The benefits of online learning

Accessibility of online learning is improving as soon as people find it easy to get the internet.
But, this issue is becoming more controversial as the interests of this topic are being driven. Whereas
some always stand for having convenient situations from online learning, it also gives many demerits.

First of all, there are many benefits people can get by using online learning. One of the common
benefits most people have to accept is the flexibility of livelihood. There are many necessities for the
students such as accommodation, transportation, and others. However, online learning will be one of
the best answers to get rid of those troubles because that doesn’t require people to go to any definite
places, so transportation is not necessary at will. Thus, using online learning could make education more
accessible for more learners and effectively reduce time-consuming.

Secondly, online learning can be more cost-effective for learners since online learners can get
educational resources for free as e-books, and no need to take any cost for commuting, housing could
glaringly diminish bunch of financial burdens of education. Hence, online learning is marked as the best
tool to create the educational runway.

On the other hand, online learning engages with sort of demerits. Some said that online learners
met with a lack of personal interaction and engagement in traditional classrooms. Before technologies
were not enhanced, they might be right because face-to-face interaction could be a barrier to
communication between each other in online learning. But as time goes on, video conferencing and
other setting improvements allow online learners to feel like a real classroom despite being impossible
to imitate all feelings from a genuine classroom.

To sum it up, online learning can offer more accessible education for broader audiences through
many improved settings and technologies. Although some regard online learning as an inconvenient
factor, it is incontestable that online learning has enshrouded the world and helped people learn for
many purposes.

Car banning

The time goes by, the civilization of people is improving, so people’s salaries are higher and car
prices are more affordable. Hence, people buy many cars for one household. So, car amount are more
crowded in this era and there are many results from the cars people have to suffer from. Some people
think they want no more cars in their society and ban cars for private use because of disadvantages of
the using cars while some anchor to opinions that they don’t want to ban cars due to advantages.

First of all, there are many demerits from car usage. Nowadays, the air of the world is more polluted
because it is increasing carbon footprints around the world. The main culprit of the rising carbon dioxide
is smoke and gases coming from cars. This pollution directly destroys the health situations of the
creatures that breathe that polluted air. For example, high levels of ozone can cause people to sustain
asthma. Likewise, this pollution can’t stop with that and that continues to harm climate situations.

Secondly, cars use valuable resources of the economic and natural. In order to run cars, people
cost expensive amounts since the energies that make cars run are mostly fossil fuels which are hard to
get, and taking out those fossil fuels from the earth glaringly destroys climate systems. And also, makes
valuable resources scarce. Furthermore, the number of cars in the world today exceeds 1 billion and is
predicted to be more than 2 billion in 2023. The more cars there are, the more space people need to
park those cars. Hence, there are fewer places to construct invaluable places like gardens, pedestrian
walks, and small parks.

On the other hand, some people want to accept that cars make society more comfortable and
they want to ignore the demerits of cars. Also, they think the more advanced technologies are, they can
reduce bad effects. In their opinion, people are harder to commute to work and to go places they want
without cars. Similarly, public transportation is less secure and can have many dangerous situations for
people. And then, banning automobiles couldn’t be the best solution for the emission of gases in the air
because there are many reasons for that beyond cars and cars in this era are enhanced to make less
emission as much as they can.

To sum up, there are many opinions on this topic. Some people think banning automobiles can
be the best answer for most problems people have had but some argue with other perspectives.
However, whether which is better, people have to focus on reducing the bad effects of cars in our
society time by time.

The given two passages illustrate the argumentation of the being necessary of the higher
education, university or collage education as another word. some people have opinions that post-
secondary degree is one of the credential to get fastest-growing occupation because more than half of
the good works require higher degree for their employment. However, some think that students don’t
need to be drown in debt to get the post-secondary degree. They can work with only high-school
diploma.

At first, first given passage narrate getting good jobs is directly proportional to having great
degree that can hold them in high esteem. As a regard of the passage, most employment in jobs need
the higher education than high school diploma can be probably increase over this decade. Therefore,
younger people should try to get the education as high as they can.

