Intelligence is the most important quality of a leader. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people believe that economic growth is the only way to end world poverty and hunger. Others argue that economic growth is damaging the environment and should be slowed down.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

It is widely believed that social issues like poverty and hunger can be tackled with economic growth, while some argue that countries should slowly develop their economies as this has negative effects on the surrounding environment. I believe that both points of view are arguably significant factors to consider; however, without a prosperous economy, it would be extremely challenging for countries to address social issues, such as impoverishment and hunger as well as environmental problems.

Some people advocate for the idea that economic growth of a country is important to deal with growing issues of poverty and hunger. While others may claim that this approach is utopian and thus ineffective, it is crucial to factor in the fact that 85% of the world population live on less than $30 per day. However, the remaining segment of the population has higher earnings, thereby leading a better lifestyle, which is not because of their income levels, but living locations. For example, a person residing in an economically robust country has a better chance of being above the poverty line, compared to those who live in developing nations. Thus, a strong economic climate is essential to reduce global poverty and hunger substantially.

Conversely, the damage economic growth has on the environment should not be overlooked. In reality, the more prosperous the economy of a nation is, the more exacerbated environmental issues become, meaning this development should be slowed down to minimize the repercussions. A growing economy usually translates into higher levels of pollution, increased consumerism, and more consumption of non-renewable energy sources, necessitating proper measures to remedy the situation. If countries temporarily halt the growth of their economies for some time, responsible organizations would have a sufficient amount of time to offset the negative impacts to protect the environment.

Even though a slowdown in economic development is a good strategy, it is tenuous at best taking into account its effectiveness in the long run. In my view, governments should continue further enhancing their economic state since it is important for reducing hunger and poverty levels. Besides this, particularly developed countries can take control over environmental problems if only they have significant resource allocation. For instance, since 1980, the UK and the US have reduced CO2 emissions through cleaner technologies. Were it not for the advances in their economies, environmental challenges would have become too difficult to overcome even for the most developed nations, making economic improvement an indispensable part of a solution to combat issues above.

In conclusion, while economic growth can harm the environment, it is crucial for reducing poverty and hunger. Therefore, instead of slowing development, governing bodies should balance growth with sustainability, using resources to deal with social and environmental challenges effectively.

The line chart shows information on the percentage of computer ownership across households in one country in Europe from 1997 to 2011.

Overall, the proportion of households owning only one computer remained dominant throughout the entire period. While the ownership of two and three or more computers saw an upward trend, with the former gaining more popularity, households without one had a steady decline within the same timeframe.

Examining the details more closely, it is seen that the proportion of households possessing a computer stood at just below 45% in 1997, which then experienced a slight rise before culminating exactly at 45% by 2011. When it comes to those with no computers, the figure accounted for around 48% at the beginning. Over the following years, it steadily declined and reached approximately 23%, marking the most significant decline in the dataset.

As for the remaining categories, such as households with two and three or more computers, it can be observed that they followed an upward trajectory. During the first three years, starting from 1997, there was no ownership of the latter, while the former’s percentage went from 7% to 10% by 2000. After this point, the proportion of three or more computers began to rise, reaching only about 8% in 2011, whereas the figure for those with two computers witnessed the most substantial rise to well under a third at the end of the period.

the power of collocations on spot. if you are not learning them daily, you are on a wrong freaking path. this shows your language range and flexibility✅