essay samples Task 2

Unabridged (of a novel, play, speech, etc.)- complete, without being made shorter in any way.

(OPPOSITE)- abridged

Never forget that a suit cannot make you a well-informed and wise man, and a thorn in old clothes will not make you the poorest person

Fossil fuels are the main sources in many countries, but in some countries, the use of alternative sources of energy is encouraged. To what extent do you think it is a positive or negative development?

Many countries around the world still rely heavily on the use of fossil fuels—coal, oil, and gas—as their primary sources of power. However, some countries are making strides in the use of greener energy alternatives, including solar, wind, and water. While I admit that this shift brings a major demerit, I still consider this phenomenon as largely advantageous.

The primary case against the utilisation of cleaner sources of power is their cost, both of acquisition and of service. The technology is still developing, meaning that there are only a few mass manufacturers of devices that harness power from nature. This shortage of supply, in turn, increases prices for such devices, making the purchase of them prohibitively expensive for the majority, especially for those in the developing world. Additionally, the cost of maintenance for such new technology tends to be quite out of reach because of the lack of specialists in the field. It is only a matter of time before the devices are produced on a larger scale and specialists are prepared that we see price reductions in installation and upkeep.

Notwithstanding the cost, I believe that the trend towards cleaner energy sources is a change for the better. This is firstly because of substantial environmental benefits. It is common knowledge that the massive consumption of fossil fuels has exacerbated global environmental issues, including climate change and global warming. Therefore, moving away from these in favour of solar and wind power can cut down on the amount of pollutants discharged, thus minimising the human impact on the environment. Beyond environmental effects, these new methods of energy acquisition ensure energy security. By focusing on renewable power sources, we will be building a sufficient supply of energy for future generations, since fossil fuel reserves are finite and might end soon given the current consumption rates. Therefore, not only is this move responsible and considerate of others, but also it is sustainable.

In conclusion, costs associated with purchasing alternative power devices seem to be the main impediment to this change. Nevertheless, I am in favour of this development because of substantial contributions to alleviating environmental issues and to improving energy security for the future.

Nowadays, we are living in a throw-away society that is driven by excessive consumerism, waste and single use of products. What are the reasons behind this development? What could be done to address the problems associated with a throw-away society?

Nowadays, we live in a throw-away society driven by consumerism, waste, and improper use of products. This issue arises from social status concerns and unchecked marketing. Education is key to reducing its negative impacts.

Many people believe purchasing more improves their lives, leading to unnecessary spending. For instance, iPhones are often bought due to Apple’s brand image rather than their functionality. While comparable alternatives exist, iPhones are associated with higher status, compelling individuals to prioritize appearances over practicality. This social perception pressures people to continuously replace items, creating a cycle of waste and overconsumption. Moreover, the drive to elevate one’s esteem pushes people to overspend, sometimes beyond their financial means. Such behaviors not only increase waste but also worsen environmental problems. Over time, consumerism has become deeply ingrained, with status symbols driving habits that prioritize materialism over sustainability. Addressing this issue requires tackling these societal values and habits directly.

Unrestricted advertising is another major contributor to consumerism. Businesses use persuasive campaigns visible everywhere, from billboards to social media, exposing people to constant marketing. This consistent exposure often leads individuals to make impulsive purchases, even for items they do not need. Additionally, many people lack media literacy and fail to recognize how advertising influences their decisions. Without awareness, they are more susceptible to manipulation. To counter this, education plays a vital role. Schools could introduce subjects such as financial literacy and media studies to teach young people about marketing strategies and the consequences of excessive consumption. Such knowledge can help future generations develop more sustainable habits, ultimately reducing waste and environmental damage caused by consumerism.

In conclusion, consumerism is fueled by social pressures and unchecked advertising. Introducing education on financial and media literacy could help mitigate these issues, promoting sustainable habits and reducing waste in a throw-away society.

Unless you work the night shift




Жамоат намозининг савобини билганингизда эди...

Абу Дардо розияллоҳу анҳудан ривоят қилинади. Расулуллоҳ соллаллоҳу алайҳи васаллам: “Бомдод ва хуфтон намозларидаги (жамоатга) ҳозир бўлишни лозим топ. Агар шу икки (намоз)нинг (жамоат билан ўқишдаги) савобини билганларингизда эди, эмаклаб бўлса ҳам келардингиз”, - дедилар.
Имом Табароний ривояти.

Аллоҳим намозларни хушуъ-хузуъ билан жамоат бўлиб адо этишимизга тавфиқ ато этгин!

✅ Албатта яқинларингизга ҳам юборинг

Newspapers have influence on people’s ideas and opinions.

What are the reasons? Is it negative or positive development?


