+91 93333 04545, +91 97790 55236
SCO 21, 2nd Floor, Sector 17 E, Chandigarh

7 Band Essay Samples

REQUEST A CALL


7 Band Essay Samples

Teachers used to convey information, but now with wide resources of information. Some people think that there is no role for teachers to play in modern education, others disagree. Discuss both views and give your opinion?

Family makes a child, teacher makes a man. A child’s first exposure to the world is its family, showered with love and kindness, it grows within that environment. Outside its primary group, a child’ exposure to the real world is handled by a teacher who acts as a guide and inculcates in a child the values, education and skill set required to survive. In this era of technology where information is accessible to everyone, some are of the opinion that it will negate the function of teachers. However there are two sides of a coin. In my opinion, the role of a teacher in modern education can never be replaced.

Firstly, even though the information is readily available with the click of a mouse button to anyone with basic computer knowledge, its organization and structuring is not possible without a necessary skill set. Not of all the relevant material can be sorted out from the irrelevant one if you’re not clear about the basics and objectives. Such knowledge comes from experience, an essential human quality, which can only be shared by a teacher.

Secondly, a teacher does not play a mechanical role in a person’s life. Apart from imparting knowledge, they serve as a guiding light by sharing their struggles and experiences. We are essentially human, with a need to relate to another being. At the end of the day, machines are just an impersonal piece of metal. Teachers being human cater to the emotional needs of a child and offer support wherever required.

Thirdly, screen to face interaction can never replace face to face interaction. Many a times we are unable to express ourselves, or express ourselves visually, which a machine would never be able to pick. Such queries and difficulties can only be resolved if a teacher is physically present to help out.

Lastly, our society also consists of differentially-able members. For their special needs and requirements, physical presence of a teacher is must. Not only do they become their emotional support but also help them in learning to use various physical equipments to carry out daily tasks. Teachers help them in honing their abilities and inculcate in them various survival skills which can never be taught by a machine.

In conclusion, I would like to say that even though information is readily available on various mediums, the role of human element in essentially making us responsible citizens of the society cannot be ignored and hence, teachers can never be replaced.

Some people think that it is the most important thing about being rich that gives a chance to help other people. To what extent do you agree or disagree

With the change in eras and booming industrialization, a big difference is seen in the quality of life among the majority of population all over the world. With various employment opportunities, and demand for skill set and caliber, people have advanced to upper rungs of the job ladder. With sharp increase in pay, the world is now witnessing ample of billionaires. However, such advancement has also seen people who were already in the lower strata, pushed down even lower. This has created a big gap between the rich and poor. Some people think that being rich gives them a chance to help other people; however, I disagree with this statement.

One of the essential flaws of being human is that we think good of ourselves and work for our own good. Greed and lack of satisfaction are some of the vices that have plagued mankind since the starting of time. People who are already successful, wish to be more successful and people who have ample of money wish to buy more luxurious things which in turn increases the greed in them. Such selfish needs often make them blind to the needs of people who are not so well endowed. Shedding it off as their responsibility, they often work for their own selves, disregarding their duty towards the society.

One only needs to visit a public place to see the gap that is so evident in majority of the population all over the world. People with money develop a sense of superiority over the ones who don’t. We often come across instances where poor people are ill-treated, misbehaved with or insulted heavily for a minor mistake. Headlines in the newspapers are witness to the fact who most of the crimes committed against poor people do not hold much importance and are brushed away from limelight often not delivering them justice. Such people are left without sufficient resources which make them vulnerable to exploitation.

A study in trends of various governmental reforms all over the world would easily highlight how biased the laws are in favor of the rich. Since much of the funding for campaigns come from these people, laws are also made in favor of the industrialists, ignoring the needs and requirements of the people working for such employers. Much of the governmental resources are utilized in creating ease of business for such people which automatically leads to ignorance and lack of investment in sectors which would favor the poor strata of the society.

In conclusion, I would like to say that such statements are made by people to save face in front of the public, lest they be criticized or their moral conscious be pricked. A study in trends is ample of proof how little the rich have done to uplift the poor.

It is more important for a building to serve a purpose than to look beautiful. Architects shouldn't worry about producing building as a work of art. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement.

In the era of globalization and fast paced lifestyle, visual impressions are much more important that they used to be a few years ago. Cityscapes are not just created to make up space or cater to the needs of the people, but they serve as an identity for the city. Statements such as how buildings should only serve a purpose and not be aesthetic in nature are hence something I disagree with as it disregards the hard work architects put in to create art in the form of buildings.

Pretty cityscapes attract people to such places. People are much more likely to move to cities that are attractive in nature, are visually appealing and dominant city buildings serve exactly that purpose. Much of the city comprises of apartments, office buildings where people are more likely to move into if it not only has the basic facilities but also fulfills their aesthetic needs.

