Many people think that every individual is responsible for their happiness, but some people believe there are other external factors that influence us. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some argue that being happy depends on each person, while others say that happiness is affected by our surroundings. Although the environment plays an active role in how we feel, I personally believe that our internal factors bring feelings of happiness.

On the one hand, it is undoubtful that we are influenced by the external factors such as society, financial state, and work. Everyone needs friends and family to be sufficient in social contact. In addition, people need to have enough money to meet their needs and achieve their goals. For example, the Happiness Research Institute's survey has depicted that people would like to earn more money to feel joy. Although material resources and the surroundings might affect our mood, I believe that happiness is within our mind.

On the other hand, some believe that people can be happy or unhappy due to their personalities. There are many cases of rich and healthy people who are unhappy and are not satisfied with their lives. Therefore, our outlook on life and how we are resilient to negative situations and failures build our attitude to happiness. To illustrate, Kuntal has been living in India in poor circumstances and despite his very low income, he enjoys life. Also, he treasures his family and values, the little time which is spent with them. Therefore, I think a positive mindset is a key factor to happiness.

In conclusion, while external factors such as money and society might influence our feelings, this essay finds that happiness is the result of how you think about the world and your place in it.

by Gulmira Kinzhekeyeva

 

Some people feel that courses can make anyone a teacher, while others feel an excellent teacher cannot be made by pursuing a course. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some argue that joining a course can be an efficient way to be a professional educator, while others believe it is not a solution of becoming an admirable teacher. In my opinion, although tutors can gain upgrade knowledge about teaching, there are some qualities which cannot be taught and pedagogues ought to possess.

On the one hand, taking courses of teaching are required in some educational centers as people usually learn about various teaching methods there. Tutors will be able to understand abilities, interests of each student and use the relevant techniques for every individual after passing teaching conferences, since they receive awareness of children’s psychology. Educators from my school, who passed special training program of teaching, can be relevant example here as their lessons became more productive. However, despite the benefit of taking courses, teacher should have particular personality traits, which cannot be acquired via training programs.

On the other hand, having inclination to teach is the main reason for tutor within the walls of school. They should be able to handle with a great number of truculent students and have tolerance to educate them. In addition, enthusiasm and diligence must be presented in teachers’ character with the aim of making their lessons more amusing and exciting for students to participate in classroom. For instance, Peter Tabichi was awarded as “Best teacher in the world in 2019” for his hard-work and passionate belief; despite the fact that he works in poorly-resourced school in remote rural Kenya, where teaching courses are not available at all. Due to this reason, I find having appropriate qualities is more significant while instilling knowledge in students.

In conclusion, in spite of the effectiveness of special courses for teachers, I believe that particular character traits of teacher play more important role to be a good educator.

by Saltanat

 

Some people think that music plays an important role in society. Others think it is simply a form of entertainment. Discuss both sides and give your opinion.

For many people music is just a source of joy and relaxation, while others define the meaning of music for our lives as essential and irreplaceable. Although some people think this type of art is an entertainment, I believe that music has a vast value and its facility to unite humanity has not been fully discovered yet.

On the one hand, music accompanies people during leisure time and help to change focus and relax after daily routine. On the free time, human beings prefer activities that will not be overwhelming and tough, therefore music is the kind of a pleasure that does not require specific preparations or a hard work and brings joy wherever it is applied. For example, pieces of music are represented in films, on the CD’s of different genres for various tastes and in theatres. However, I believe that music itself plays enormous role in our lives because it has infinite ways of implementation.

On the other hand, music does not have a nationality and its language is understandable and clear for everybody. People from far parts of the world would feel the same way when the music starts to play because of the emotions they get from it. To illustrate, Tomorrow land is one of the biggest events ever held on the Earth and citizens of the world’s countries come to the festival every year to enjoy modern music, no matter what language they speak and what origin they have. Therefore, I believe that music has an incredible power to bring people together.

To conclude, although music seems nothing but entertainment from the first sight, this essay finds that this art has been influencing on people to lift them up and gather regardless of obstacles.

by Olga Kotenko

 

Some people say that historical buildings should be knocked down, while others believe that they should be preserved and restored instead. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

It is argued that historical buildings should be demolished, while others feel that these buildings should be renovated. I believe that while old buildings could ruin city’s appearance, their value as historical monuments is more important.

Nowadays the majority of big metropolitan cities are built-up with skyscrapers and other contemporary buildings. Old houses, museums and stadiums do not fit in this environment made of glass and metal, so many people see these buildings as an eyesore. For example, recently government of Belgium started a demolishing program and has already knocked down more than a hundred old buildings in the capital. Despite this, I would argue that some constructions have a special meaning to the country’s history and therefore should be restored.

Every old building represents progress and historical path of the city. Some people even say that these buildings are the town’s soul, because they show how the city has been developing, while modern skyscrapers are the same in every country and do not somehow differentiate it. It is clearly shown in the USA, where government does not pull down historical buildings, but instead makes them into museums for tourists. I, therefore, believe that preserving and renovating old constructions are  more important than knocking them down for a city’s appearance.

