Some people think that air travel should grow without government regulations, while others believe that governments regulate them. Discuss both views and give your own opinion..
Go down for the essay…
Government should regulate it… (control it… regulate it…
For air traffic control…
To prevent any mal practices.. and
Over charge the customers..
Grow without any regulations.. autonomous.. governed by their own rules.
they know their business well.. restrictive..
the ticket prices might be less.. if there is no minimum price / barrier.
it may lead to price war and some airlines may suffer losses..
Conclusion: To conclude, I strongly advocate that Airline industries should be given autonomy to operate their business..
Intro… 3 lines..
State the obvious
State your opinion
Undeniably, government regulations may restrict the freedom of airlines. I am of the opinion that in the larger interest of stakeholders, airline industries should not be bound by government-policies. Let us dig deeper to understand the nuances of this complex topic.
Those who support government regulations give many arguments to bolster their views. Firstly, such regulations will restrict (prevent) any malpractices by the operators. Sometimes to earn profits, they resort to such ways which might not be in the best interest of the society. To quote an example, they may comprise with the safety norms of flying. They may also reduce prices for a short time just to attract a lot of customers. This may lead to closure of some operators.
However, there are equally strong arguments to de-regulate airlines. The strongest argument is that it will benefit customers as airlines can offer inexpensive flights. It will also lead to competition where the operators will try to enhance their quality of services and offers. To quote an example, international operators such as Lufthansa provide excellent services because they are not bound by such regulations. Another argument is that Airline-operators are well-versed with their business. Over-regulation by public-bodies sometimes hinders their growth. This may also lead to huge losses to them.
My view is that as far as security is concerned, there should be no-compromise. However, on other aspects such as fixing ticket-rates, airlines should be given a free hand. This will enable them to run their business in a smooth manner.
To conclude, I strongly advocate that Airlines should be free from the clutches of government-regulations.
Every year several languages die out. Some people think that this is not important because life will be easier if there are fewer languages in the world
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Analysis of topic: To what extent do you agree or disagree… in other words.. you can discuss both views.. and support one… Make sure you give a clear final verdict that reflects your opinion
It is good because:1. Fewer languages, easier communication 2. Some languages lose relevance 3. Ease of Business..
It is bad because..1. Cultural diversity 2. Regional nuances 3. Scriptures and old knowledge
I support.. Preserving languages is important from the perspective of preserving diversity of cultures and old-knowledge..
Write conclusion first.. While some languages might not be used in day-to-day, transactions, it still makes eminent sense to save them.
Languages are akin to bridges. Every language old or new; spoken by many, or by a few, has its value, and so it should be preserved. Let us dig deeper to understand the nuances of this subject, with some examples.
Counter argument first:
Will fewer languages make our life easier or convenient? Well, it may ease communication to a certain extent. Businessmen my find it easier to tie with people from diverse cultures, if they communicate using same verbiage. It is also true that, languages have their own life-span. They are similar to living entities, and with passage of time, their vocabulary, rules of grammar etc lose relevance. So, it is natural for some languages to lose currency. It will not be a good idea (pragmatic) to force using a certain language, even if it does not serve the purpose. In other words, fewer languages may have some advantages.
Does this mean, old languages need not be preserved? I beg to differ. Death of a language is the death of an era. It means a fatal blow to associated knowledge. To quote an example, Sanskrit is an old Indian language which is not very popular today, however, old Hindu scriptures such as Bhagwat Geeta and Ramayana were written in this language. Further, books of Aurveda (a branch of medicine) ,were also written in Sanskrit. To preserve this knowledge, it is imperative to preserve Sanskrit.
There are other compelling arguments to preserve old languages. A language is like Oxygen for the culture of an area. To preserve the rich and diverse culture of a region, it becomes necessary to preserve the native language.
To conclude, while some languages might not be used in day-to-day transactions, it still makes eminent sense to preserve them.
Essay Topic: Are online business meetings and training better than offline mode?
Nowadays many business meetings and training are happening online and not in real offices. Do you think advantages outweigh the disadvantages in this matter?
Advantages…. 1. saves time of travelling.. 2. Saves money.. 3. saves energy.. saves paper.. 4. Anywhere anytime… learning… / 5. Pppl from diff areas.. 6. Lodging and boarding..
Disadantages.. 1. Personal touch.. 2. Dependency on computer, internet and electrictiy… 3. Confidential information may get leacked.. 4. Sub such as math etc.. might not be taught easily..5. we can not touch a product or equipment.. so we can not check the quality..