Newspapers have long been a powerful medium that influences people’s ideas and opinions. While this phenomenon can have both positive and negative consequences, I believe its impact is largely determined by how newspapers are used.

It is undeniable that newspapers shape public opinion for several reasons. Firstly, they are often considered a reliable source of information due to their widespread readership and long-standing reputation. This credibility allows newspapers to sway people's beliefs on political, social, and economic issues. Secondly, the reach of newspapers is significant, as they are distributed both locally and nationally, ensuring that their influence extends across various demographics. Furthermore, editorial opinions and investigative journalism play a key role in guiding readers’ perspectives, as they highlight issues that might otherwise go unnoticed.

However, I believe the influence of newspapers can be both positive and negative, depending on how responsibly they are managed. On the positive side, newspapers can educate the public, raise awareness about important issues, and hold authorities accountable. For example, investigative reporting has exposed corruption and human rights violations, prompting action and social change. On the negative side, biased reporting and sensationalism can mislead readers, create unnecessary fear, or perpetuate stereotypes. Additionally, some newspapers may prioritize profit over integrity, spreading misinformation to attract a larger audience.

In conclusion, the influence of newspapers on people’s ideas and opinions stems from their credibility and wide reach. While this can have positive outcomes, such as raising awareness and driving change, the potential for biased reporting and misinformation means that this influence can also be harmful.

Some people think technology development decreases crime, while others believe it actually encourages crime.

Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.


People have differing views about the impact of technological development on crime. While some argue that it reduces crime rates by enhancing security measures, others believe it creates opportunities for new forms of criminal activities. I would argue that their overall contribution to crime prevention outweighs these drawbacks.

On one hand, some believe that technological development decreases crime by providing innovative tools for prevention and investigation. For instance, surveillance cameras and facial recognition systems enable law enforcement to monitor public spaces and identify potential offenders efficiently. Additionally, advancements in cybersecurity protect individuals and organizations from online fraud and hacking. Another example is the use of GPS tracking, which helps recover stolen goods and locate missing persons. These innovations not only deter criminals but also increase the likelihood of solving crimes, thereby creating a safer society.


On the other hand, critics argue that technology can encourage crime by providing new opportunities for illegal activities. For example, the internet has led to a rise in cybercrimes, such as identity theft, phishing scams, and ransomware attacks, which can target individuals and organizations globally. Additionally, criminals have exploited technological tools like encrypted messaging apps and the dark web to coordinate illicit activities while evading detection. Moreover, advanced technologies like 3D printing have been misused to create weapons or counterfeit goods, making it harder for authorities to control such crimes. These developments demonstrate how technology can be a double-edged sword, enabling criminal behavior alongside its benefits.

In conclusion, although technological progress has created new challenges in the form of cybercrime and other illicit activities, I remain convinced that its benefits in reducing and preventing crime far outweigh its drawbacks when used responsibly.

Large companies should pay higher salaries to CEOs and executives compared to other workers.

To what extend do you agree or disagree?


The debate about whether large companies should pay higher salaries to CEOs and executives compared to other workers is ongoing. While some support this practice, others argue it widens income disparity. I firmly believe that it is more important for companies to ensure fair compensation for all employees rather than excessively rewarding executives.

It's true that providing higher wages for CEO executive company members can bring several benefits for both organisations and employees. They argue that top executives are responsible for critical decisions, risk management, and long-term strategies, which directly impact the organization's growth and profitability. Additionally, attracting highly skilled leaders often requires competitive compensation packages. For instance, multinational corporations like Apple and Microsoft offer substantial salaries to their CEOs to retain talent and drive innovation. Supporters claim that such remuneration reflects the complexity of their responsibilities and rewards exceptional performance. Furthermore, they argue that a well-compensated leader motivates employees and instills confidence in investors, ultimately benefiting all stakeholders in the company.

However, I remain convinced that exorbitant executive salaries create significant income inequality within organizations. Many believe that allocating excessive funds to a few individuals undermines employee morale and fosters resentment among lower-level workers. For instance, employees in retail or manufacturing sectors often face long hours with minimal pay, while executives receive substantial bonuses. Critics also question the justification of these salaries, as some executives underperform or benefit from pre-existing company success rather than their efforts. Moreover, such disparities can damage a company's reputation and lead to public backlash. Instead, critics suggest redistributing funds to improve worker wages and benefits, ensuring fair compensation for all employees.

In conclusion, although competitive salaries for executives may attract talent, I believe that the benefits of fair compensation for all employees are more significant in comparison.

Some people think that children should start school at a very early age, but others believe that they should not go to school until they are older.

Discuss both these views and give your opinion.

People hold differing opinions on the appropriate age for children to begin formal education. While some advocate for starting school at a very young age, others believe that delaying formal education until a child is older is more beneficial. Both perspectives have their merits, but I believe the decision should be tailored to the individual child’s physical, emotional, and cognitive readiness rather than adhering to a fixed age.

