Human activities are having a negative impact on many aspects of the

environment. This essay will outline how humans destroy their natural
surroundings as well as the possible solutions that governments and
individuals can adopt to solve green issues.

There are many activities done by humans which deteriorate the

environment, the most important of which are related to poaching and
plastic waste. As for the former, many illegal hunters kill animals for their
fur and bones, which significantly reduces the number of individuals in a
species. This can push endangered species to the brink of extinction and
pose a threat to the balance of the ecosystem. In addition, due to a lack of
awareness of protecting submarine life, many people discard plastic waste
into rivers. This contaminates water sources and destroys the habitat of
many aquatic creatures.

To combat these issues, various measures can be taken by both

governments and their citizens. In fact, governments should impose heavy
punishments on poachers to deter them from hunting animals illegally.
This can be a way to prevent animal extinction in many species. In
addition, individuals should raise their own awareness about
environmental issues and encourage them to recycle more. This can help
reduce the amount of waste in rivers.

In conclusion, while humans have destroyed the environment in many

ways, I believe the negative impacts that humans exert can be
ameliorated by several actions taken by both governments and
individuals.

____________________________________________________________

It is widely argued that the level of natural resource consumption is

increasing more and more around the world. This essay attempts to shed
light on the detrimental impacts of this negative tendency before outlining
several viable solutions that should be adopted to tackle it.

There are two major problems stemming from the overexploitation of

natural resources in this day and age. First and foremost, this negative
trend could negatively affect people's health. To simplify, transportation
on the roads releases enormous amounts of greenhouse gases into our
daily lives, which contributes to air pollution in the surrounding areas.
Consequently, people are more likely to suffer from common ailments,
namely respiratory infections or illnesses. Secondly, the massive waste
from human activities could bring about serious problems for water
sources throughout the globe. Taking a prime example, the disposal of
waste in Japanese industries results in the blanket of dead fish on the
riverbank for over 2 months. This is to say, the contamination of the water
acts as a precursor to a decline in marine diversity as well as the residents
nearby.

To combat this worrying issue, it is crucial to take the following feasible

steps: The first measure is that the official state should impose some strict
laws to encourage citizens to use public transport on the roads. This trend
could mitigate the number of cars driving as well as improve the air
quality in some cities. Another remedy is that the official state should
research and introduce carbon-free energy sources, namely wind and
solar energy. In other words, eco-friendly power sources have an
extremely low carbon footprint released into the atmosphere, thereby
having a minimal impact on the environment. As a result, this positive
trend could ensure sustainable development of the Earth’s resources in
the years to come.

In conclusion, there are a host of serious repercussions attributable to the

overuse of global resources, and it is of paramount importance that
several solutions be universally implemented to help mitigate these issues

The right to access university education is a contentious issue, with some

believing that the government should make it free for all students. Despite
the supporting argument, I am inclined to disagree with this opinion, as
this course of action has negative implications.

It is understandable that some people support free university education.

The primary reason is that students would be provided with equal
opportunities, with those from lower-income households being less
disadvantaged in particular. Students who are normally burdened by
tuition fees would be relieved of their predicament, allowing them to fully
devote themselves to the pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore, such a
policy can be the precursor to a highly-educated population. Thanks to
universalized tertiary education, more people can become academic
experts, enhancing the level of discourse in society. It would, therefore,
seem that making university education free of charge is a worthwhile
goal.
This policy, however, is far from ideal. There would be a new financial
burden on the public, since universities require additional funding to teach
expanding student cohorts that inevitably result. Taxpayers would be
disaffected if their hard-earned money is used to support groups of people
whose material contribution to society is deemed nebulous. Another point
less talked about is the reduced academic freedom in higher education.
Universities which submit to this government policy to receive funding
would be significantly influenced by what the bureaucrats decide they
could teach. The consequences of this are less manifest in the short term,
but eventually, a large part of society will have matured thinking the same
way, reducing the diversity of opinion. Based on these points, it could be
argued that tertiary education wholly funded by the public is more
disadvantageous than it is beneficial.

In conclusion, I believe university education should not be free for all. As

well-meaning as this course of action may sound, it would be an inefficient
use of resources and not without pitfalls. There can be other measures to
improve the level of knowledge among the populace while still leaving the
government unburdened.

Upon completing high school, teenagers face the decision of whether to

pursue higher education and obtain a Bachelor’s Degree or to enter the
workforce immediately. Although there are notable advantages to securing
a job right after high school, I argue that attending college or university is
a more beneficial choice for teenagers.

Entering the workforce immediately after high school can be appealing for
several reasons. One reason is that teenagers can become more
independent by earning their own income, allowing them to establish a
stable life, start a family, or travel. Additionally, starting work early
provides opportunities for career advancement, as they can broaden their
perspectives, acquire real-world experience, and develop practical skills in
their chosen profession, leading to career success. For example, a high
school graduate may become an apprentice chef, earning income and
gaining financial independence. Entering the workforce early allows them
to climb the career ladder sooner and acquire hands-on experience and
practical skills.

However, I maintain that continuing education to obtain a Bachelor’s

Degree offers even greater benefits than pursuing a career right after high
school. First, without formal qualifications from a college or university,
young people may face increased competition when seeking their desired
job. Second, many professions require specific academic qualifications for
entry, such as doctor or lawyer positions. In other words, numerous roles
within a company necessitate relevant qualifications for consideration.
Consequently, while the absence of academic credentials may hinder a
young person’s career trajectory, university graduates have access to a
wider range of high-quality job opportunities and higher salaries.

