Sports and games create disturbance in student's life because students cannot fully

concentrate on their studies. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Too much of anything is bad, we need balancing factors to be successful. If a student's life is
filled with studies and no sports, then the outcome is a failure. In simple words, no play and
only studies will make boys and girls dull. I completely disagree with the above-mentioned
question.
Sports are also a subject in some of the colleges. If we search the internet, then we can find
some universities are offering PhD in Sports Management or Sports Sciences. Thus, it has been
proved that sports are a form of education which teaches students discipline, efficiency,
activeness. teamwork and most importantly sportsman spirit. Students are already stressed
with the strict study regimen and course curriculum. So, playing games can help them in
reducing the stress factor in their day to day life.
Investing in health will make one's life better. Most students are in the growth stage of their life
and games can help them in their proper growth. Growth can be in terms of height, weight and
mental health. So, sports and studies are interrelated. As sports helps in improvement of
psychological and physiological aspects of students, and with improved health students excel in
studies.
In this fast moving and competitive world, an all-rounder is a real winner. One must be good in
studies and in extracurricular activities like sports. A mixture of indoor and outdoor games will
be a perfect combination indoor games like chess can help in improving the decision-making
capability. Whereas, outdoor games like football and basketball can improve physical agility.
Thus, sports don't hamper the student's life rather facilitates him to excel in studies and in near
future.

Euthanasia is no longer acceptable in the modern society. Discuss solutions to accept this fact
"Euthanasia is the process of painlessly helping a terminally ill person to die." The legalization of
euthanasia is not common, it still causes intense debate among people. A few years ago, in
some countries, it was legal to kill a person who is suffering from an incurable and painful
disease or in an irreversible coma. Recently a law was passed that Euthanasia should not be
accepted anymore in the society. This essay will discuss the solutions to accept this fact.
To begin with, Euthanasia is not a correct approach to rescue the person from severe pain
because there might be a few chances to cure the disease. For example, my neighbor was met
with an accident at age of 24 years old, his complete body was paralyzed from the bottom of
the neck and later he went to coma. After consulting the second opinion, someone suggested
Ayurvedic treatment which had cured him completely.
Secondly, there are types of Euthanasia which include voluntary or involuntary whereas both
are illegal to end someone or their own life. Few ethics should follow by the people before
involving into sensitive decisions. For instance, people who don't want to provide for their aged
parents may make use of euthanasia to end their parents' life which is illegal and unethical.
Every person has right to live on this planet and it should not be done by forcibly killing anyone.
To sum up, discontinuation of Euthanasia legalization is a good decision for the patients who
have chances to survive a few more years. The government should educate the people on
preventing the Euthanasia.

Some people suggest that each family should only have one car and encourage alternative
vehicle. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Nowadays, families in urban areas have a few cars parked in their garage. People like to
maintain more than one vehicles as a status symbol. Show off significantly more than a
necessity. They need different cars for different purposes like one for the city, another for
highway, etc. There are both positives and negatives to having one car in a family
One of the benefits of having less or only one car is that it will save you big bucks. Buying and
maintaining a vehicle is a huge responsibility and should be done with utmost care as it can
make you bankrupt. Having only a single car will also go a long way in saving the environment
as more vehicles on the road equals to more pollution which is harmful to nature. Fewer cars
will also reduce the dependency of you being driven around in your car without moving any
muscles. You will be able to get more active physically and be fit.
The negatives of one family car will be sharing transport with others. It can be inconvenient and
hectic for most people. You also have to rely on others to get you from one place to another
which can be annoying most of the times. But efficient public transport reduces the
dependency on your cars which can go a long way in the overall growth of the nations per se.
Therefore, in my opinion, a family should not keep more than one car in their garage. It is the
call of the hour to save the ever-depleting environment.

In a war of ideas, it is people who get killed': Does a common man suffer from a group's
ideology? Express your opinion and support the same with reasons and examples.
Man being a social animal usually prefers to belong in a certain group. Sometimes personal
ideas may vary from that of the group. It is agreed that common man suffers from group's
ideology. Many groups with fringe ideas force a common man to act in groups interest as well
as deprive him of his liberty.
It is felt by many that common man often sears from the heat caused by groups ideology. This
has been apparent since time immemorial. For example, in 1960's, America's ruling party
congress was anti-communism and decided to send its troops to Vietnam's to support the
Democratic party. Many common Americans were forced join the military to participate in this
war. It goes without saying in spite of persons unwillingness to follow the group, he has to be
the victim of group's ideology.
Moreover, wars stemming from various ideology deprives a person of his liberty. In a recent
case of Islamic State, few people with extreme ideology are killing innocent people in the name
of religion. People living in IS invaded areas must act according these people's fringe ideologies
where a common man who has nothing to do with it is being killed ruthlessly. Thus, this
argument in support of rubric is difficult to debunk.
In a nutshell, wars of ideas compel a common man to act against his will as well as robs him of
his freedom. Henceforth, the public must pay a heavy price for groups ideology. If groups work
in their self-interest, this trend is unlikely to dissipate.

