Some people think that zoos are cruel and all the zoos should be closed. However, other people think that zoos are useful to protect the rare animals. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. 

Zoos remain the favored locale for people to pay a call for amusement and enlightenment. It is a place where an individual can find a medley of species. A certain group of people opine that zoos can provide a sanctuary for endangered animals and thus should be kept open, while few propound that, animals are not meant to be caged, hence should be preserved in their natural ambience. The upcoming paragraphs will elucidate both the views with relevant examples.

To ring up a curtain, a zoo is a place where animals are deprived of their natural habitat and lifestyles. For example, the area in which the animals are kept is very finite, and their movement is restricted, thereby challenging their required independence. This is quite inhumane on the part of human beings. Hence,

However, zoos prove as an only resort for those who need to learn about sundry species, but have financial constraints, hence cannot travel to safaris or sanctuaries to enlighten themselves. For example, toddlers belonging to lower income strata can get to know the amusing wildlife by visiting national zoos only. 


On the flip side, there are certain species that need a restricted protection to survive. For example, Pandas, who are facing a crucial situation of extinction, caused majorly due to destructive activities by men, such as poaching and stripping of trees. These animals are much safer and healthier in zoos as compared to living in the wild. Moreover, the funds collected from the minuscule amount of currency charged as entry fees to national zoos, can be used to sponsor the research projects for saving endangered fauna. Hence,

To put it crisply, in my perspective, zoos have a vital advantage for both societal learning & preserving endangered species, but the eminence of the wild animals should not be compromised.

Some people think they have the right to use as much freshwater as they want. Others believe governments should tightly control the use of fresh water, as it is a limited resource. Discuss both views and give your option

Water is a colorless, flavorless liquid that is fundamental to the existence of every creature on this planet. Strata of people opine that water should be freely accessible for everyone while some hold a viewpoint that the usage of water should be restricted by government authorities. This essay will substantiate both the viewpoint with relevant examples.

Water is vital for the survival of mankind. However, despite the fact that 71 percent of the planet is engulfed with water, merely 3 percent is usable. Moreover, restricting this much of fresh water can be taken as infringement of human rights. For example, in most of the cities in India, the fresh water supply is made available for only two hours per day. Rationing this limited supply by may prove detrimental for the overall welfare of the citizens.

However, currently there is an alarming situation of deficiency of fresh water, allowing its usage to be freely accessible will worsen the situation. For example, the ground water level is constantly going down, thus making the situation even graver. Hence, saving water has become vital.

On the other hand, the pressure of enlarging population is causing a threat to the current water resources. For example, as the manpower expands, the requirement of water for irrigation and other basic utilities also expand. The consequences can be the shortage of water in the country as a whole. Furthermore, it is the ethical and moral responsibility of the current generation to save a fundamental natural resource like water for the future generations. Hence, government authorities have to restrict the usage of water and make the citizens aware about the disastrous results of paucity of fresh water.

To put it concisely, I would like to pen down by saying that saving fresh for the future generation is the foremost responsibility of the contemporary generation, therefore government should restrict the usage of water but within the humane limits.

Universities should accept equal numbers of male and female study in every subject. Do you agree or disagree?

The educational system in the contemporary era is witnessing a significant shift from the old era, as today a female has complete freedom to choose her subject of interest as a career option.  It is suggested by some that, universities should admit uniform number of each gender under every subject of study. I somehow oppose this idea. The upcoming paragraphs will substantiate my viewpoint with relevant examples.

A university is an institution which educates people and develops them for future challenges. To commence with, if universities prioritize students on the basis of gender, then it may prove detrimental for the talented and skilled students, who will be forced to opt a particular subject irrespective of their Interest or aptitude suitable for the subject. For example, certain courses like engineering and mechanics are more popular among boys, if half of the seats are reserved for boys in nursing course, chances are, many seats will lie vacant. At the same time many skilled female aspirants will fail to get admission.

Furthermore, the reservation on the basis of gender shows an utter disregard for merit based admission. As almost every university in the world already admits both boys and girls. The only difference is, in order to achieve admission in a university each of the gender should secure good grades or required percentage for the subject in question. For example, if a girl want to get admission in engineering, then she has to secure the grades according to the cut off feasible for that subject.

