their children may hold an opinion that this would help children comprehend the content of a book deeply and properly. They argue that this is because some children are too young to fully understand the meaning of stories. Therefore, parents’ guide and help are necessary and irreplaceable.
Others who are against this view believe that allowing children to read by themselves is beneficial since kids could learn a great deal of information through various of media. Those people point out that parents’ spare time is limited at about 1-2 hours per day. Only relying on this limited time is far less enough. If children could be encouraged to read by themselves from books and other new media such as TV and the Internet, they would study much more knowledge than they do with their parents.
My view is that when considering this issue, children’s age should be taken into account. If kids are too young, it would be better for parents to read books to them. In other cases, parents should encourage their children to acquire information from a wide source of media because it can not only expand the knowledge range quickly, but also help to cultivate the ability of independently reading. Meanwhile, parents should control the sources of information. After all, there are a large number of violent and pornographic information that might poison children via TV or the Internet.
2013년 3월 13일
2
0
Fossil fuels
Recently, it is not uncommon to see governments encouraging people to use new-style energy. However, there are some discussions center on whether people should stick to utilize fossil fuels. Personally, I believe developing alternative energy sources has great positive impacts on natural environment.
The general use of new-style energy can reduce environmental pollution. This is because traditional energy, in various degree, generates toxic gases while alternative sources of energy exhausts no waste gas to air and are environmental-friendly. If companies could widely accept and use clean energy as driving power, heating power and lighting power, they would produce less waste gas, and therefore reduce environmental pollution.
Moreover, alternative energy helps to save natural resources because it is renewable. Fossil fuels are not reproducible as they need millions of years to come into being naturally. After depleting all of fossil fuels, people would have nothing to use. While new-style energy relies on wind, natural light and water, which features sustainable and cycling. So it is more efficient to save natural stock than traditional sources.
Of course, new-style green energy has its own limitations. For example, in some areas people can not entirely rely on wind or solar power because of their natural conditions: no wind or no strong sunlight. Thus, fossil fuels are still main sources to supply energy.
In summary, I reaffirm my position that encouraging using alternative energy exerts an important role in environmental protection and saving resources. Meanwhile, governments and enterprises should invest more capital in new energy development so as to avoid its inherit drawbacks.
2013년 3월 9일
2
0
Go everywhere
Today, it is common sights that people live and work in a distance from their home or even their motherland. However, the question is whether this phenomenon has more negative impacts on society. Generally, I believe it is a good thing.
Firstly, it gives people more options to choose where they live or work, and at the same time they are able to keep close touch with their families. In the past, it was impossible for them to keep a balance between family and work. It is because if they had to work in another town, it would take them days or months to commute, which they could not afford. On the Contrary, in this era even if people live in another continent to experience life or for career development, they can also keep touch with their parents, friends by SMS, phone calls or just going back to their hometowns by air. So people have more freedom of choice in life and work.
Moreover, it benefits international business. It is understandable that most enterprises require employees to travel around for business so as to develop new markets or negotiate with cooperative partners. To a large extent, they promote the development of global trade.
However, it is harmful for family cohesion. Being separated from family and friends usually provokes a sense of alienation. With the passage of time, those who only rely on modern technology to maintain relationships will find that the emotional bond between their families and themselves is being undermined. Children need fathers’ embrace rather than a hundred phone calls and wives prefer a everyday’s accompany instead of waiting for several months to see their husbands.
In summary, I believe the modern life styles do more good than harm to people. Meanwhile, we should not neglect potential problems brought by this. After all, nothing can replace the days we spent with our families.
2013년 3월 9일
1
0
Life expectancy
Throughout humans’ history, it was not uncommon that people pursued an eternal life. However, in this era when people’s life has been greatly extended by modern medical and healthcare technologies, I believe an increased life expectancy does have negative influence along with positive one on society.