On the one hand, proponents of starting school early argue that it provides children with a head start in their academic journey. Early exposure to structured learning environments enables children to develop foundational skills, such as literacy and numeracy, at a younger age. This can also foster discipline and socialization, equipping children with the tools to adapt to the demands of higher education and competitive job markets. Furthermore, beginning education early may allow students to complete their studies sooner, giving them more time to explore extracurricular interests or start their careers earlier than their peers. For instance, students who start school at the age of four may graduate from university by their early twenties, offering them a significant advantage in a fast-paced world.

On the other hand, delaying formal education allows children to mature physically, emotionally, and cognitively before entering the academic system. Younger children may struggle to meet the demands of school due to their limited attention spans and underdeveloped motor skills. Prematurely introducing them to a structured environment could lead to frustration, low self-esteem, or even aversion to learning. For example, a five-year-old might find abstract mathematical concepts such as multiplication and division overwhelming, whereas a seven-year-old would be better equipped to grasp these ideas. This approach ensures that children are more confident and capable when they begin their educational journey.

In conclusion, while both early and delayed schooling have their advantages, a flexible and child-centric approach is the most effective. Parents and educators must collaborate to determine the optimal time for each child to start school, taking into account their unique developmental needs.

I used to lag behind my partners, who attended some particular concert or meeting together.
As with my friend who's about to face an experience like mine.

Bir narsa meni havotirga soladi, faqatgina binolar rivojlanib mutahasislar qoloq bo'lib qolishligi😑

Some people think that high-end technology can prevent and cut down the crime rate. Do you agree or disagree?

There is a view that cutting-edge technology can help avert and reduce crime rates. I agree with this opinion as forensic techniques and improving CCTV are already proving how helpful technology can be in dealing with crime.

When a crime takes place, it has to be investigated. This process can be much more effective when forensic methods are applied appropriately. What’s interesting to note is that the contribution of technology to crime investigation has been immense. Blood and DNA tests are a testament to this. By obtaining results from those tests, criminals can be successfully identified and prosecuted. The efficiency of such tests only improves every year due to technological progress.

CCTV is another example of a technological tool effectively used to decrease crime. Cameras are now nearly everywhere, as they help to regulate human activity by detecting anything illegal that can take place. Because cameras have been improving annually, CCTV is now better at identifying the faces of potential suspects. In fact, venues with CCTV are less likely to be of interest to criminals who are aware of how effective cameras can be. Thus, by having more surveillance cameras, we can ensure less criminal activity in many areas including those of high importance such as schools, hospitals and parks.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that the use of technology is helping to prevent crime and reduce it. Forensic studies using technology and CCTV are just two examples of how new devices can be utilized to help people minimize crime.

Intelligence is the most important factor for a leader.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?


It is common knowledge that a good leader should possess a wide range of qualities to lead their team successfully. However, there is a view that the most prominent characteristic that makes a leader stand out is intelligence. While the part played by intelligence is undeniable for effective leadership, I would argue that it is not the most essential quality, for other personality traits are equally crucial.

On the one hand, intelligence is of course essential to guide a team to the right path. One aspect of the workplace where intelligence is vital is decision-making, particularly when recruitment and finances are concerned. For example, it is important to scrutinize a potential worker's background, since their fidelity to the executive and the company can determine the difference between success and failure. Similarly, a leader's insensible decision to purchase new equipment for office workers when credit payment due can damage the company's financial health, thereby putting the continuity of operations at risk. Another area where intelligence plays a key role is strategic planning for the future. Since leaders bear full responsibility for their businesses, careful analysis of current trends, and based upon them setting new goals is essential. Were it not for high intelligence of leaders, businesses run the risk of failing to keep up with their competitors and going bankrupt.

Nevertheless, the notion that being intelligent is the most essential quality for successful leadership is a downright overstatement in my view. If leaders are not willing to show commitment and go the extra mile, then they are not setting a good example for the rest of the team. This is likely to affect the team spirit, lowering internal drive in the company and hence productivity. Consequently, this laid back attitude can bring about lower output, unmet deadlines and dissatisfied customers, negatively impacting on the company reputation. Additionally, expecting leaders to adopt a positive mindset is extremely important. Since work is full of vicissitudes, conflicts and resentment, there should be someone who can cheer up the team and spread positive energy no matter what. This, in turn, serves as a boost in morale in times of difficulty and keeps the team on track.

In summary, leaders should be intelligent different reasons, ranging from effective decision-making and planning for the future. However, I am of the view that it is not the key to successful leadership, because demonstrating diligence together with adopting a positive frame of mind are no less important factors for company heads.