Does ageing population have positive or negative effects on society? With lower birth rates and death rates, plenty of nations are faced with the problem of an ageing population. This issue, in my opinion, generally has adverse impacts on society, although from some perspectives it could be beneficial to society. Older people are not as productive as younger ones, and thus, this trend may cut down the GDP (gross domestic product) within some countries. This is because young people are more capable of some jobs which require a large amount of energy and intelligence, for example, computer engineering, actuarial accounting, and artificial intelligence. As ages grow older, the people who work in such jobs may not be able to either absorb new knowledge or work overtime, and thus, fall behind the times. This means that efficiency and profitability will be lowered. Furthermore, it will endanger the whole economy. On the other hand, the steady increase of senior citizens could impose a burden on the younger generation. They do not only have to earn their livings, but also have to support their parents and even grandparents. When older people find it hard to make ends meet or n​eed care because of illness, younger ones have to spend much time and energy on them. This may bring out a series of younger people, for instance, using up all the savings for curing their parents’ cancer or quitting their jobs to take care of their old parents. When these situations begin to accumulate, it will become a common problem in society that could exist in every family. However, the growth of the older population still could have a positive influence on society. In the long term, with a high demand for health care, the government will take action to improve the quality of medical services. In conclusion, the rise of older people may reduce economic growth and affect the life quality of the younger generation, while it possibly promotes the reform of the medical system.

Factors that influence students' choices of schools The chart shows different situations in terms of 6 kinds of motivations for British students to choose a college or university respectively in 1982 and 2002. Students in 2002 thought most highly of suitable courses and degrees, the percentage of which was more than a third, while it decreased by 6 percent from 1982 to 2002. Right behind it was the students who consider the reputation of the institution as an important factor, which soared from 5% to 25% over 20 years. Meanwhile, the percentage of students who valued amenities, social activities, and sports facilities more than tripled from 5% to 18% in 2002, which is the third common reason for choosing a university. Next was the students who were concerned with location. The percentage of those was 16% in 2002 and 19% in 1982 with no remarkable change. In contrast, there was a steep fall in the percentage of students who considered the cost of education from 28% to 5%. At last, admission criteria was the least important factor for choosing a university, the percentage of which was only 2% in 1982 and 3% in 2002. Overall, reputation and amenities became increasingly more important factors for students when deciding on schools in the UK, while costs were given much fewer considerations.

Should children obey rules or do what their parents and teachers want them to do? It’s not unusual that parents and teachers set all kinds of rules to children, which is deemed to be obstacles to children’s growth, in certain people’s opinion. However, I would argue that obeying rules is an important lesson for children and thus, should be encouraged. Some people hold the idea children are supposed to abide by regulations either at home or at school because children are too young to tell right from wrong. They could easily behave in a wrong way which they may not even notice, for example, playing video games over time, ignoring table manners, or bullying other children. All of these behaviors could cause severe outcomes if they are not stopped in time. Thus, children should always be under parents’ and teachers’ control. Nonetheless, other people complain that children are regulated too much, which may cause a series of problems. On the one hand, it may cause mental issues to these children. They live a life in the shadow of parents and teachers, fearing of failing to meet their requirements. On the other hand, it could stifle these children’s creativity. They will find it difficult to make innovations since what they only know is to take orders. In my view, it is every parent and teacher’s mission to set rules to children, as no children can independently regulate themselves well. Even though there are such concerns that over-control could limit children’s minds, it is still necessary to teach them rules in order to avoid misconduct. The reason for this is apparent by weighting the harm of over-control and lack of control. After all, over-control cannot do severe harm to children since they will at least know how to behave themselves decently, while a lack of control inevitably brings about a large number of problems to children and lead them astray.

Is it a good thing for senior management positions to have much higher salaries than other workers? Inequality exists everywhere in society and so does it in the company. There are many people complaining that senior managers have significantly higher salaries which they don’t deserve. However, I’m against this viewpoint and agree that senior managers deserve high salaries only if the institution designs a reasonable mechanism of punishment. First, a high salary is insurance for a company’s underlying risk. Without the motivation of high salaries, it’s hard for senior managers to devote themselves totally to their work. As is known to all, they play a pivotal role in the company’s operation, and thus if they are less willing to work, the company’s operational efficiency and performance will be influenced to a large extent and it will bring about plenty of issues, for example, the lack of risk prevention. Second, a high salary is the incentive of innovation, which could make the company earn more profits. It’s not usual for companies to attract talented employees by offering high salaries in the recruiting process. Thus, there is the same need to compensate managers with high salaries for their administrative ability. They are a group of people who is the soul of the company and make sure that the company keeps making innovations and survive. Therefore, they are worth receiving a bonus. However, it doesn’t mean their high salaries should be taken for granted. A mechanism of punishment is supposed to be applied to them as well. In detail, if they are deemed as unqualified managers, which can be indicated from the performance of the company, their salaries should, therefore, be cut down. In practice, there are many real companies giving a flexible salary to senior managers, which solves out this problem. In conclusion, it doesn’t always work to give senior high salaries for the better performance of the company. However, it’s necessary to pay them above-average salaries for risk prevention and innovation of the company.