Some say that the most important thing about being rich is the opportunity for helping others.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Building wealth opens doors into numerous new areas, so some assert the most significant aspect of this wealth is the ability to provide financial assistance to others. This idea is justifiable to a degree, but I believe affluence creates far more opportunities.

Assisting others once one is regarded well-off seems very sensible. Such generosity may range from funding students in debt and low-income families to making donations to charities and orphan homes. On a global scale, well-positioned nations can aid their not as wealthy counterparts through loans or investments, a type of financial support that may help the latter make their way out of poverty, hunger and the like.

While these certainly strengthen social cohesion, giving hope to those in need, they represent a mere picture of what wealth has to offer. Individually, a person may pursue their hobbies, be it travelling, sky diving or art, more often and for longer. From a psychological standpoint, the pleasure derived from favorite activities tends to translate into a more positive mindset and, over time, a higher life fulfilment.

Beyond personal benefits, financial power is also a potent tool in scientific enquiry. The scientific community is widely known to need funding the most and, when well-funded, can make various breakthroughs, from vaccines to lasers. The USA, UAE and China are the primary examples of financially powerful players in the international arena that are capable of such monetary aids.

In summary, it is true that being rich may allow one to be of help to others, especially to the disadvantaged. Yet there are also other, not less notable, opportunities to consider, such as pursuing personal interests and providing science with a much-needed budget.

Some people think phones and computers have a negative effect on the young peopleʼs reading and writing skills.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In today's highly technological era, critics of mobile phones and PCs claim these devices exert an adverse influence on literacy skills of the young. To a firm degree, I support such a criticism, yet I also acknowledge those technologies can still be beneficial.

Excessive use of phones and computers is one overriding concern in question. Instead of practicing writing skills, from handwriting and grammatical proficiency to lexical and organizational ones, the young today type their speech in social media chats, often without adhering to conventional grammar rules and mostly using slang. This has already been seen to undermine American young adults' writing skills, for instance. Reading abilities are not an exception, too. Brief reviews and short articles on blogs have replaced long yet informative paragraphs of formerly popular newspapers and textbooks, a development that has partly resulted in a shorter attention span and underdeveloped reading abilities, such as comprehension and analytical thinking. Overall, examples abound, being observed in both developing and developed nations.

In my opinion, though, using phones and computers can be helpful in developing literacy skills. In particular, user-friendly interface and instant access to a vast variety of study materials on the Internet often lead to a better understanding of grammatical and lexical nuances, along with better-focused and skill-appropriate e-books. Exposed to such valuable and effective resources, the young may see their literacy skills reinforce over time. In real-life contexts, however, such goal-oriented users are few and far between, but this rarity does not invalidate the advantageous aspects of the gadgets. This is because regular parental oversight and stringent school guidelines determine the extent to which the use of phones and PCs is beneficial.

To sum up, opponents of using phones and computers assert these two entail repercussions to reading and writing abilities of young people, which is the case since technological advancements have replaced previously effective tools with less practical alternatives. While I Iargely side with this opinion, I admit the benefits of those two technological tools should not be underestimated.

Some cities have vehicle-free days when private cars, trucks and motorcycles are banned from the city center. People are encouraged to use public transportation such as buses, taxis and metro on vehicle-free days.

Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

❤️ for T/R - You forgot to cover these subtle parts.

❤️ for T/R - You covered these parts in a well-developed manner, but there is some space to fill in (counter-argument or comparison missing).

❤️ for T/R - Full coverage and no questions left unanswered (every question you can come up with is addressed fully)

➡️ 10 lessons of the Reading Marathon are over and soon, I'll drop the feedback on it with the progress the participants have made so far

➡️ 2 weeks later, I'll open the admission for a Writing Marathon covering 30 lessons under 3 teachers' in conduct

➡️ This Sunday, I have only 1 slot left for the paid Speaking Mock at a discounted price of $25

➡️ This week, I'll drop the recordings of two Writing Checking sessions

The chart compares the percentages of tourists using different transport means in New Zealand, in the year 2004. In general, while preferences for transport means were similar among British, German and Australian tourists, it was not the case for Japanese and Korean travellers. For the former group, travelling by coach was the most common, with ferries being the least popular choice across all the groups.

Statistics for British, German and Australian travellers showed that, in comparison to other means, coaches were far more widely used, with the figures at a whopping 58%, 55% and exactly 50%, respectively. Air transport came next, a transport category which roughly 42% of the British and Germans visiting the country opted for, as did a mere 25% of Australians. Third on the list, cars were even less commonly used, and the proportions stood at 35% for Germans, nearly 29% for the British, and a low of 20% for Australians. Ferry use, however, was the least significant, as the percentages did not surpass the 20-percent mark.

Celebrities make a very good living out of media attention and have chosen to live in the public spotlight. They have no right to complain when they feel the media are intruding on their privacy.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Private life of famous people is a matter of contention. So, some claim that these people should not make complaints on the intrusion of the public into their privacy, since they earn a decent livelihood. While I largely agree with such a notion, I also acknowledge that the extent of the intrusion depends on how transparent the life of a celebrity is.

One reason why these big names should not complain is that they may have exposed their followers to their own private matters. While streaming a podcast or being interviewed, well-known media actors often reveal details about their own life, whether it be their family issues or daily routines, especially if such information is contradictory. With such controversy, views are very likely to elevate, and this is where advertisements, such as celebrity endorsements, come into play. This goes to show how a popular person deliberately shares their personal matters with the public, often generating huge sums yet losing privacy at the same time.

This, however, is not always the case. There are some bloggers and influencers whose personal life has been unexposed as they have stringent policies, like no family photos or no online streams at home. Unlike their more transparent counterparts, they experience less encroachment on their life. Khabib Nurmagomedov, a former Mixed Martial Artist whose media presence now allows him to make profits on promoting products and services, has established his media profiles with strict schedules and without mentioning any members of his family.

In conclusion, it is apparent that, because people heavily present on media are paid massive sums, they should not turn to complaining about the public encroaching on their private life. I, to a large degree, support this view because these popular figures post on social media private matters on purpose, yet those who remain more confidential do not complain.

The table present a comparison of men and women in terms of employment statistics for six economic sectors in two years: 1993 and 2003. Over this decade, in most industries, there was an upward trajectory of various patterns recorded for both genders, with IT and service emerging as the major employers for both genders. Of all the sectors studied, IT and farming were the ones where the gender gap was the most pronounced, yet it was not the case for commerce and manufacturing.

Looking at the widest gender differences, in the IT industry, a whopping 80% of the total workforce was made up of men—4 times as many as women. By 2003, however, this gap narrowed notably, with 70% of IT specialists being men in comparison to women at a mere 30%. A similar male-to-female ratio was seen in farming: in the former year, men accounted for three-fourth, which was three time the figure for their female counterparts; a decade later, men a saw a slight drop of 10% to 65%, and women witnessed a rise of the same margin to 35%, marking a less pronounced gender gap.