Some people argue that we as individuals cannot do anything to help our environment, while companies and government could. Although government and large companies have a huge impact on the environment, I totally disagree with the previous argument and I believe that each individual can help improving the environment. Our environment is our resposibility, it is not only subjected to government or large companies. In fact, I believe that each individual has his or her own duty toward the environment. If any individual throw any kind of waste on the streat, this will have a huge impact on the environment. if someone throw a plastic bottel for example, it might take thousands of years for the plastic to resolve. Instead people should have the knowledge about where they should throw their waste and always look for a recycle baskets. People should be aware about how harmful it is to the environment if they throw their waste elsewhere. Other possible way for individuals to help improving the environment is by using recycable materials, for example paper bags instead of plastic bags. This attitude will encourage recycling. Another example of emproving environment by individuals is driving electrical mobiles ratherthan old cars and trucks. This way the toxic emissions will be reduced and that will help our atmosphere and prevent global warming. In conclusion, the improvement of our environment is in our hands, each individual has the resposibility of this planet and should act according to this. we cannot just blame the government or the companies. specially if we are not attempting to do our easy part.

Some people strongly argue that money has to be shared for other ways. In contrast, it is necessary to invest money for developing the technology for space exploration. Although there are some benefits to spend money for space exploration, I believe the money should be spent for a disparity of wealth and environment. Initially, developing the technology for space exploration is necessary to some extent. For example, if people found a drastically innovative resource on another planet that takes the place of current resources, specifically, fossil fuel, and wood. People do not need to take care of limited resources on the earth any more. In addition, improving technology will cause to people's convenience on earth as a result. For example, recently some scientists are planning to launch a space rocket as a transport system on earth. hat it takes only two hours between New York and Shanghai by rocket. On the other hand, there are a lot of problems on earth. Especially, in developing countries, people are suffering from poverty while in developed countries waste massive food. In addition, even in developed countries, the disparity of wealth has been widening. Therefore, the money which is spent on space exploration should be used for all people's lives more safely around the world. Developed countries must have many options to give a hand to developing countries. For example, it must be effective to provide infrastructure, agriculture, and sharing clothing and food that are about to dispose of in developed countries. Finally, including my opinion, people can not choose their own nationality. This means that people who were born in a developing country and need to be suffered from poverty are definitely unfair. Therefore, the money is spent on space exploration partially spend for developing countries. As a result, the disparity of wealth will not be wider and people will be able to live with the same quality of lifestyle as developed countries to some extent.

Nowadays, universities are accepting all the students, as many men as women in every subject matter. I believe that being open to all students is fair. The university must allow everyone to study what is interesting for each individual, regardless of gender. However, I think that the numbers of equality in each course are statistically speaking unrealistic. Even though, in general, I completely agree that there must be equality and human rights. Nowadays, many are the organizations created, to support equality, sex discrimination, with the aim of helping people to get their rights. However, despite enormous positive changes compared to the past, still, some people reckon that some jobs are for women and others for men. What does it even mean? Should a woman only do house chores and raise kids? As can be seen, based on women's experience, a woman can be a businesswoman and a great mother at the same time. There is an old saying, 'Give me an educated mother and I will give you an educated nation'. Therefore, I disagree with some people's beliefs. Men and women can be great in different jobs and positions. However, having the same number of students in each course is impractical for universities. Realistically speaking, there are some courses which attract more one gender than the other. In terms of numbers, if we think that, for instance, in the nursery degree there is 50 % of females and, then the other half will be waiting to be filled form males, it would be harsh for the university to close the course with the same parity of future students. In a nutshell, universities should not accept only one gender for a particular course or most of that gender with a fixed number. As the applications arrive at the university, they should select people based on their skills, knowledge, and merits. No matter if the course will be 80% females and 20% male or vice versa.

One of the main objectives of technology is to facilitate people's lives. Nowadays, modern technology has been created to help people in several aspects of their daily lives, one of them being shopping. Some people consider that modern technology has made shopping easier, whereas, some detractors consider that these new technological gadgets have made it more difficult. I highly agree that the current technology has facilitate shopping due to the reasons explained in the following paragraphs. On the one hand, technology has made shopping easier, because it saves people's money and time. Regarding shopping, new websites, such as, Amazon and Whish, as well as, applications, like Cornershop and Uber Eats, have enabled people to buy food, clothes and various goods from the confort of their homes. Thus, it is no longer necessary to travel to a shop, waste time in a queue and spend money in a parking ticket. This means that people can use the time that was spend in shopping on other activities (i.e., reading a book, doing sports, cooking, among others). Moreover, technology enabled a new and varied competition in the market, making it possible that small shops, which were uknown and did not have the resources to have a physical space, now can be famous known. For instance,

