Fewer young people read books nowadays.

What are the causes of this?
What are the effects?

There is an issue prevalent in many countries—a decreasing number of the young reading books. This is largely attributable to modern reading habits and shifts in values, with potential ramifications ranging from an illiterate generation to the disappearance of reading hubs, so-called reading clubs.

Of the major reasons behind the falling number of young readers, current reading trends are the most common. Unfortunately, young readers are now more attracted to e-books, online blogs and articles and, as a result, conventional books are falling out of favor—even more so in countries, such as Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, that have just seen their reading culture transform. Such changes are thus a byproduct of modern life, however sad it seems. The other reason, newly-adopted values, is no less important; because school and university students have to be digitally literate, they are compelled to be exposed to computer technology—so they can secure a well-paid job or achieve great academic heights, for example. Had they been given a choice to remain with job requirements of the past, which did not encompass computer literacy, reading textbooks would have definitely been more commonplace.

Shedding light on repercussions of this, now-unpopular reading print books, a less literate generation seems to be the most concerning. With textbooks left behind and habits shifted towards entertainment, binge scrolling, and video games—three of the most widespread pastime activities of the 21st century—becoming less educated is just a matter of time. American teenagers, who used to be performing well and having a good grasp of history in the early 2000s, cannot now boast the same erudition. Asian young people are not outliers too: they have also been subject to modernization of their leisure time spending habits, ones that used to be devoted to reading novels and, to a lesser extent, ancient history. If these implications are to persist, reading hubs are also at danger. These places, where young readers used to gather to share ideas, discuss scenes in books and therefore develop their reading skills, are likely to become much less often visited, or in extreme cases even empty —a mutual drawback for both the visitors themselves and the hubs.

In summary, there are two root causes explaining why readers numbers' are on the decline: technological advancements and digital literacy. Accompanying this development, however, are less knowledgeable young people and the prospective shut-down of reading hubs.

Opinions on the environmental protection are divided: some contend we are late to take any action; others disagree, claiming there are still some effective approaches, which would ameliorate the issue. I, though, firmly believe the question is too individual and both parties' views are valid.

Opponents of environmental preservation may say that, given the magnitude of climate change, habitat fragmentation and other problems alike, it is worthless to put any effort into it. Weather patterns have become more unpredictable and, even worse, current technological can not allow for tackling it, nor can we persuade countries with abundant natural parks to designate them for endangered animals. This is much as in the case of the Aral Desert, previously known as the Aral Sea, that locals attempted to re-fill with water again by channeling it from a Russian river. Yet ultimately, Russian authorities declined the offer. Such a list of unsolvable challenges may go beyond these problems—to, for example, deforestation or, sadly, animal extinction.

This view, however sensible it seems, is as significant as that of supporters of environmental protection. They often put forward an idea of funding de-extinction projects to bring back some valuable species, like the Thylacine, which would probably reduce the dominance of Dingo in Australia. Channeling some funds to nations where national parks are extensive and can further be equipped with all the necessary equipment to accommodate more animals can be of great help too. In return to such a favor, these countries would receive financial rewards or gain more popularity to establish better international relations, an aspect that serves as a cornerstone of international trade, for instance.

Seen as positive as they are, the two arguments above are, however, subjective, for none of them can address worldwide issues, but only regional ones. I am, therefore, of the stance that in some cases, like habitat destruction, it is feasible, and also morally advisable, to be proactive; yet if it is not generally viable, as it is with climate change, being skeptical of protecting environment today is understandable too. So, the question of whether to put forth the preservation of nature remains case-specific, thus requiring a different set of criteria to consider across cases.

In conclusion, both those who are in support and in opposition of taking measures to counteract environmental problems have valid reasons to prove their stance. My conviction is that the case can't be generalized, because of which separately considered criteria would be necessary.