In conclusion, while demolishing old buildings could make a city to look more contemporary, I think that they should be kept and restored for their historical meaning instead, which is far more valuable for the country.

by Zhanel Dorzhigulova

 

Some people say that historical buildings should be knocked down, while others believe that they should be preserved and restored instead. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

It is common to encounter ancient buildings in the middle of almost every city. Some would argue that those buildings should be demolished to allow construction of modern buildings, I believe that those buildings should be taken care of as an example of historical legacy.

On the one hand, it is undobtful that city territory sometimes can be used more effectively if we demolish old buildings and give way for new ones, more spacious, multi-functional and convenient. Some people believe it can boost cities’ economy, allowing more business to be hosted in cities, instead of outskirts. For example, 20 years ago Perm city council has demolished a local city market in the center and has built a modern citymall, which immediatelly gave room for hundreds of small business to operate. However, I believe this example is an exception because local market did not have any cultural significance and could not host many businesses at the same time.

On the other hand, many people are fascinated by an older architecture, stating that historic buildings should be preserved, moreover, even restored and put under protection. Taking care about a legacy helps growing up a generation, aware of cultural differences and having a well-developed taste for culture, which in turn produces healthier society. For example, Perm has a lot of 19th centuty buildings, which are being maintained and they make up a face of a city, make it recognizable. Young generation is proud to have those buildings around as a part of a history. I believe we should treat our history with due respect by preserving the legacy.

In conclusion, while replacing old buildings with modern ones might boost cities’ economy to some extent, I believe the overal cultural effect of protecting historical buildings is more significant.

by Dmitrii Lobanov

 

These days many families move to other countries for work. Some people believe that the children in these families benefit from this move. However, others believe that it makes life more difficult for the children. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Some argue that a nomadic lifestyle is profitable for children while others find that it is challenging to live this way. Although changing habitual place might be beneficial to learn something new, I believe that some youth might face stressful situations and it can be tough to adjust to a new environment.

On the one hand, many people strive to find lucrative job in other countries and think that change brings benefit for their children’s life. They feel like children can acquire new knowledge such as learning a new culture, language and traditions of other nations, which would be advantageous. A good example is Lisa Yakovleva, whose family moved to China in her childhood. Consequently, this event affected her to become successful television host after learning Chinese language. However, such examples are quite rare and in most cases youngsters do not achieve great success out of their native area.

On the other hand, changing a spot can lead children to depression since adapting to a new environment can be problematic. Moving usually cause some uncertainty, and children need to get used to unfamiliar situations because everything will be new for them in a new country; therefore, children can fall into stress. For instance, if a child cannot speak the local language while being abroad, probably one will become insecure and tend to avoid society. That is the reason why I find it is not good for children when families shift from local area.

To conclude, although moving to another country might be salutary to explore a new culture and learn a new language, it makes life more challenging for youngsters because there can be problems while adapting to a new environment which may lead to unpleasant results.

by Saltanat

 

Some people believe that elderly employees are more useful to a company, while others believe that young employees are better. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Over the span of many years, when it comes to human resources, there always has been a choice between aged employees due to their experience, and young employees because of their ability to learn faster. While faster learning is a crucial skill in a modern world, I still believe that nothing can beat the experience.

On the one hand, it is undoubtful that young people are a great help to any company in a fast-changing world. Younger brains just operate faster, processing new information at rates elderly brains cannot sustain, helping companies adopt new technologies and win competition race. For example, we have seen how Microsoft has increased its revenue when Satia Nadella had replaced Steve Ballmer as Microsoft’s CEO. However, such examples are quite rare and in most cases younger people do not take over companies due to their inexperience.

On the other hand, it is hard to undervalue the benefits experienced employees provide. The most common argument for that point of view is that it is experience that matters. Technologies are being changed all the time, while common patterns, practices and mistakes remain the same. Age means experience, and experience means that the one does not make the same mistake twice, increasing the overal performance and quality. For example, at my job as a teamlead it is a common practise for me to review code by junior developers and point at mistakes, which I find a lot, usually. Therefore, experienced employee should be most valuable asset for any company.

In conclusion, while younger employees are full of energy and eager to learn, it is the experienced and aged colleagues who can guide them through the learning curve and avoid many mistakes. Therefore, it is recommended that companies retain and value their experienced employees over the younger ones.

by Dmitrii Lobanov

 

These days many families move to other countries for work. Some people believe that the children in these families benefit from this move. However, others believe that it makes life more difficult for the children.

Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Some argue that leaving a country for work might be beneficial to their children, while others consider this as disadvantageous concern because children can face with obstacles which may turn their life in an inappropriate way. Although moving to another country seems intimidating for youngsters, I believe that when young generation challenge or deal with new places, and people, they get more opportunities to expand their knowledge and gain more social skills.

On the one hand, every parent wants to protect their child from negative impression of migrating to other countries for a living.  To change intimate place to unfamiliar is often taken into consideration as something uncommon and sometimes dangerous. Many adults expect that their children might confront difficulties in communication with new citizens while accustoming to new district and culture. For example, according to Nazarbayev University survey, 70% of expatriates cope with the trouble of acclimatization and cultural shock. Sometimes locals do not support policy of emigration; as a result, they reluctantly get into conversation with newcomers. However, I think that these issues are mainly temporary and each person might gain more benefit rather than getting disappointed.