Nowadays, more and more people are using their own private car as the major means of transportation. But, overusage of car from people can lead to air pollution and destruction to the environment as greenhouse gases are produced, which are harmful to our body. To solve this problem, many countries are encouraging people to use electronic car or campaigning to use bus or train when they commute. 2 weeks ago, I saw an environmental documentary from the television and I heard the cause of air pollution. There were many factors that could effect the air pollution, but one of the factors was the usage of the car. When we ride a car, the car produces harmful chemical gases such as carbon dioxide that lead to foggy weather. If we inhale this gases often, our lungs will become unhealthy and in worst case, lead to death. Therefore, over-reliance on cars will increase the number of people with lung disease as they produce bad chemicals. To prevent production of harmful chemicals from the car, many people have to use bus or train for transportation rather than their private car, so government have to do campaign to use them and make festival to persuade people to use public transport. This will help the environment to reduce greenhouse gases and people to inhale more fresh air than before. In conclusion, many people prefer to ride the private car as it is more comfortable, however, the consequences of usage of car are harmful to the environment and people's health, therefore government should educate or persuade people to use public transports instead of riding a car.

MY OWN QUESTION FOR TASK 2: People living in the twenty-first century have a better quality of life than people who live in previous centuries. To what extent do you agree or disagree? In this modern age, some believe that people’s quality of life is much better than that of earlier generations in past centuries. I agree with this point of view thanks to the development of healthcare service and technology in this century regardless of some opposing opinions. To begin with, some think of this school of thought in the sense that people living in the previous centuries were less prone to diseases caused by the degradation of the environment. For example, air pollution these days has caused people a multitude of fatal respiratory diseases, be it tuberculosis or even lung cancer. These illnesses were believed to happen to a handful of citizens in the past, such as long-term smokers or workers in mines. However, in this modern age, people appear to have remedies for aforementioned diseases or, at least, methods to mitigate them. As regards the former, scientists have been believed to invent medicines to cure these diseases while, for the latter, air purifiers have filtered toxic fumes in the atmosphere, reducing the risk of suffering from respiratory diseases. The standard of living in the 21st century is in all probability better than our predecessors thanks to technological transmogrification. Firstly, the improvements of the Internet has allowed people to connect with others from all over the world via communication platforms, such as social networking sites or emails. This will help people be happy. Additionally, the advancement of technology is beneficial for information storage. For example, data is, now, can be limitlessly stored in the Internet with less concern of being damaged. This did not happen in the past, when information was believed to be saved on papers or hard disks, which were prone to damage due to extreme weather patterns. In conclusion, I believe that people living in the 21st century have a better quality life than the past.

Nowadays, Smoking is one of the most destructive unhealthy habit for human had faced since the tobacco invented. so some people think that smoking can help them mentelly and phsicaly and is diffcult stop smoking. While the others believe that smoking can distroy the body slowly and cause the early death. In this essay I will discuss both sides and I will draw my personal opinion. In one hand , smokers are luch of awareness alternative of stress reduction. Thus most of the smoker believe that smoking is the best solution to releave the stress that they face in their daily lives. For example, nowadays we see many of employees are smoking during their working hours to beat the stress and headache. So that is why some people think that quit smoking is a negative point that can effect them directly . On the other hand, majority of the smokers must have tried quitting smoking at least once in thier live time. Frankly it is extrmely hard to kick this habit. However, in the 90th some studies shows the facts that all of smokers can get the medical treatment for a while which can leave them to quit smoking forever. This prove clearly that smoking is just a habit. In conclusion, after carefully analyis of the imprtant points, I believe that the government plays a signaficant factor to help the people, furthermore provide for them all options to stop smoking such as stop selling Nicotine which this is the main ingrediants to causes addiction and damage the body and the brain.

Poverty has been always a major issue around the world. Due to viruses, natural disasters, and poor management in the country and overpopulation, each day the poverty increases. In addition, some developed countries ignore the help or just give a temporary solution. Poverty has a great effect on the income that can lead to serious problems. To begin with, developed countries shouldn't only support with financial aid, as that kind of solution will not help the people. In my opinion, rich countries can stop poverty in such way to look for the natural resources of the poor country and to help and develop its resources. For example, in Africa they are famous for their large area of land. A rich country can take this opportunity to implement a long-term plan to benefit and fight poverty, such as to start expanding the lands of agriculture to use their natural resources such as cocoa, rice, and coffee. Furthermore, this idea can also help the people of the country where they can work on the land and be employed. Also, developed countries can donate and build health care centers and schools to prevent the dangerous disease from spreading. Schools can empower children to grow up and help the country's economy to rise and to fight poverty. In conclusion, developed countries can unite and discuss this significant concern rather than helping with financial support as poverty is taking the lives of many children. Poor countries just need better solutions and understanding from the world to prevent such problems from continuing to happen.