The charts show values of trade between Australia and three nations from 2002 to 2005. Of these nations, China was the leader in terms of trade value, with the USA and Japan coming next, in that order. There were also rising trends recorded in each country, though that in China saw some fluctuation, and that in Japan was the most pronounced. Notably, export figures were larger than those for imports for all the trade partners but China.

Regarding trade with China, Australia registered an import value of roughly 4.5 units in 2002, a figure that dropped noticeably to 2.5 the following year, before recovering to the original point in 2005. Conversely, export rates followed a growing trajectory and went up from 2.5 to 4.5 units initially. Yet by the end there was a dip to below 2 units, which was followed by the final rise to 3.5.

Unlike in this country, trade values in the western country were not as varying. Rather, import and export experienced a steady growth of around half a unit to 2.7 units of exported goods and 2.2 units of imported ones. Yet there was also a gap of roughly 0.7—in favor of exports—between these two categories.

Trade with the other eastern nation showed somewhat similar patterns. Export, the figure for which stood at 2.5 units in 2005 that is 2.5 times the initial point, was again significantly larger than import that witnessed a one-unit increase to 1.75 units over the span; thus, the discrepancy between import and export sustained in this case, too.

With advances in technology, the internet, instant messaging and now smartphones, there are many channels and modalities in which to interact with others. Yet this inundation of communication means has resulted in many losing their communication skills. Because of some inherent factors of online communication that limit its benefits, I believe the idea proposed is generally true.

Social media interactions, for one, are more emotionless compared to traditional face-to-face ones. This means online users, especially young ones, are more likely to have less emotional exchange, whether it be facial or physical. While such lack is not universally reported, some kids, who sit on their phones for long hours, have been seen to become less emotional and, most sadly, less communicative.

Less frequent real-life interactions do also entail a feeling of isolation. Surely, children develop digital literacy, but the price they pay for it is that they may feel left out, if they lead a home-sitting way of life. Though these young people can remain in touch with their social circles online, the physical absence of their friends is likely the catalyst of negative feelings, from depression to alienation.

In conclusion, the knock-on effects of children overusing their phones are deleterious, ranging from emotionlessness to social isolation. Based on these arguments, I contend that underage users of computers and phones are increasingly less sociable and thus less communicative.

Planning for future is often considered a useless habit, so some claim it is more reasonable to shift focus onto the present. I regard this view as firmly invalid and also believe future planning has numerous benefits.

One of these advantages is well-organized career and family goals. With well-rounded plans for future, it takes much less effort to, for example, purchase a luxurious car, pay down a mortgage or aid family members financially. This, in turn, not only leads to stronger familial bonds and higher contentment levels but also cultivates discipline, a valuable trait that is highly relevant in virtually all areas of life.

Another positive is more effective decision-making. When faced with financial challenges, like how to distribute a budget so basic needs are covered and some money is saved up, people are more likely to foresee upcoming living costs and thus avoid wasting resources, such as time and money. Such foresight can also translate into better devised plans, thereby serving as a tool to effectively tackle potential obstacles, like loans or unforeseen expenses.

At a social level, laying out future plans may contribute to higher agility in face of difficulties. Because strategic plans help people remain on track and stimulate better decision-making, it is more likely that these decision-makers would also be more considerate to approach their future goals from multiple perspectives to succeed. A father would definitely seek ways to gain promotion at work if he were to cover his children's prospective college or university fees. For this, he might also turn to friends and relatives to secure a part-time job or senior management to negotiate his salary, seeking various means of income.

In conclusion, some assert planning for future has no benefits and hence a waste of time; they therefore point to present day as a better alternative to focus on. My firm conviction is that this is an invalid statement, as plans offer multiple benefits, from better-organized goals and good decision-making to higher flexibility to achieve goals.

The chart compares the proportions of commuters who used various transport types to get to work from 2000 to 2020, at 5-year intervals. Overall, over this period, car usage was the primary type of transport, though it experienced a substantial and uninterrupted decline. Buses and bicycles, meanwhile, followed gradually rising trajectories, with the latter remaining the least used in all the years.

