Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
People can solve important problems in their daily life by themselves or with the help of their family, so help from the government is not necessary.
There has been a heated debate on whether help from the government is necessary as people can solve important problems on their own or with the help of their family. When it comes to this topic, I reckon that governmental help is of necessity under any condition.
First of all, the government has funds from a wide variety of aspects of life so that it can resolve loads of difficult situations easily. As is well-acknowledged, with the development of society, people are no longer content with the living environment, facilities and so on around them. Once relevant government agencies learn about this need and determine to install infrastructures in many different cities, which may take hundreds of millions of even billions of money, they will make it come true as soon as possible. However, it is something that people cannot solve by themselves or with the help of their family since individuals and corporations don’t have that much money available.
What’s more, the government has macro-control over many social problems that cannot be solved by individuals. There are many areas to invest money in, the most profitable one of which is real estate, especially in big cities like Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen etc., which helps to drive housing price to rise dramatically since the latter half of 2016. People in big cities complain that they cannot afford to have something to eat, let alone afford to buy an apartment, which makes their life much more stressful than before. When people can find no way out, the government enacts some laws and regulations on housing prices and establish restrictions on purchase to make it affordable for numerous people to buy a house of their own, which can’t be realized with individuals’ or families’ efforts.
In fact, I have to admit that many problems in life can be settled by people and their families, like moving house, getting a job, raising a baby etc. and we need each other. However, help from the government is also necessary when we cannot handle what happens and will happen.
From what I have stated above, I believe that governmental help is still necessary even though people can resolve many problems by themselves or with their families’ help.
Some people think that lessons for young children aged 5-8 should include video games as an effective way to enable them to be interested in the lessons, while others think that this way is distracting and wasting time. What is your opinion?
It is not rare to see that modern teaching system includes video games as a practical teaching aid for lower level teaching in tons of primary schools. Although some people would like to see them banned as a source of distraction, I personally would like to suggest schools keep this practice for reasons that their learning effectiveness is going to be leveled up and diverse skills are in a position to be developed through playing video games.
Granted, those who are convinced that video games adopted as a teaching aid are distracting have their own points. They stand on the ground that kids at the age of 5 to 8 are highly absent in self-control and judging ability. This means, unsurprisingly, that they are easily drawn into the games and potentially shift their focus supposed to be on learning to gaming. However, critics of video games underemphasize an important fact that these video games are only used in class time and in homework, the moments when teachers or parents are able to play a supervisory role so that kids are less likely to be addicted and waste their time. Based on reasonable time of using video games as a part of lessons, this practice will for sure exerts a larger amount of conducive influences on children.
The first benefit that children would enjoy must be higher learning efficacy. Different from textbooks which solely contain texts with countable pictures, video games possess fascinating videos that children are more interested in. In this case, children naturally pay more attention to what they have learned from the games and have deeper memory of the contents they learned. Instead of spending much time and energy explaining a boring theory or formula to kids, teachers now are in a position to make children learn by playing. Besides, if children win the games, they feel a sense of accomplishment and probably build up more confidence to do more tasks and learn more things than we expect.
Higher learning effectiveness is not the whole story. Video games are gaining more popularity also because they offer kids opportunity to develop and sharpen their skills, such as hand-eye coordination, problem solving skill and accurate decision making. As an illustration, some video games used in math classes often require kids to finish a calculating task in a given period of time, which for sure demand quick identification of information from the tasks and quick decisions of definite answers. These video games, accordingly, fulfil a function of nurturing kids’ relevant skills that are profound in future study and life.
In sum, I concede that video games are disadvantageous for children if they are not carefully controlled and supervised. However, with careful cooperation between schools and parents, children are more likely to enjoy more far-reaching influences from video games.
In order to adapt to the life in university and succeed, if you are a freshman, which method do you think is better:
a). Attending a one-week orientation or introduction program when you are in the university campus, and it will begin before you have the classes.
b). Meeting regularly at your first year with a student in your major field who has entered the university for several years.
Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer
It is always joyful and delightful for high school graduates to get enrolled in their ideal university after fierce college entrance competition. However, it is not uncommon for these freshmen to encounter some difficulties when they really want to settle down in the school. Therefore, when it comes to the way that can better help students adapt to their university life, two choices have surfaced----attending an orientation program before classes or having regular meetings with senior students who are in the same major within the first year. Though some people may prefer the introduction program, I strongly insist on the latter choice.
First and foremost, communicating with senior students regularly enables freshmen to acclimatize themselves to campus life more easily. Actually, the major reason why students have difficulties in fitting in university life in their first year is that the school is totally unfamiliar to them. In other words, they will be confused about many things in the school, including how to use the dining card in the canteen, which path can help them get to the library within a short time and so forth. Fortunately, students who have already lived in the school for a long time are able to offer freshmen help with regard to these issues. Hence, with these problems tackled, freshmen are more likely to get integrated into their university life at the very beginning. On the other hand, the orientation program may only provide relatively official introduction about the campus life, which is neither detailed nor practical enough to freshmen.
Furthermore, freshmen’s academic performance in university can be enhanced if they have regular meetings with senior students who major in the same field with them. In fact, it is common that university courses are more complex than those in high schools and probing into a specific major deeply is stressful as well. Usually, many senior students are aware of the difficulties in their major and may have already figured out the methods that can help them better understand and digest knowledge. Thus, their experience in the aspect of the major learning can play a crucial role in helping freshmen keep pace with the study progress as beginners. On the contrary, the introduction program in the first week usually offers little information concerning students’ major knowledge because instead of aiming at specific major students, it is designed for all the freshmen in that year.
Admittedly, orientation program is not without its advantages. For instance, freshmen can develop their interpersonal relationship with their peers through attending the program together and will know what the campus is like before starting their study in school. Nonetheless, a week is far from enough for freshmen to interact with others as intimate friends and to have a deep knowledge of campus life because they are even unaware of their problems and difficulties that they may confront. Instead, regular communication with senior students within a year enables freshmen to solve their problems that gradually appear as they advance their study and life in school.
To conclude, I am convinced that meeting senior students in the same major regularly in students’ first year in university can bring more benefits to freshmen in respect of their adaptation to campus life and to major study as well.