There are many different types of music in the world today. Why do we need music? Is the traditional music of a country more important than the International music that is heard everywhere nowadays?
In our days, the number of different kinds of music on the upsurge. And, here the question is calmed – “What is more worth-while, International or traditional music”. The straight answer further in this essay.
The key role of music, of course, entertain people, create them occasion to relax, to release tensions. For example, the person, who has lost his loved one and in depression, can console himself by listening to music, the music about love, about loss of nearest person. Moreover, music can also motivate people to do something that is, in first glance, impossible. For instance, if person listens to live music that stimulates him to act, to move, he can do something he never tried or thought he could not do it and was afraid doing it. With the help of music, with motivation he will try and will do it, maybe not, but the point is that he tried, not was frightened. From this it is clear that we all need music in our life cause of the help it gives us.
It can be argued, forever, what is more important traditional or international music. It would be better if look on equally in importance. Traditional music is a means of preserving one’s traditions, customs and culture. The latter is for socializing, getting near, making connections, having something in common. It helps people from two different places communicate, talk about one certain theme as they listen to songs of one certain type or the very song. So that, it cannot be decided which one is more important as both these represent unique advantages that benefit many.
To conclude, I would say that we certainly need music as it is utilized for relaxing, forgetting about problems or inciting people to do something. Traditional or international music, they both have identical importance for humankind, for the world. It would be better not to consider the importance of them, but rather, the benefits that they can give.
327 words
Some governments say how many a family can have in their country. They control the number of children someone has through taxes. It is sometimes necessary and right for a government to control the population in this way.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
The population of the world has been increasing since the dawn of time. Throughout the history, families had children how many they wanted. It is argued that government need to control the number of child in a family. This opinion will be proven by looking at how this control can help to prevent overpopulation as well as maintain the level of consumption of foods in a family.
For one, controlling how many children a family can have, the government will obstruct the overpopulation. For example, in China there are some laws that prohibit families to have more than one baby. Having only one baby will prevent people from outnumbering and I believe that this law helps people to obviate overpopulation. As my example shows, government’s control has a positive effect on a country.
In addition to this, as families have certain number of children, the government permits, it will decrease would-be consumption of would-be children. An instance illustrating this in action is Hindu people, having more than 1 billion people, have a shortage of supplying the needs of a country. By forcing families to have controlled number of baby, of course in a legal way, the governments maintain the amount of necessities they have to supply population of a country.
Following this look at how legislation, about the number of children that family is allowed to have, can prevent overpopulation of one certain nation and the increase in the amount of consumption of family, it has been proven that government’s laws are necessary and it is right for a government to put average number of children for one family. It is predicted that there will be no need for such rules after finding a new place to live in outer space.
291 words
Should governments be responsible for providing pure drinking water of all or should the people obtain their own water?
Water is one of the few things in the world which needed for human to survive. But the level of softness of it can affect to people in various extent e.g. dirty water can harm, pure water can heal. To the question whether pure water should be provided by government or not, the answer, brought out, is no, with some exceptions such as desert and under disaster areas.
Generally, modern society has developed far enough not to consider thirst as a threat. There are hundreds of water bottles in shelves of stores everywhere which are sold in cheap prices. And, tap water is clean enough to utilize it to cooking or just drink. Water is one of the cheapest of all home utilities in many countries and almost everywhere available. Therefore, governments are not responsible for supplying people with pure water.
However, though in many countries there is no need for help from government, in areas which under war or some kind of disaster there is great demand for aid. For example, Africa, the country which is full of different kinds of viruses and disasters, should be provided with soft water by government. As there is no clean water supplies , the government is responsible for creating source of water. That is why, it can be given responsibility to governments to supply people with pure water.
In conclusion, the government is not responsible for availability of drinkable water in most cases, with exception places which under disaster or war. It will be useful if government create chances to provide themselves with water by diminishing the amount and the level of disasters in that area.
273 words
Do you think is it wrong for people to drink and then drive. Do you think they should be punished.
It is sad but fact that the number of road accidents is in upsurge line. One of the reasons of this phenomenon is drunk driving. That is definitely wrong and not just should but must be punished.
First of all, it is wrong because it can end up with death. Drunk people, when they driving have no clear mind and they are unable to notice if any living being is crossing road and can bump him. Causing a death or, in lucky case, some injuries they bring anxieties both themselves and the others and, of course, this occurrence cause damages, both physically and morally. Thus the guilty should be punished in order to prevent next would-be accidents.
Furthermore, behind causing the death or serious damage to the person, it will yield fiscal problems to family of that person. For example, if he dies in this crash, his family lose one source of monetary income or if he is in hospital, it requires an investment to his recovery. As a result, it will cost them a lot, causing to his family financial burden. Therefore, drunk drivers should be punished by fining them to compensate the hurt person’s family.
In conclusion, it would be said that driving after drinking is completely wrong as it cause many afterwards problems. And punishment should be put towards drunk drivers. To increase the effectiveness of these punishments, the government should be stricter and taxing large amounts of money or mandatory jail sentences to those who reoffend.
251 words