The dominant transport category, cars, was the only one to have seen a drop. In 2000, cars were used by nearly two-thirds of commuters, a figure that fell steadily to just over 40%. This downward trend marked a roughly 25-percent decrease from the original point, and despite that, cars were the most preferred transport category in each year.

The remaining means of transport recorded much lower figures, with buses and bicycles standing at 25% and 6%, the lowest point on the chart, in 2000, respectively. While the share of bus commuters had diminished slightly by 2010 to exactly 20%, that of cyclists narrowed the gap and comprised half that amount. A decade later, the former proportion went up to a quarter, in contrast to the other figure, which remained unaltered since 2010 yet always stood at the other end of the spectrum.

The graph compares visitor intake, by purpose of visit, from 1994 to 1998. In short, travelling abroad became much more common over the period, especially for holiday visits. The only exception, though, was unspecified reasons, the least popular category, which reverted to its initial level at the end, despite a rise in the mid-period.

More pronounced increases were seen in holiday and business visits. Holiday trips, the leading reason for travelling abroad in the UK, recorded a slight fall in 1995 to 14,898, down from the original 15,246. Yet after that, the number climbed uninterruptedly to a chart high of 20,700. Following distantly behind, business visits came second on the list and experienced a continuous growth to 3,957, compared to 3,155 at the outset of the span.

The remaining categories witnessed a less sharp rise, in the case of visiting friends or relatives, and a bounce-back, in the case of unlisted reasons. In 1994, there were 2,689 visits by UK residents to friends and relatives living outside the UK, a figure that, after an insignificant decline in 1995, went up to its highest 3,181 in 1998; this also marked the smallest growth rate. At the other end of the spectrum were uncategorized trips, with the count standing at a mere 982 in 1994. Then, it fell marginally a year later yet later followed an upward trajectory to 1,054 in 1997, after which there was a notable decrease to near the 1994 level.

What exerts a greater influence on one's future success is a contentious matter, with some claiming it is parents and family whose contributions are far more significant compared to those of school. I fully support this notion, though I also acknowledge some importance of schooling in achieving success.

Flatly downplaying the significance of school in a person's successful life path is, however, misguided. Exposed to standardized tests and academic disciplines, students gain deep insights into various faculties. This constant exposure may reveal hidden talents, ones that might lay perfect foundation to reach heights in, for example, physics or math. Elon Musk is one prominent figure who followed such a path and is now one of the richest and most accomplished academics and entrepreneurs in the world. On an individual level, schools may also serve as a network to expand business or professional prospects in years to come. Some ex-classmates remain in touch for many years post-graduation, thereby bolstering bonds between them and thus elevating the chances of business partnerships. Given the rapport built between these individuals through years of studying together, they can communicate with each other more effectively. This is in stark contrast to newly-introduced investors who would probably take pre-cautions when running a business together.

Despite these views, I assert that sufficient parental guidance is a cornerstone of a child's future success in both academic and professional settings. In familial environments, students learn a range of valuable skills, such as perseverance, discipline and critical thinking, all of which are much needed to succeed in academic and working lives. In contrast, schools are much less effective in cultivating those skills because of rigid and highly structured approaches used in lessons. On top of that, the skills cultivated in familial settings are far more practical in comparison to an array of academic skills and professional competencies taught in schools. A diligent, goal-oriented and disciplined child is more likely to be persistent enough to overcome struggles later on than a child with developed academic abilities yet poor real-life skills. It is simply because not all the subjects in school curricula successfully translate into the skills required to climb the career ladder, for instance.

To sum up, while there is some efficacy of schools in nurturing successful individuals, my firm conviction is that families act as a better foundation to succeed later in life. This is because specialist knowledge provided and abilities promoted in familial environments are more hands-on than those in school.