The food travels thousands of miles from farm to consumer. Some people think it would be
better to our environment and economy if people only ate local produced food. What extent
do the advantages outweigh disadvantages?
Nowadays, supermarkets are stocked with food products from around the world. Some
individuals believe this imported food has a detrimental effect on our economy and culture and
it would be better if people ate only the local produce. Certainly, the disadvantages of imported
food outweigh the advantages.
On the positive side, firstly, we can taste a variety of fruits and vegetables from all parts of the
world. For example, about ten years ago, we hardly saw kiwi fruit which is from New Zealand,
but now it has a place on every fruit stand. Secondly, many people get employment in this field.
Small farmers have a chance to expand globally and it increases the overall economy of the
country. Finally, it helps in developing good relations between countries which help in
international cooperation and peace. If countries are dependent upon one another’s economic
success, then the armed conflict would be less likely.
On the other hand, importing food can have a negative effect on local culture and environment.
This can be seen in countries such as Japan where imported food become more popular than
traditional, local produce, eroding people's understanding of their own food traditions.
Although some would claim that this is a natural part of economic development, in an
increasingly global world. Currently many food imports are transported thousands of miles by
road, sea and air, making the product more expensive and increasing pollution from exhaust
fumes. I am convinced that a reduction in food trade would bring significant financial and
environmental gains.
In the view of arguments outlined above, I am certain that eating locally produced food plays an
instrumental role indeed in the local economic growth as well as beneficial to the environment.

Some people think foreign visitors should be charged more than local people when they visit
the cultural and historical attractions in a country. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
There has always been a fascination for cultural heritage by foreign visitors, who visit a country
mainly for its cultural heritage. But charging them a higher rate as compared to locals is a big no
in my opinion.
There are deluge of reasons in favor of my stance. The most preponderant one is that when
foreign visitors visit a country they not only open new avenues of revenue for the economy but
also an acknowledgement for beauty of historical monuments with them. Many curators charge
them with higher entry fees thinking that they can make money with it, but they don't know
that they are selling the ancestral heritage associated with the country. Furthermore, most of
the visitors get duped and mobbed by local people for money which shatters their confidence
of travelling to other countries.
Conversely, difference in exchange rates of currencies demands more visitors to fall prey to
these crimes. These offenders put the dignity of country at stake without thinking about the
image of the people and country associated with them. This leads to increase in crime rates and
many of them gets exploited and subjected to racial discrimination. To me, the government
should take necessary steps to alleviate these cases and moreover, they should be prosecuted
to the full extent of law because it is a shameful situation for the country to deal with this.
Apart from that, charging the visitors with higher rate will not lower the scope of rogue
offenders.
In the view of argument outlined above, one can conclude that charging foreign tourists is
detrimental to the tourism industry and its potential drawbacks are too dire to ignore.

The only effective way to deal with unemployment is to introduce rapid urbanization. How
far you agree?
Unemployment occurs when people are without jobs in during productive age. Joblessness is
still being a crucial problem in some countries. Some people claimed that the single effective
way to deal with unemployment is to introduce rapid urban drift. I personally disagree with that
statement, and I believe that it depends on social and economic aspect.
Firstly, urbanization linked to demographical and sociological process. It can make an uneven
distribution of population between urban and rural. The increasing of rural population without
followed by appropriate facilities can raise many social problems such us homelessness and
joblessness. Sometimes urban area grows without any plan as a result a global change. When
the citizen has a poor skill and they move to city to looking for a good job, it will be so hard for
them to find an appropriate occupation and they will be jobless. Also, the rise of
unemployment in the rural area increases susceptibility to malnutrition, poor sanitation, illness,
mental stress, and crime.
Secondly, urbanization can bring out an economical aspect. Besides the positive economic
impact of urbanization, there are many negative economic impacts of urbanization. The huge
growing number of migrants can make city a to increase competition to get a suitable job. The
migrants who can't get a job are going to be homeless. It adds to the appearance of slums and
poor citizen in the city. It can be an economical burden for the city.

In the view of argument outlined above, one can conclude that urban drift is not a pragmatic
approach to solve an unemployment problem as it engenders more drawbacks than the
upsides.