Some people think that it is better for a country’s economy for

people to spend money while others believe that it would be better

for people to save money. Discuss both sides and give your opinion.

There has been a debate going over whether people should spend
money spend money or save it for the betterment of the country’s
economy. This controversial idea has been going on for almost a decade
now. However, it can be said that both factors are vital in boosting the
economy. It depends upon the situation of the homeland.
Spending stimulates economic activities by creating demands for
goods and services, which can lead to job creation and growth.
Moreover, it is indeed also a fact that the money will circulate around all
the classes of the country. A higher-class person earns money and spend
money by building a factory, lower class people will get employment
and also cash for their needs. Additionally, individuals paying taxes to
the government also helps them to run the country better. Therefore,
people spending money plays a vital role in the state economy as well as
helps provide jobs to low-class people.
On the other hand, others think that saving money is a better
alternative. To illustrate, saving money in both formal and informal
ways is only going to benefit a country by building a liquid cash reserve
that can be during crises such as pandemics and recessions. Second,
saving is well prepared for retirement. If we need to retire earlier than
planned, we can afford the budget for daily necessaries. To exemplify,
they can afford their medical expenses as well as living costs in their
later times and the government will not have to spend on their medical
treatments. If people tend to save wealth in the banks by creating more
reserves for the state, this asset can be used to expand the country’s
project.
To sum up, saving wealth can be useful in their hardships while
allocating money can stimulate the economy of a country by opening
new demands and creating new jobs. It can be concluded that the impact
of holding or spending money is prominent and both of them have
advantages as well.
In the future all cars, buses and trucks will be driverless. The only
people travelling inside these vehicles will be passengers.
Do you think the advantages of driverless vehicles outweigh the
disadvantages?
The technology of the modern world has been constantly
improving on a high speed. Everything is being advanced in their
respective fields. Among them, the transporting field is no exception
with their driverless vehicles. It can even be assumed that all the
vehicles will function without human steering in the near future.
There are several advantages to converting to the driverless mode.
First of all, it can be useful for the safety of the passengers. According to
the statistics, majority of the accidents on the road occurred due to
human error. Accidents due to people’s lack of conscience when drunk
driving can be avoided. By travelling with driverless cars, a substantial
amount of accidents can be reduced. Next, the traveler can easily get
their work done while they’re on their way instead of personally driving
their cars. It will increase our productivity and boost the national
economy.
On the other hand, driverless cars pose some risks, which include
accidents caused by the malfunction of technology. Moreover, the
hacking and the software glitches cannot be completely eradicated.
However, technologically-made mistakes are astronomically fewer than
man-made blunders when it comes to road safety. Another drawback is
that the rate of unemployment will increase because of this trend. As
transportation is a big industry, this destroy job opportunities for
professional drivers such as taxi drivers or other transportation drivers.
In conclusion, driverless vehicles may have many great benefits
including road safety and economic benefits. Therefore, the merits of the
usage of driverless motor vehicles noticeably outweigh the
disadvantages.
Many offenders commit more crimes after serving the first
punishment. Why is this happening, and what measures can be
taken to tackle this problem?
In this modern world, not only the technology has been developing, but
the cost of living has also been breaking its own record. The
opportunities to get employed has been quite difficult to obtain due to
the growing population. As a result, many people are on job-hunts and
the competitiveness has led some people to make money by all means
even if it would mean breaking the law.
It is undeniable that crimes are becoming more and more common in
today’s age. What’s more, these offenders tend to commit crimes even
after they have served their punishment for the previous ones. There
may be a few reasons for this behavior. Firstly, very few employers or
companies are willing to take in someone with a criminal record. This
makes them hard to find a decent job. Since everything costs a lot in this
century, they have no choice but to go back on their former path for their
own survival. The solution for this problem is that the government
should be giving them job opportunities and a safe place where they
don’t feel diffident on themselves.
Another reason may be that the people who commit crimes are ones
without the proper skills to get a job. Therefore, even if they have served
their time, they are still not able to make a living within the law. And of
course, there are solutions for this problem. The advisable one is to
make good use of their serving time. This includes teaching them the
necessary skills such as vocational skills, handicrafts, etc. which will be
more than useful once they get out in the wild again.
There are definitely several solutions to prevent this specific behavior.
The things mentioned above are some of the good ones that the
government can take action without much loss. The criminals are also
citizens of a nation. Therefore, the government has the responsibility to
take care of them. In this way, a nation can be prevented from crimes
and make all citizens abide the law.
The best way to reduce poverty in developing countries is by giving
up to six years of free education, so that they can at least read, write,
and use numbers.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In the current society, there has been an increase in number of poor

people with social issues. Numerous people have agreed to the funded
education as the best solution to this problem though some may argue
that it is, however, not the most efficient one in the current conflicts and
is not enough to completely eradicate poverty. For me, I partially agree
to providing free education as well and the following paragraphs will
explain my choice with lucid examples.
To begin with, poverty in countries has risen along with a steady growth
in illiteracy rate. Many small kids cannot even afford to acquire the basic
level of learning due to the growing financial crisis. Therefore,
providing them with the necessity helps them get much higher chances
of getting a job when they grow up. No one knows for certain what those
children will become in the future. They may occupy several positions in
medical fields, science fields, or even in politics fields just because they
managed to receive education which, otherwise, they could not have got
due to their financial state.
On the other hand, as much as free education itself is a crucial step
towards poverty reduction, the need for trained teachers and quality
education resources cannot be ignored. Simply giving them free access
to school without ensuring its quality will also not be able to obtain
desired results. Hence, the government should invest in teacher training
programs and improve school infrastructure as well in order to enhance
learning outcomes and the rate of literate citizens.
In conclusion, I agree that offering up to six years of free education can
be powerful to eradicate poverty in developing countries but would like
to differ from the opinion that it is the best way available. By not only
prioritizing education but also implementing necessary reforms, the
developing nations can better prevent and reduce poverty levels in the
long-term.

Most high-level positions in companies are filled by men even

though the workforce in many developed countries is more than 50
per cent female. Companies should be required to allocate to certain
percentage of these positions to women.
Do you agree or disagree?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples
from your own knowledge experience.
Although the proportion of female workers exceeds that of the male
workers in this current age, most of the executive positions in either big
or small organizations are filled by men. Rules should be set up in
companies so that the male and female workers can be placed equally.
There are undoubtedly several reasons to why women deserve to be
positioned high in the same manner as men.
To initialize, women are often discriminated by the society as the ones
with less capability in the working field. In reality, however, women
tend to have a greater sense of commitment and responsibility while
working unless men who are most fond of gatherings and dependent on
the relationships they have with the higher-ups. Female workers are
more likely to finish a project on time and give their heart out into every
single one of them.
Another noticeable fact is that women can empathize with people better.
This quality makes them become great manager who can understand the
employees and provide them with a happy workplace. Moreover, the
female workers in lower positions can feel more secure since they can
complain to a female supervisor if they ever experience any sexual
harassment in their work. This will inevitably reduce the common
harassment cases in working fields.
On the other hand, men are more level-headed when faced with
problems, and can think of more suitable solutions than women.
Therefore, the companies and organizations should hire women and men
equally in high positions. They should be also promoting people worthy
of those positions regardless of their gender.