Architects spend much of their time in designing buildings that are shaped after the purpose of the building. With such advancement in technology and creativity, it is not uncommon to see motor showrooms designed in the shape of a vehicle, dining places designed according to their particular cuisine. This makes it clear to the passerby what purpose the building serves.

Diversity is also highlighted by building designs made by the architects. Often in the same city we are able to witness ancient religious buildings, building styles from various countries being constructed in one multi culture city. Such landscapes are able to bring home to people the experience they would otherwise never be able to be a part of.

Architecture is also a form of art. Being different and distinct equates to being in the centre of attention. Any building that houses important business or is an important governmental centre has to be visually distinct and dominant after its inhabitants. Such designs are imposing in nature and reflects the power that the people within exhibit. Presidential residences are a great example of such designs.

In conclusion, I would like to sum up by saying that even though buildings can be monotonously made to serve a purpose, it would deprive the people of aesthetic visuals which not only are highlighted by architectural designs but also showcase the purpose and power of the inhabitants.

Some people think that there should be some strict controls about noise. Others think that they could just make as much noise as they want. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Our society has been troubled with various factors, some manmade, some natural. Of all the damage that human activities have inflicted upon the environment, one of the emerging nuisances is that of noise pollution. While some people are of the belief that there should be strict controls about noise, others feel that it’s their personal right to make as much noise as they want. In my opinion, anything that affects other people negatively is negated as a personal right and hence there should be strict controls for the same.

Noise pollution is one of the leading concerns worldwide. On one hand while people may use it as a means of entertainment, on the other it disturbs the neighborhood. People engaged in variety of activities like studying, praying, indulging in discussions are disturbed by such noises. It also affects the sleeping population, the elderly and the young whose schedule and subsequently their routine is affected because of the same.

Noise also plays a major hand in deteriorating people’s health. By disturbing the body clock, it affects the sleeping schedule especially of the elderly and the young. It also affects the hearing of not just humans but also that of animals that are much more sensitive to higher decibels subsequently leading to hearing loss. The treatment of patients in hospitals is affected due to noise from nearby roads and highways where constant honking of the vehicles affects them negatively.

The discussion about making noise as a personal choice or a collective consequence thinking has also spoiled relationships. Neighbors making noise are much less welcome in the societies as it disturbs the peace of the neighborhood. Disregard to other’s comfort also shows the insensitivity of the people making the noise which also leads to subsequent arguments and isolation by the said party. Such a situation can easily be averted by imposing strict rules and arriving at a general consensus about the regulation of noise.

In conclusion I would like to say that even though making noise is a matter of personal choice, it should not be over the cost of other people’s discomfort. Hence, there is a need for imposing strict rules to regulate the noise pollution.

The use of mobile phone is as antisocial as smoking. Smoking is banned in certain places so mobile phone should be banned like smoking. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In this digital era of technology, the person with time and resources is the master. One such device that has been created to make our lives easier is the mobile phone. Over the years however, we have been enslaved by this small hand held device. With the assistance and convenience it offers, it has also made us antisocial. In my humble opinion, mobile phones should be banned in certain places like smoking.

What started as a revolution in technology has now turned us into self absorbed creatures. Since everything under the sky like the option to get food delivered, cab services, paperwork can now be handled by this device, we’ve ceased human interaction that was offered by such events in person. People would rather stare at a screen then speak to people around them. Places such as hotels, parks and outdoor events should ban the use of mobile phones so that people don’t plug in their headphones or chat from their device to avoid actual physical conversations.

With the multitude of social media apps available on this device, it has almost completely replaced human interaction in person. People have even developed an aversion to phone calls since that is ‘too much work or too much has to be explained.’ Text on the other hand offers them the opportunity to be short and precise by using abbreviations and ease of response convenience. The use of social media apps on mobile phone should be regulated lest it completely replace actual interaction.

There are many places where the use of mobile phones is not only disrespectful but also harmful. Places like office buildings, hospitals, event grounds etc require people to pay attention. In hospitals, mobile phones can cause malfunction due to the radio waves it emits or noise pollution. Workplaces require certain decorum to be maintained which may be hampered by the use of these devices. Events by artist, plays, theatre serve as entertainment for the people and it is disrespectful to the artist to not pay attention to them or distract them.

In conclusion, I would like to sum up by saying technology should be limited to places which are not resolved or replaced by human interaction. Not only is it harmful to the individual but it is affecting the delicate structure of the society as a whole, hence like smoking, mobile phones should also be banned in certain places.

Some students take a year off between school and university, to work or to travel. Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?