Secondly, government of the America also acknowledged this and tried to build better education
situations by doing programs reduced debt over the students to get the post high school education and
others. Likewise, President Obama challenged their citizens to commit at least one year of higher
education or post-secondary training. As a result, America could be the highest proportion of college
graduates in the world in 2020.

In contrast, some people in America don’t believe getting higher education is the most suitable
part for the growth life of economy. As a comparing of their salaries with the line of education levels,
who with low education can earns low income and with high education earns higher income as twice.
However, they oppose getting better education can evoke more opportunities and more income with
the reason that there are many people who have successful carriers without post-secondary education
such as Steve Jobs to Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg.
 To sum up, people in America are standing with different conceptions applicable to education
because of being expensive of getting education especially. So, this controversial issue can not be ended
until higher education are affordable for every standards of people.

Car bunning

Both passages offers positions that are prompted by many facts and opinions. Article 1 describe
to bun cars strongly and strengthen opinions supported by factual information while article 2 show that
people should use cars wisely to have more comfortable life. Anyway, in this two passage, the
information given by the article 1 is more strong and credible than article 2.

The first example for why cars should be banned is that cars are directly proportional to health
hazards of humans. For driving car, people have to burn fossils fuels such as gas and oil and cars
constantly exhaust smoke. That action is the major culprit of air-pollution nowadays. Moreover, carbon
dioxide given from the emission of cars contribute to global warming and ozone can increase risk of
having asthma.

The second fact also say that article 2 is more credible because cars wisely use up valuable
resources. In article 2,it say that having no cars make society more inconvenient with commuting and
traveling while public transportation is not developed that much. However, it doesn’t show any defense
for that cars cost much money for precious fossil fuels. And also article 1 support a fact that explosions
of oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and catastrophic oil spills harm sea plants and wildlife intensely.

Finally, article 1 say that people could choose so many options to travel as public transportation.
Even though that is just opinion of the author of article 1, people have already known that is right. And
also this is obvious answer of the description of article 2 that car is necessity for the human life and
public transportation is undeveloped.

To sum up, both passages describe their opinions and facts about whether cars should be
banned or not from their different aspects. However, notions in article 1 are more credible than article 2
obviously because the facts and opinions in article 1 have more supporting data.

Nuclear energy

The given two passages make the discussion about of the nuclear power plant with different
aspects. While the first passage describes benefits of nuclear power plant with many opinions and
ignoring other scientific factual information, second passage widely cover many scientific facts, eligible
opinions and information covering all aspects. So, obviously second passage is more stronger in this
argumentation and more credible.

Firstly, these passages were based on the nation, the United State of America. America is one of
the industrialized nations and must use massive power to offer enough energy to the entire country.
That’s why, they are seeking more energy and try to filter disadvantages that probably get from the
power plant. These passages are seeking to evaluate pros and cons of nuclear energy. The writer’s first
passage show that using nuclear energy is clearer than using fossil fuels such as gas, coal, and oil but he
ignores nuclear energy has demerits as the writer of the second passage illustrates that pluntonium that
is used in creating nuclear energy causes deadly cancer to people.

Secondly, supporters of nuclear energy cite that nuclear generators can produce 30 tons of
spent fuel a year compared to the 300,000 tons of coal ash produced by a coal-powered electrical plant,
However, they don’t count what opponents said about the ever-present threat of meltdowns. In
addition, the opposite point out that Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukishima got widespread
radioactive contamination and death caused by th nuclear accidents.

Thirdly, even though the positive side of nuclear energy is addressed the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission ensures that nuclear reactors are made by intense safety standards, and how they throw
off radioactive waste, that is a weak argument because the description of the dangers illustrated by
opponents in the negative side. Furthermore, opponents can suggest that the best power resources for
the environment and with the least danger impacts are solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal power.

To sum up, despite that both two side offer information about nuclear power with distinct
perspectives opposite side aim to give wider information gathering with actual fact ,example events, and
credible opinions. This is why, the opposite side is more credible than the positive side obviously.

