Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is more important for students to study history and literature than it is for them to study science and mathematics. Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.
I have always considered that general knowledge is the best choice for me and universal learning the perfect means to support the phrase "knowledge for the sake of knowledge itself". But if I have to choose between the above-mentioned subjects I would definately concentrate on art and literature which I consider fit better my personality.
Art and literature have a lot in common in that they require a different,quite often universal approach to the world around us.They concenterate not so much on the black and white aspects of living but on the colourful side of life; on tints rather than brightness.Maths and science study the form, the physical shape and its laws, but it is art and literature that fulfill this form with that ultimate meaning that only the human soul can sense.
And it is the human soul that has so many faces, so many aspects and interpretations to all things.That is why I appreciate the subjectivity of art and literature-the numerous realities they impose are closer to our inner world than the strict powers that rule that of science. One is free to tolerate, to critisize, to accept the form of art but not obey them.
It is believed that Order came from Chaos.And if we can associate science and maths with Order it sounds logical to claim that Chaos has a lot to do with art and literature.The well of our unconscious brings forward the strangest powers and they show more of the universe than maths and science do.For Chaos is the beginning of life.
Having in mind the above, I definately support art and literature as a better means for achieving universal knowledge.What is more, while maths and science closely deal with laws, they cannot in any way teach us about that "thin red line" separating bad and evil, while art and literature I strongly believe can.
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? All students should be required to study art and music in secondary school. Use specific reasons to support your answer.
I agree that all students should be required to study art and music in high school. 'I've read that young children who study art and music in grade school do better in their other studies. That argument aside, we should study art and music for its sake alone. We should study art and music to learn more about ourselves, our culture, and our world.
Both art and music feed students' imaginations and help them express themselves. There's a reason our ancestors in caves drew on the walls and made music with drums. Wanting to express ourselves is natural. It gives us an avenue for our emotions and fears. It may not always be music other people want to hear or art others will appreciate, but the activity itself is enjoyable. It shouldn't matter if the end result isn't perfect. In the process, we learn what we like and dislike. Studying art and music means more than drawing or playing an instrument. Students usually go to art galleries and concerts, too. By studying the pictures on the museums' walls or by reading the program notes at a recital, students will learn what society has decided is worthy of praise. They learn what is important in their own culture.
Students may also learn about other cultures by looking at art and listening to music from other countries. When they do that, they'll see similarities and differences with their own. They'll learn about what is important in other societies. Students will also learn how the art and music of other cultures affect our own.
By studying art and music in high school, students begin to understand themselves as well as their own culture and other cultures. What could have more value than that?
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? There is nothing that young people can teach older people. Use specific reasons and examples to support your position.
There is much disagreement over whether there is something that young people can teach older people or not. Some people claim that the older know everything better than the younger. Other people, however, argue that the younger can master something that the older do not know. As far as I am concerned, the older can still learn something from the younger even if the former know more than the latter.
Why do some people think that the older is more knowledgeable than the younger on anything?The main reason is, people accumulate knowledge from experience day after day, most of which cannot be gained through books. For instance, an old accountant can handle many difficult accounting affairs while a young one cannot because the former has more experience.
Although I agree that the older can teach a lot of things to the younger, I insist that it pays for the older to learn something from the younger. In the first place, there is something that the older never know before. The computer is the best example. As we know, the computer was invented inthe begining of 1900's and was becoming popular after the Microsoft Windows operation system was released in 1990's. The older had rare chances to learn and use the computers. On the contrary, the younger begin to get to know the computer very early. No doubt that the younger know computer better than the older. When a person older than 30 years attends a computer course, he/she will not be surprised if the teacher is younger than he/she.
In the second place, the younger are more creative and imaginative. When the older do something, they normally follow some rules they got before. It is true the older seldom make mistakes but they also hardly make something new. While, the younger do not have much experience and do not have many restrictions as well. They make mistakes very often but also can make something magnificent.
In conclusion, I believe that the older can learn many things from the younger not only because that the younger know more later technologies, but also that the younger have more creative thoughts.
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Reading fiction (such as novels and short stories) is more enjoyable than watching movies. Use specific reasons and examples to explain your position.
Reading fiction, such as novels and short stories, is more enjoyable than watching a movie. Of course, the images in a movie are much more vivid, because you're seeing them on a large screen in a dark room. The images you "see" in a novel are only as strong as your own imagination. But the more you read, the stronger your imagination becomes. Reading exercises your imaginative powers. Watching a movie dulls them. Imagination, like a muscle, needs to be used. Otherwise it can disappear.
When you read, you're an active participant in your own enjoyment. That's one reason reading develops the imagination. You're reading the words on the page and translating them into images in your mind. When you're watching a movie, you're a passive viewer. The movie is giving you everything. Nothing comes from you except your reaction to what you're seeing, and even that can be given you by the movie. Some movie plots are so simple, you can predict what's going to happen before it does.
Reading fiction also develops your storytelling skills. The more reading you do, the better you become at creating plots and characters. The plots and characters in movies are often very simple, because the emphasis is on action rather than on language or character development.
Still, going to the movies is a great community experience. Sitting in a large theater with a lot of other people is fun. You experience the same reactions to what you're seeing together. Reading is a one-person experience. It's a chance to go into an imaginary world by yourself. Both experiences can be fun and rewarding, but I think reading fiction is more enjoyable.