Education system all over the world has undergone a drastic change since the past few years. Other than academic fields, avenues for artistic careers and education have opened up as well. While the school offers basic knowledge for a person to make informed decision later in the university, some students have started taking a year off between school and university, to work or to travel. In my opinion, the advantages of such a decision are more than its disadvantages.

Taking a year off to work or travel is not just about getting a break or an activity of leisure. It’s about finding a direction and figuring out a path of life after school. Often such travels or work experience give them a glimpse of what they wish to pursue later in life. One might be hardwired in school to follow a certain career path, but work experience or exploration of a different field may change their mind or help them make a better decision.

Work experience in a field that a student wishes to pursue in university may offer him/her the time period to develop certain skills for the course. This may prove helpful during field assignments in the university. Also such an experience highlights certain drawbacks and skill sets that a person needs to brush up on before they can finally start developing their career after finishing the required course from the university.

A year gap between school and university also serves as a contemplation period. After spending sixteen years in school learning something about everything, this time off helps the students to figure out what exactly it is they wish to pursue later in life. Experiences and travel helps them to open up their eyes to real world scenarios that the four walls of a classroom cannot. Often this experience strengthens their resolve to work hard in their field or search for better pastures, motivates them to pursue their interests by analyzing its pros and cons.

In conclusion, I would like to say that more than serving as a time off, work experience and travel after school acts as a bridge in a student’s life, guiding and motivating them to pursue their respective field of interest by making informed and good decision after such experiences.

Some people think that the increasing use of computers and mobile phones in communication has negative effects on young people’s reading and writing skills. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Advancement in technology and introduction of artificial intelligence in day to day lives has really made lives easier. Almost all of the tasks which previously required cognitive efforts on our part have been replaced by computers and mobiles. Since these devices have evolved human communication as well, they are also negatively effecting young people’s reading and writing skills.

One of the major areas where technology’s impact can be seen in communication is texting. While earlier people did labor to type out elaborate sentences and words, development in technology has lead to the introduction of a whole new language. This language though in itself is English, but it is mostly composed of abbreviations, lacks appropriate syntax, usage of grammatical rules and is only used to convey messages across, no matter how incorrect they may be. This hampers the child’s language development in a correct format.

Even though artificial intelligence was introduced in the communication with a good intention to save people’s time, it has drastically reduced the effort people now make to learn grammatical rules and develop their vocabulary. All they have to do now is to type a part of a sentence and the machine types the rest for them. Such a trend in communication has seen a generation of people evolving who are losing the ability to make good face to face conversations.

To save time, these machines also offer the people the option to have the machine read out their written passages to them. This has negatively impacted the people’s ability of developing delicate art of reading between the lines and drawing their own appropriate interpretations from the same. Since listening is much more convenient and easy for the eyes, audio books have replaced real books, apps and systems have been developed that solely convert such written concepts into listening transcripts. Henceforth a general decline in reading abilities has been observed.

In conclusion, I would like to say that increase in technology has in fact negatively affected the young mind’s ability to read and write properly as it has replaced their own cognitive hard work for them.

Development in technology has brought various environmental problems. Some people believe that people need to live simpler lives to solve environmental problems. Others, however, believe technology is the way to solve these problems. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

The era of globalization and industrialization has brought about various developments in our world, but these developments have come with a heavy price. Governments all over the world are now focusing on resolving these problems that serve as an environmental hazard. While some people believe that people need to live simpler lives to solve these problems, others are of the opinion that technology can help us solve these problems. According to my point of view, technology is the solution to these problems.

First of all, technology can help in discovering and identifying the problem areas in the environment. Phenomena like ozone depletion would not have not been discovered without technology since its effects become apparent slowly over a long period of time. It is not physically possible for everyone to reach problem areas and make identifications but it can easily be done with the help of technology, with the convenience of sitting at a lab and finding solutions alongside. It also helps in keeping track of data over the years which can identify and make sense of changing events.

Secondly, technology can help us develop solutions. Machines are able to organize and relate data appropriately that help in coming up with solutions to the problem. Technology has helped us develop disease resistant crops, agriculture in places that are not environment friendly, similarly it can help us develop resistance to environmental calamities that are actually induced by human activities. It can also help us predict future trends based on past data.

Lastly, time is the need of the hour as it a precious resource. While living like simpler times can be a solution but not only is it impractical but also not feasible time-wise. Much of the damage can easily be averted if it is handled in a timely manner. Technology is exactly that fast paced resource tool. It can manage crisis in a timely manner and also prevent any further damage before it becomes irreversible in nature.

In conclusion, I would like to highlight the need of the hour to be fast paced, smart and resourceful in tackling environmental problems. Technology offers a solution by having all these qualities.

Free Demo Classes for 7 Days

Call Top