It is obvious that with an extended life span, people can do more things they like. No one wants to die. Although having lived for many years, people are still eager to live longer so that they can spend more time with their families, continue on with their businesses or explorer more places in this world. This improves people’s life satisfaction. Furthermore, as age grows, people are able to deepen and widen their knowledge gradually, and therefore become more experienced, wiser than their youth. So the whole society’s civilization has improved.
However, it would be over-simplistic to assume living longer brings all good to humans. The increasing life expectancy gives a heavy burden to nations’ financial situations. Since the number of elderly is growing and also the aged is a main consumer group of pension and medical care, governments have to allocate more than expected capital to these sectors. Moreover, a large proportion of elderly people implies a shortage of labor. That will make local economies to lose their vigor because of a lack of workers. So a downturn of economy begins.
In summary, an extended life not only meets individuals’ needs but also benefits a whole society. Meanwhile, governments should enact policies to encourage the employment of aged people so as to relieve financial pressure in addition to increase the number of labors.
2013년 3월 7일
2
0
Limiting working hours
More and more people are complaining that working overtime is the main factor results in the decreasing quality hours that people spend with their families. Under this circumstances, I believe the fierce competition is the root cause of enacting laws to regulate working hours, and it is certainly a positive change.
In this society, companies are facing unprecedented challenges. Due to the globalization and people’s fast-paced life style, employers not only have to compete with overseas rivals but also have to meet clients’ various needs. The intense pressure pushes them to explorer every mean to reduce the cost and maximum profits. Therefore, demanding people working overtime is the option they chose. Moreover, workers themselves also take initiative to work harder in order to keep a decent job as well as covering the increasing living expense. Consequently, people’s overtime work has ruined their health and decreased the quality of life. So, governments enacted such laws to protect employees’ interests.
Establishing this law has much positive influence on the society. Limited working hours guarantee people could have enough time for sleep and to spend with family members so as to maintain a healthy physical condition and a stable family relationship.
However, the disadvantages are very clear that short-term profits will decline. Fixed working hours mean more investments on human resources because employers can never earn money by asking people working for extra time. But in a long term, this enforcement will push companies to adjust their strategies to stand out by encouraging innovations or other rules.
In summary, I reaffirm my position that the intense competition is the main reason of limiting working hours and will benefit the society ultimately. Meanwhile, the interest of companies will be temporally damaged.
2013년 3월 4일
2
2
International tourism(version 2)
Travelling abroad is of great interest for many people. However, the question is whether the disadvantages of global tourism will overshadow its benefits as the international tourism has already become a huge industry in the world. My view is that tourism will always exert a positive influence on this world.
Tourism is playing an important role in the local economy by relieving pressure of the labor force and increasing foreign exchange reserves. This is because as the number of visitors inclines, local hotels, restaurants as well as other service industries will require more employees to cater for the growing demand of travelers. As a consequence, the development of tourism will generate more positions for the labor market. Local people are going to benefit from this. Moreover, tourists are bringing capital to their destinations. Either they exchange foreign currencies overseas or they carry their native currencies to sight spots, they will ultimately spend the money on their journey. Therefore, the foreign exchange will be benefited.
Of course, this is not to say that the international tourism has no drawbacks. Excessive tourists will damage natural views gradually. There are many cases where remote natural sceneries are being destroyed because people are all eager to explorer untouched areas. Maybe hundreds years later, there would not be any a hundred percent natural places reserved.
In summary, I reaffirm my position that international tourism is of great importance for the world. Meanwhile, local governments should enforce laws rigidly to guarantee that attractions will not be destroyed by tourists’ activities.
2013년 3월 3일
2
0
International tourism
Travelling abroad has always been one of many people’s great interests. However, the question is whether the drawbacks of global tourism is overshadowing its advantages as tourism is developing into an important industry. My view is that international tourism will always bring more good than harm to the world.