Renewable energy

The two speeches are aimed to give especially about wind turbines that generate electrical
energy. President Obama described in his remarkable speech that he was very grateful for having
renewable energy from wind but the next speech from the speaker of the house illustrated that this is
an incomplete task for people because some people suffer from the bad results of wind turbines. That’s
why, speech of Australian House of Representatives Member should be that they have to be careful in
the pursuit of ingraining this wind turbine system.

Firstly, Brag Obama points out this system actually help create jobs for people who were out of
work for a long time with example. That example is that when he visited the town of Newton, its local
market Maytag plant was closing its doors and nearly 2000 jobs were lacking work. Even though that
fact is not supported by strong evidence, that is one that all people can accept that is necessary.
However, as the other speech shows, they have to count the rights of minorities and pay attention what
is the results created by building those new wind turbines.
 Continuously, the second speech addresses spotlessly that most of the people near wind
turbines are having problems of infrasound issues. That probably destroys their health and hearing. In
spite of that, these are just words from people without clear data and facts, that is an important issue
the government has to look back. Unfortunately, no word was seen that aimed to give the solution to
that obstacle.

In conclusion, the speech of Obama is just a saying of thanks to people who are ingraining this
new way of extracting energy. And the second speech demonstrates that what are the weakness points,
and ignoring issues. To sum up, if the first speech is accepted, the second speech has to exactly go after.

Should the drinking age

The two passages are related to a very important question for adolescents who are over 18 as
U.S. should dwindle the age of legal drinking. The first passage was written about teenagers should get
an allowance for drinking alcohol when they are 18 but it did not include any factual information and
credible issues to convince people adequately. In contrast, the second passage said drinking alcohol
under 18 is one of the enormous risks and can offer variable impacts on the life of younger people by
distinct perspectives, and it is supported with many facts, statistics. So the second passage is more
credible than the first one.

On the first hand, the writer of the first passage belabors many extras like the rights of American
people. It points out that ‘’18-year-olds many vote in local, state and federal elections; may serve on
juries; and many be charged as an adult if accused of a crime’’. However, it couldn’t illustrate any idea
that drinking alcohol should be in 18 in the second paragraph of it. On the other hand, the second
paragraph addresses exactly why adolescents shouldn’t consume alcohol when they are under 21 from
the beginning of the passage. It supports the scientific fact firstly that alcohol drinking harms the young
adult brain’s frontal lobes so that the development of emotional regulation, planning, and organizations
skills can delay and not improve more.

Secondly, the first passage only describes stuff that directly prompts the question. Which is that
Todd Rutherdford, South Carolina State Representative and Democrat House Minority Leader said that
drinking alcohol is just a personal freedom issue and if they have sufficient ages to fight for the country,
vote and sign on thousands of dollars of student loans for college education, they have enough age to
drink alcohol. As the speculation of the sentence before, this is just personal opinion so this is a weak
argument. Nevertheless, the second passage describes a variety of facts based on statistics as how much
MLDA 21 can reduce the fatality rate of traffic accidents by policy of a higher legal age to drink.

To sum up, the first passage was written as a passage that cannot help find the solution to the
problem and give a clear vision for readers. And also it cannot persuade readers to believe what it is
saying. However, the second one was combined with tons of facts and statistics. Furthermore, it
convinces readers with a strong writing style and makes itself incontestable. That’s why the second
passage which say younger adult shouldn’t drink alcohol under 21 is stronger than the first one which
opposes what in second passage.

Animal testing

The two passages which stand for the different sides aim to explore animal testing for multiple
purposes. The first passage supports itself with many results and advantages that can get from animal
testing that act like factual information. However, the second passage does not have any factual
information and enough reasons for the side it contributes that people should not use animals for
testing. Something that points out is just opinions from people’s viewpoints and argumentative
sentences for the debate with the first passage. Apparently, the first passage’s information is obviously
stronger.

First of all, the first passage even addresses in the first paragraph that most of the research
during the last 100 years got many breakthroughs by using animals for testing. That is an exact fact
based on every result of the research so that this illustrates this point is a firm point. Additionally, it
describes again a really familiar event, the global pandemic of coronavirus. In that event, scientists
necessarily had to test animals, mice, for the coronavirus vaccine. Furthermore, Professor Nikolai
Petrovsky assures testing animals for the vaccine of coronavirus is the essential step for the production
of reliable vaccines. Even though this is just an opinion of a person, his professional career is speaking
here. That’s why this need to count speculation of animal testing issue.

