Maintaining public libraries is a waste of money since computer technology can replace their

functions. Do you agree or disagree?

It is argued that money should not be spent on the continuity of libraries for the public due to
the development of computer technology. Although e-books are superior to the printed ones
in some cases, I think that the functions of a public library cannot be completely replaced.

Reading books on an online platform is beneficial in certain cases. It provides readers with a
diversity of sources covering almost all aspects of life. There are thousands of websites
worldwide which range from politics to economy, so people can easily select the field of their
interests. In addition to that, e-libraries are convenient for those who have a nine-to-five job
or live far from the brick-and-mortal library. With just a portable device like smartphones or
laptops, they can immediately download a book to read without interrupting their working
process or commuting long distances. Such an advancement, therefore, enables many people
to access information and enhance their mental life.

However, I am convinced that conventional libraries remain to be an indispensable part of

modern life for some reasons. First, these places contain materials that sometimes are not
available online. Books for university research, for example, cannot be found anywhere apart
from libraries as there are strict rules for copyright and accuracy of the content. By doing this,
authors and writers can ensure that their readers obtain the correct information using the
most reliable sources. Second, public libraries are considered as a tool to promote the sense
of community. Avid readers, especially the elderly ones, can gather in a shared area to discuss
and exchange their ideas about a specific work of literature or genre, thus socializing more
with each other.

In conclusion, while computer technology is advantageous in some respects, I believe that it

cannot totally supplant the role of traditional libraries. (298 words)