Firstly, tourism directly boosts and simulates local economy. Travelers, especially foreign visitors, bring considerable money to the service industry and lots of small shops as well as vendors, therefore the local economy will not suffer from the scarcity of capital. Furthermore, the prosperity of travelling promotes the development of other related industries such as transportation, restaurants and hotels. In many countries, tourism is virtually a pillar industry and constitutes a large proportion in GDP.
Moreover, tourism contributes to the spread of human civilization. Many famous historical resorts and beautiful natural sceneries are not only reserved for local residents, but the irreplaceable humans’ heritage that attracts visitors from all over the world. Catering for this need results in increased tourism. Also with its development, many ancient civilizations are being made more accessible for normal people.
Of course, it is not always a perfect picture. Over relying on tourism industry will trigger an unbalanced economic structure, which would be very dangerous in some cases. Once the number of visitors declined, which is likely to happen in a financial crisis, a great number of people would lose their main source of income. But normally it can be avoid by enforcing strict laws to control the unhealthy development.
In summary, I reaffirm my position that international tourism is of great importance for the world. Meanwhile, governments should monitor it to guarantee people a fine economic structure.
2013년 3월 1일
3
0
Multicultural societies
Assimilating various cultures is virtually a common sight in many countries. However, discussion centers on whether multicultural society is harmful to a country. My view is that allowing people of different ethnic backgrounds living together brings more pros than cons.
Cross-culture communication helps to inspire people with great innovation, and therefore contributes to the development of a nation. This is because in a multi-culture environment, people learn to view, interpret and appreciate this world from an exotic perspective that their foreign neighbors get used to. In most cases, the collision of various ideas leads to inventions and creation. Think of New York, a palace of arts and a city of multiculturalism.
Moreover, cultural inclusiveness enhances a country’s international image. It is obvious that a high standard of tolerance and respect towards other civilizations, beliefs and customs reflects a high standard of national quality, which attracts immigrants all over the world. America is a typical example. Due to its open and inclusive policy, America not only is a dream land for those suffer from war and deprivation, but also gains appreciation and a good reputation for itself.
Of course, multicultural society also has some adverse effects to a country. After all, the misunderstanding and distortion of perception, caused by a culture conflict, cannot be addressed easily. But it is just a short term problem. As time passes, people have confidence to get along well with ethnic groups.
In summary, I reaffirm my position that having a diverse range of people from various background s in a country is far more beneficial. Meanwhile, the government should pay more attention in speeding up the intercommunion among people. Only be doing so, can we embrace a more vibrant and wonderful nation.
2013년 2월 27일
12
1
Should police carry guns (version 2)
The constant increase in crime rate has been an ongoing concern to public and is also a hotly discussed issue. Thus it is not unusual to see people disapprove of the rule that policemen should not carry guns. Personally, I agree with the point as armed policemen could actually exert much more positive influence to society.
Firstly, no one could deny the fact that policemen with guns are more capable in preventing crimes. This is obvious that an well equipped policeman has superior military dominance over offenders, which means he can control the situation in distance by using his weapon and even shoot the criminal when situation is out of control or in emergency. However, unarmed policemen have to make more efforts to attain the same purpose, and even put their own lives at risk in some serious criminal cases.
Moreover, those policemen patrolling in cities play an important role in deterring potential defender and give citizens a sense of security. When facing the threat of destructive weapons’ power which can easily stop the crime, most defenders hesitate or just quit their rough and simple plots straightaway. Therefore, they have a deterrent effect on maintaining public order and convey a feeling of safety among people.
Of course, that is not to say that there is not any negative effects on policemen carrying guns. As every coin has two sides, some people may be concerned that some policemen may abuse their power of having guns on trivial crime cases. After all, 90 percent of their routine job is to serve ordinary people. But, this concern can be completely tackled by enforcing stricter management rules.
In sum, I reaffirm my position that allowing policemen carrying guns overshadow its dark side. Meanwhile, the government should enact detailed policy to guarantee weapons would not be used illegally. Only by doing so, can we embrace a safer community.
13
0
더 보기
