- 移动课堂是100留学最新推出的“贴身学习伴侣”， 其中拥有名师直播、录播课程和名师答疑等多项服务。课堂可以为大家提供新的移动学习平台,让大家学习更方便，想学就学!
1. Some people think that all young people should be required to have full-time education until they are at least 18 years old. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Education has always been the most experienced profession and industry in the world, and discussions on it have always found a new angle. Receiving full-time education prior to adulthood (18 years old as a general practice) is held as truth, which this essay almost fully roots for.
It is true that continuous schooling before 18 years old benefits learner sand their families. In reality, education helps as much the growth of professional skills as the development of character, both of which will most likely bring material life comforts and higher life purposes. Consequently, with personal development guaranteed, domestic situations—be they of the families individuals are from or will create—will be bettered in due course.
It is also true that countries and governments will benefit from national talents. The young are the future, and thus are paid attention to by means of education. Without knowledge and skills, which are likely acquired at schools at different levels, the prospects of national advances are in jeopardy. Thus, lasting education for young people is of necessity.
However, it would not be nitpicking to state that a dozen years of education sometimes might seem only wishful. With regional differences within acountry or beyond boarders, certain families are still stricken by starvation, warfare, or poverty, and their younger generation are forced out of the luxury of education at all, let alone a continuous one before the beginning of adulthood. Globally, it is not rare that children or teenagers are willing ly joining the labour force to sustain family economy, or are helplessly enlisted in military forces.
In sum, the statement in question shows goodwill that might be shattered by reality.
2.Some people think it important for all towns and cities to have large public outdoor places like squares and parks. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
One may find it even impossible nowadays to go without large public outdoor places like squares and parks, especially for those living in cities that prefer one-stop modern experiences to relax or an enjoyment of sharing the sunshine and laughter with their kids or parents in a natural environment. Undoubtedly, those outdoor places are playing a critical role for most of us.
Parks, facilitated with fresh air and dense vegetation, are available for many activities that serve as integrated parts of people’s after-work life, including amateur musical shows for the seniors, recreational camping or even blind-date fairs. Citizens having accesses to what they long for manifests the functionality of a reliable government. In addition, squares, where brands home and abroad compete for the attention from their target patrons, provide shoppers with the maximum right of choice, catering to the needs city dwellers, who would think it a waste of time and energy commuting back and forth within a day.
As the saying goes, it is changes that dominate the world. Tortured with all types of urban congestions, people, especially those living in the center, are beginning to forgetting the fun of having pleasant times with their beloved ones in parks on those ‘good old days’, replacing those good memories with the agony of having to live a continuously ‘crowed life’. Some of them may go to extremes to attribute this malicious development to those public places, not a few of which have long been adding to the easiness of urban residents’ life.
To conclude, the fun provided in outdoor public places never pale in comparison to that brought about by a bar and should continue to be enjoyed by all in future.