On the other hand, some believe that changing work place by moving to different country open new horizons and give more opportunity to their children in order to improve education level and get more socialized. Young generation might enhance their ability to learn and communicate with other people more often because they usually can easily overcome with any issues. For instance, a recent study done by Satpayev University shows that 74% of successful students effortlessly achieve their goals by being flexible to any environment. It is possible to distinguish such leaders of Green movement as Benny Robben, Marry Jay who have reached best results in all spheres of life. Therefore, I believe that children will only benefit from new environment.

In conclusion, although some people are afraid of taking risks that their children can face with many difficulties when parents move to other country for a better life, this essay finds that changing the place can elevate education level of the youth and expand their horizons.

by Bauyrzhan Kaliev

 

Some people encourage young children to leave their parents house as soon as they become adults while other say children should stay at their parents house as long as possible. Discuss both the views and give your opinion.

Some believe that young adults are better to stay with their family, while others argue that they should leave parental supervision as soon as possible. While some parents find it reckless to let their offspring to live on their own, I personally believe that the benefits of independent life far outweigh its drawbacks.

On the one hand, some people hold the opinion that the youngsters are more protected when they are in their parents’ house. In other words, teens can be easily influenced by strangers, if they are on their own. The latest study by the International Children’s Emergency fund have shown that young adults who live separately from their family have higher percentage of bad habits like smoking or eating junk food  in comparison with their peers staying under parental supervision. However, I believe that adequate preparation and conversation with the child long before one’s decision to live separately could help one to become a self-reliant, reasonable person and not to fall under someone else’s bad influence.

On the other hand, moving from father and mother at an early age might be beneficial in many ways. Youngsters would acquire a lot of necessary life skills which they would not get, if they were living  with their family, such as paying the bills, doing laundry, ironing or sorting the garbage. Moreover, living without parental control helps to recognize that the only person responsible for their success and well-being is they. For instance, according to the survey of Kazakhstan Ministry of Education, people who moved from their parents' house at an age from 15 to 18, are more self-disciplined and thereby have higher chances to enter the university and build a successful career in the future. Therefore, I think that young people can have a lot of benefits by living without family’s supervision because it nurtures their confidence and self-reliance.

In conclusion, some parents may doubt their children’s ability to live on one’s own; however, this essay finds that young people should leave the family nest and live alone because it fosters their character.

by Alma

 

Some people think getting old is entirely bad, but other people do think it is much better for old people to live now than in the past. Please show your idea with explanation, examples and your knowledge.

Although some individuals share the point of view that getting up in years is bad, I believe that older people are now able to live better than in the past because of improved healthcare.

One of the primary reasons some people view aging as entirely negative is the undoubtable physical decline that comes with it. As individuals grow older, they often experience a decrease in strength and overall health. Chronic illnesses like heart disease become more prevalent in older ages, reducing the quality of life and increasing dependency on medical care. For instance, a young person’s ability to engage in activities they enjoy, like playing sports, may be limited in older ages due to physical limitations.

However, I reckon that senior can live better than in the past, because compared to the past there is a remarkable progress in healthcare and increased longevity. In other words, advances in medicine, technology, and treatments have significantly extended the average lifespan, improving the quality of life for seniors. Medical interventions, such as vaccines, help them mitigate the impact of diseases that were once considered fatal. For example, diseases like smallpox and black death, which posed significant threats to older individuals in the past, have been largely eradicated through vaccination efforts. The availability of modern medical care enables seniors to manage chronic conditions effectively.

In conclusion, while some argue that getting old is wholly negative, I suggest that now because of progress in medicinal science and technology made seniors’ lives better compared to the past.

by Zulharnai Kenesary

 

Some people believe that to be successful at a sport you need a natural ability and others think that hard work and practice can make you successful. Discuss both views and give your opinion?

While some people think that to have great results in sports one should have inborn talent, I believe that only your dedication and hard work can lead to success.

On the one hand, many talented celebrities showed impressive results at the beginning of their careers, without much practice. They had an advantage over others, and most of them might have learned basic skills to play faster than others. For example, Leonardo Messi, one of the best football players, said in an interview that before joining the team, he already knew how to control the ball easily at a young age and that his peers could not beat him in any matches. However, even gifted people can lose their skills if they do not train enough.

On the other hand, only hard work can provide athletes with the specific patterns of what to do in any situation that give them a better chance to beat their opponents. Such people sacrificed time and health to make their dreams come true, so they know the cost of popularity. Studies show that without practicing, athletes might not use their abilities effectively due to a lack of practice. Therefore, I think that having natural ability could only help only at the start of the path to triumph; nevertheless, practice refines everything one has already learned.

In conclusion, although some people argue that one can achieve glory solely with inborn ability , this essay argues that an athlete’s efforts provide confidence in their future and increase their chances of victory.

Adina (from Astana)