To put it crisply, reserving seats on the basis of gender is unwise.

These days it is very common to have people from two different generations mix in the same workplace. Are there more advantages or disadvantages to this situation? Give your own opinion and include relevant examples.

For any organization to be successful, there is a need to have a blend of experience and creativity. The trend of comprising a coalesced of youth with the experienced lot is gaining popularity. In my perspective, this merge is a wonderful method for adopting a holistic approach towards development and has more pros than cons. The upcoming paragraphs will elaborate the reasons behind why, merits outshine the demerits, of the aforesaid trend.

The major demerit of having a mix of old and young employees is that, it may lead to insecurity in the aged. For example, older employees may feel deprived of respect and importance in the organization with the influx of young graduates, thereby, affecting their morale fiercely.

On the flip side, a combination of two generations at a workplace fosters a learning environment at work, as employers usually opt to hire freshers to work economically, but freshers usually lack the know-how of the organization, in this scenario old employees have a crucial role to play. For example, experienced personnel assist the younger generation in acquiring essential knowledge to execute their task effectively and may pamper them during the initial days in the company. Thereby, creating a supporting ambience within the organization. Furthermore, old generations are experts in their field and have tackled enormous difficulties at work and this expertise can be imbibed by newer generations while taking crucial decisions during work time.  Therefore, guidance from older employees is claimant for the younger employees.

To recapitulate, I would reckon that, a medley of younger generation and older pupil is quite crucial in ensuring efficient growth of any company.


Some people believe that in order for a hobby to be enjoyable, it needs to be difficult in some way. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

A hobby is an activity which allures an individual to take out special time to get oneself indulged in it. Few people opine that, for a hobby to be enjoyable, it has to challenging and demanding. As per the recent research, it has been identified that nowadays people have unique hobbies instead of conventional book reading or gardening. I would like to take a partial approach regarding this viewpoint. The upcoming paragraphs will elucidate my viewpoint with relevant examples.

A hobby is a pastime which helps the individuals to take a break from their monotonous and hectic lives. To commence with, people often indulge in those kinds of activities which are less tiresome and refurbishing. For example, pupil feel reenergized while listening to music, during this time they tend to feel relaxed and less stressed. Hence, most of the people prefer to choose less difficult activity as their leisure pastime.

On the contrary, masses prefer to choose hobbies which are often hard to do and learn to enjoy the outcomes. For example, learning to play chess or billiards involve great efforts, but once an individual becomes an expert in it, the feeling of achievement he or she gets after winning the games, is tremendous. Therefore, instead of a very easy and achievable task, people like to opt for difficult and challenging activities as their hobbies.

To put it concisely, I would reckon that, choosing a hobby is wholly an individual decision, some prefer relaxing activities and others choose to challenge themselves with unachievable tasks in their leisure time. It is wise to leave this decision on the individuals only.

Nowadays, not enough students choose science subjects in university in many countries. What are the reasons for this problem? What are the effects on the society?

It is irrefutable fact too that the number of science is shrinking in the majority of cities in different countries. This trend may have caused due to vivid reasons. The upcoming paragraphs will analyze some explanations for this situation as well as its influence on the society.

There can be two crucial factors that contribute to the popular disinterest in science as a subject. To commence with, science subjects often require a lot of hard work and patience to score average grades, having such patients may prove challenging for many, especially when most of the non science students are indulged in leisure activities. Furthermore, employment opportunities science field has are limited and extremely competitive. For example, after devoting five years in graduation, there is a need to specialize further in some particular science subject to get good and highly paid job. This may discourage many students, and thereby it may refrain the students from choosing science as their preferred subject.

Consequently, the results are manifold of this aforesaid trend, as, if there is no admission in science subject, there will be a scarcity of human resources in science field. For example, if there is no one studying science, there will be a deficiency of expert medical practitioners or surgeons; this could create an imbalance in the society. Moreover, if there is no new practitioners or scientists formed, there will be an adding of pressure on the current practitioners and this is not a very favorable condition for the society.

To recapitulate, I would reckon that, extended hard work and study pressure is making students alienated from science subjects, this trend can create serious imbalances in the contemporary society.

Scroll to Top