Intro… 3 line…a. state the obvious.. b. state your opinion.. c.. invite for futher discussion….
The advent of computer and internet have made online-learning and realtime-meeting easy and inexpensive. In my perspective this is a welcome change. Let us dig deeper to understand the benefits of this new trend.
In the yester-years organizing meetings or training sessions was an ardous task. Lot of preparation was required in arranging the logistics. First of all, appropriate venue was required. Secondly, expenditure on arranging conference-rooms used to be very high. Futher, people needed to travel to the venue. Many participants used to hate travelling from one city to another, just to attend a session for a few hours. Not just the participants, the same problems were faced by trainers or the conveners of meetings also. In short, organizing and mangaging such sessions was a nightmare.
However, internet and online meeting softwares have changed the whole landscape. More meetings and trainings are conducted online, than face-to-face, these days. To quote an example, I learnt German from a native through online mode. I searched for a good trainer in Delhi, but he was located very far, and he quoted exorbitant (excessive) (very high) fees. Thankfully, I got introduced to a German native, who agreed to teach me at lower-rate. I am enjoying my training, and I am learning really quickly. Similarly, in my office, we conduct meetings with our branches in other coutries, through online-applications. I find it very easy and as effective as fact-to-face mode. Organizing the meeting is quite easy now. In other words, online mode is actually a blessing-in-disguise, as it helps to save time, energy and money.
To conclude, it is obvious that online-meetings and training-sessions socre higher than the offline mode, in todays world.
To conclude, boudaries are no more the barriers in the modern world. Internet has bridged the gaps between geographies. I tend to believe that online mode is a better way to conduct meetings and coachings, than the old modes.
blessing in disguise
ardous task: difficult task
changed the whole landscape
Most people pay taxes to contribute to the development of their country, however, some think they have other responsibilities in addition to paying taxes.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Undeniably, pollution is a grave concern. As far as the question of taxing the industries is concerned, it can be one of the ways to tame this monster. Let us dig deeper to explore the ways to alleviate this global problem.
To begin, taxing the industries can definitely help to a certain extent. Firstly, it will generate necessary funds to upgrade the existing infrastructure. Secondly, these funds can be invested to facilitate research to find advanced ways of pollution-control. Various educational and research institutions can be roped-in to come-up with more effective ways. Thirdly, it is a very fair policy. Industries which cause a lot of pollution, must also shoulder the responsibility to control it in some way.
However, there can be other ways also. Government can stipulate strict roles, for industries to invest in waste-treatment. Such a policy will promote prevention, and thus can be a more effective way to deal with the issue. To quote an example, lots of chemical factories dispose their wastes directly into water bodies – rivers, ponds etc. If these effluents are treated before disposing, it will prevent pollution on the first place. As it is commonly quipped – ‘prevention is better than cure’ – this can be a more effective way.
Further, norms can be laid for setting up industries in areas of less population. Outskirts of the city are more suitable for setting up refineries, and factories. If land is allocated on cheaper rates in the outskirts, it will incentivize industrialists to set-shop there, rather than in the heart of the city.
In essence, it takes more than simply taxing the industries to control industrial-pollution.
Understanding the topic
The topic specifically talks about industrial pollution. So it is advisable to focus on that only.. not pollution in general.
Further, it talks about controlling it through levying taxes. So we need to weave our arguments around this subject – can paying taxes alone help? Is it the only way or one of the ways? What can be other alternatives.
Undeniably: To state something which is obvious / a universal role / or a general trend
Undeniably, parents and teachers both need to work hand in hand to raise children.
Undeniably, knowledge of computers is indispensable for getting good job-offers.
a grave concern : a serious issue / something that requires
Problem of obesity is a grave concern.
Lack of infrastructure is a serious issue.
Tame the monster: deal with the problem
Education is indispensable, to tame the monster of unemployment.
Physical exercise is indispensable to tame the monster of obesity.
Alleviate this global problem
Good governance is necessary to alleviate the problem of bribery.
Back by / support / support financially
The government is backed by many industrialists.
Our college is backed by government.
Good schools are necessary to facilitate quality education.
Timely helped from my brother facilitated me to expand my business.
Can be roped-in : can be called / can be included
Many industrialists can be roped-in to invest in government schemes.
Many NGOs can be roped in to educate masses.
Retired doctors can be roped in to treat poor patients.
Come-up-with / introduce / bring forth something new
Government has come-up-with many schemes to help farmers.
My manager used to come up with innovative solutions to many elusive problems.
Shoulder the responsibility
Youngsters should shoulder the responsibility of supporting their old parents.