In conclusion, due to the reasons stated above, I believe that students are
more likely to enjoy a successful career in the long run if they possess a
college or university degree, thus, they should pursue this path upon
graduating high school.

In today’s fast-paced world, people are encouraged to take risks, whether

in their professional or personal lives, as it is often seen as a way to
achieve success and growth. While there are certainly benefits to taking
risks, there are also drawbacks that should be taken into account. In my
opinion, however, taking risks and facing challenges bring more benefits
that outweigh the potential demerits.

One of the main advantages of taking risks is the potential for personal
growth and development. When individuals push themselves out of their
comfort zones, they can learn new skills, gain confidence, and become
more resilient. For example, an entrepreneur who takes a risk by starting
their own business may develop invaluable skills in leadership,
communication, and decision-making. Similarly, someone who takes a risk
by travelling to a new and unfamiliar place may develop a broader
worldview and greater cultural understanding.

On the other hand, taking risks also carries significant disadvantages,

such as the possibility of failure and the associated consequences. This
can range from financial loss to reputational damage, which can have
long-lasting effects on an individual’s professional and personal life. For
instance, a business owner who takes a risk by investing all their savings
in a new venture may lose everything if the venture fails. Similarly, an
individual who takes a risk by quitting their job to pursue their passion
may face financial hardship and uncertainty.

Despite the potential disadvantages, I believe that the benefits of taking

risks outweigh the drawbacks. Without taking risks, people may become
complacent, stagnant, and unable to reach their full potential.
Furthermore, while failure may be a possible outcome of taking risks, it
also provides valuable lessons and opportunities for growth and learning.
In conclusion, while taking risks can be both advantageous and
disadvantageous, I believe that the advantages outweigh the
disadvantages. By taking calculated risks, individuals can develop new
skills, gain confidence, and achieve success and growth in their personal
and professional lives.

Some contend that taking a risk has more advantages than disadvantages
for both individuals and professions. Although it sacrifices security and
predictability, I am certain that choosing hazardous alternatives has
benefits that outweigh the drawbacks since it opens up new chances.

Risk-taking may have a negative impact on your finances as well as your

physical health, whether it be through unforeseen injuries, car accidents,
or spending money on exciting travel destinations. Even if you want to
take risks in business, there are times when doing too many risky things
might end up costing you too much money to keep going. If your
carelessness results in an accident that injures you or another else, you
may be held liable for any damages. This will not only deplete your
current budget but also increase the cost of your car insurance in the
future. Unjustified risk-taking may have additional negative effects on
your money. Some people take a risk by deciding not to budget or live
within their means. Impulsive spending and extravagant purchases could
at first seem adventurous and daring, but they will gradually undermine
one’s riches and self-respect over time.

But going with the tried-and-true method is the most boring option. When
you travel, staying with the herd will enable you to see the traditional,
well-travelled locations. If you adopt other people’s business or dating
approaches, you’ll develop a regular clientele. However, taking risks
forces you to step outside of your comfort zone and use your imagination.
When you take a chance, you have to come up with novel ideas and
capture novel opportunities. By putting yourself in uncommon situations,
taking chances enables you to develop unanticipated relationships. For
instance, you typically are ignorant of how good two unrelated things may
be unless you can combine them.

In conclusion, I still think that grabbing chances is far more productive and
profitable in the long run, even though adopting a risk-taking attitude
could have detrimental impacts on one’s health

Band 7

Avoiding preventable illness is the responsibility of individuals and their

families, not governments. Do you agree?
Many argued that avoiding a preventable illness is the duty of each
individual or their family. But is that just enough to do? I cannot agree with
this opinion and I have the opinion the one that should do that is the
governments. Since the governments have an obligation, duty, and have
control over the best way how to avoid them. Avoiding preventable ill-
health is one of the concerns of Public health. Public health itself is “the
science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life and promoting
health through the organized efforts and informed choices of society,
organizations, public and private, communities and individuals” (Winslow,
1920). Then, I believe that the government is the main actor to avoid
preventable illness.

The first reason is why, since the authority has regulations on human
rights, especially in health. As we know that all humans have human
rights, and those human rights become the politics’ obligation to protect
it. So, to solve that, the regime made Health policy. The United Nations`
World Health Organization (WHO) defines health policy refers to choices,
strategy, and activities that are embraced to achieve specific health care
goals in a society. For reaching that goal the authority in control of setting
and enforcing standards to avoid preventable ill health in public. To meet
the standards, the ministry must ensure that the environment occupied by
the residents is safe and healthy. As, for example, the availability of clean
water, nutritious food, sanitation such as sewers, and waste processing,
etc. If the occupied environment is not worthy to be occupied, the
community effort to living healthier, and prevention of the disease will not
be optimal or can’t run well.

Secondly, a lack of concern for public health education from the state can
build a huge impact on the health quality in a country. It can be proved
that a country whose government educates about health from child or
elementary school has a healthy level is higher than the country that
cares not about health education. Therefore, the lifestyle was different
from the lifestyle that is already a habit. Then the great habit will give
impact by increasing public awareness of health. The government should
be always persuaded the public to live healthily. Not only when there is a
case arise, for example, a pandemic, then governments just to take action
encourages healthy living. Culture shock will be happening, people are
inflexible to follow instructions from the government because it’s not part
of the habit. The areas of public health responsibility include guaranteeing
a satisfactory health infrastructure, advancing healthy communities, and
healthy behaviours, protecting against environmental health hazards.
In the end, I will conclude that avoiding preventable illness, it’s
government duty, not for individuals or their families. Governments
actually have full responsibility and concern about preventable ill health
and healthy life.