In contrast, the second paragraph says that animal testing is inhumane way. It sets the debate
with that most experiment involving animals is flawed and has incorrect data interpretation. As a good
argumentation of the previous data, the first passage already describes every breakthrough people get
in the medical field from animal testing. Hence, the first passage in this debate anchors to the winning
zone compared with the data of the second passage.

To sum up, both passages convince the reader with much evidence that prompts their written
aspects to be exactly right. Speculation of both passages, the first passage clearly persuades readers
with a wider range of facts, credible opinions, and information. Thus, the data in the first passage is
incontestably firmer than the second one.

These arguments are about of leash free zone (especially allowing to go around the park). In the
press, Mayor announces Boyertown Park give pets as dogs allowance happily with study-based
facts over the two parks those are same with their part in size and other situations. In contrast,
the writer of the next passage who does not agree to make the park leash free zone describes
his terrible child memory related to dogs and many personal opinions without any facts,
studying and so on. That is why, Mayor’s announcement is vividly stronger than his.
Firstly, Mayor points out in his announcement not intense data that dogs will be allowed to go
around the park between 11 am and 3 pm, and then again after 9pm. As a description in
Mayor’s announcement, she addresses there are also local high school’s tracks and others which
are going through every day so that she does time limitation for leash free zone. This shows this
policy is not intense and direct the comfortability of all people.

Secondly, she does studying to implement this policy because their team do many speculating
over Downinville for 3 months and Morsoraburg for 2 months, the two parks that are the same
size and situation with Boyertown Park. This is noticeable fact that Mayor tries to search many
solutions for whether they should ingrain leash free park. So that, her announcement is likeable
and useful for people who want to chill in park.

On the other hand, the another writer does not agree what Moyor are saying in previous
announcement and he wants to oppose everything with his childhood memory that when he
way a child, he was bitten by dogs and said by the owner of dog like this, ‘’He’s never bitten
anyone before’’. That memory is likely to give the writer trauma applicable to dogs and, he is
worried other can have that kind of situation alongside his life.

In short, Mayor’s announcement can convince readers well and have many study-based data to
believe. However, the writer who oppose Mayor could not offer opinions and facts that
persuade the readers well that his perspective is believable. Thus, Mayor’s announcement is
more stronger and more believable.

By the time, there are many advanced technologies and, people always have strong appetite to
use those including kids so called tweens. In this argument, first speech describes what kinds of
advantages parents can have by giving cell phones to their children. But, as the speech of the
second speaker, consequences for giving cell phones to their children is not only advantages but
also demerits.

First of all, Deborah Pendergast points out that if children get phones, they will be more safe
and can have keep in touch with their parents every time as an example, if parents delayed to
pick their children up from school, children can know firster and do not need to wait their
parents in front of school. However, Linda Sidner argues that point with very credible opinion
that if that kind of condition occurred, parents may be lulled into a false sense of security
because of thinking they know every kinds of situations of kids by calling. That is really strong
response to Deborah Pendergast .
Secondly, Linda illustrates the nature of using phone in her speech which is that children can use
phone for different wrong directions parents do not expect by using internet, texting with
strange people or friends. She also says internet can have big influence over children. And also
internet can bring kids in the dangerous zone with various ways. As a static fact of her speech,
over 90% of children report that they use their cell phones for texting and going on the internet.
In addition, 14 and 19 percent of children in grade 3 through 5 reported that they are being
victims of cyberbullying. Thus, all of facts Linda describes are really stronge.

To sum it up, even though Deborah’s speech contains many optimistic opinions for the
opportunities of getting phone for children, all of opinions are not credible and stronger than
Linda. In contrast, Linda used static facts and credible data in her speech and, her speech more
likely to persuade listeners than Deborah. Hence, Linda’s speech is better by speculating of facts,
data and reliable opinions.