Some individuals say that children's obesity is the fault of the parents, while others argue that it is strictly the governments fault. While both have effects on the childs habits from an early age, i think that it is mostly the parents fault. It is debated that childhood obesity is mainly the parents responsibility for various reasons. Many parents schedueles and lifestyles are not fit for having a child as their routines are not flexible enough to properly take care of him/her. For example, in most western houses, both the mother and the father have jobs to attend everyday, and dont return home to their children till the late afternoon. By that time, the parents will both be too exausted to properly look after their child, which will lead to him/her eating any food no matter its quality and source such as fast foods and sweets, which are calorie dense and low volume. Furthermore, studies have shown that around 42 percent of parents in the United States did not care what their child consumed given it was cheap and does not require preparation. As far as i am concerned, this is enough evidence to justify it being mostly the parents fault. On the other hand, others argue that it is primarely the governments fault. Governments have complete control over what advertisements can or cannot be portrayed to the public. Knowing that most advertisements we see are related to fast food chains and chocolate bars, we can deduce that it undoubtebly has a major effect on children which will beg their parents. to try some of this food. In addition, it has been scientifically proven that fast foods contain substances which encourage addiction. So when fast foods are easily accesible no matter which city you are in, parents will have a hard time controlling which foods their children eat. I agree that the government has a major influence on children, but their parents have greater controll over them. In conclusion, while the government is undoubtebly the root of obesity amongst children, it is completely up to the parents to either develop this problem or put limitations to it.

The world renowned stars in art and sport have under gone repetitive dedications in achieving their ultimate goals. Some people believe they inherit skills while others argue strenous training turn out a super stars in those fields. I will discuss both these issues while standing with the concept of long run practise make anyone perfect. Some individuals who are best ahievers in non acadamic skills, tend to exhibits talents in early stages of life. With the external inspirations their ultimate faith decide. To explain more, if parents recognise and modulate their children's special ablities, they will end up as popular charactors in particular fields. In contrast, if it does not motivated initially, there is a high chance to regress these skills. Therefore, eventhough born with talents, there is a necessity of well nuturing environment to be exceled in certain skills. In contrast, I believe, although born without inborn talents, children are well capable of learning art and sport, if they get the correct guidance. Only the self motivation and dedications steer the pathway. For instance, the fastest spinner in Sri lanka was not a runner during his childhood. The sport teacher's entire efforts lift him to the posiition of fastest runner of the country. Moreover, even skills like arts can be engrave within children by tactfully handling their easily modifiable brains. To illustrate, frequent inputs in to the brain catch up the new techniqes, revealed in a study published by the University of Oxford. Therefore, I consider, creating a star is completely rely on individual's learning and dedications, not on genetic scripts. To conclude, although some top performers in art and sport born with inborn talents to certain extents and gained professionalism with influential surroundings, I trust, most of the achievers in this fields have unprecedented dedications toward learning and practise these skills for their accomplishments, irrespective of the natural talents.

Recently, many countries have legalized gay marriage. However, there are many people who do not agree with that, and claim that it has a bad influence on the education of children, and the evolution of society. However, in my opinion, I think it is a good opportunity for homosexual people as they are now understood by others, and have the right to have children despite of their situation. To begin, there are many parents, for example, who tend to believe that because of the access to gay marriage, their children will find it normal to fall in love with a person from the same sex. As a result, more and more children will become homosexual, which is unconventional as far as the parents are concerned. However, I believe that it is not because children understand the fact that being gay is normal, that they will be influenced by this. In fact, they will be able to compassionate for people who struggle to express their homosexuality, so they will help them to feel more comfortable with that. Moreover, they will be more open-minded which is very important for children development. Secondly, many other people are convinced that gay marriage will inevitably tends towards a decrease of the young population as gay individuals can not have their own kids. As a consequence, This phenomenon represents a threat because young people will not be able to take over for the future. However, I am not of this opinion. I think that such a decrease in young people population will not occur as the vast majority of the world's population in not homosexual. Moreover, by allowing gay marriage, gay couples will be able to adopt children. Indeed, due to the fact that they are not able to give rise to new-born, they can adopt children who are abandonned, and give them the opportunity to live in a new family with good conditions. To conclude, I firmly believe that gay marriage is a good opportunity for the development of the society. Indeed, not only it makes children more open-minded, which is important for their own development, but also gives for those who are unfortunately abandonned, a safe environment to thrive in.

There is an opinion which is that the longer prison sentences is the best solution to reduce crime. On the contrary, some people say that there are better solutions to solve this problem. Overall, I totally agree with the latter opinion because I think that giving long prison sentences can not directly reduce crime. Firstly, I observe the advantage about giving longer prison sentences. Surely, people may hesitate to commit crime by strict sentences. Even if they would commit crime, they would have to be in prison for long days. In addition, living in prison for a long time may give a time to reflect themselvs for them. However, if crimers would be in the prison for a long time, it might be difficult for them to make them living on themselves because they might not be used to the social reality. It may cause them to commit crime again. In addition to this, I think the poverty and a lot of burdens which people have may cause to commit crime. Because of two reasons, I think that countries have to propose policies which can stimulate economy and relieve their anxieties. Recently, many countries have experienced a recession. It cause the increasing the unemployment rate, so a lot of people suffer from hunger because of the povery. It will be supposed to cause them commit crime such as robbing. Then, people have many burdens because of woriking, raising their children and caring their parens. They have a lot of stress, so even if they could not reduce their stress, they might commit crime to reduce their mental pain. They may want a relax time. I think the latter opinion is more valid than the former by these reasons. These are my opinion about this problem.