#Today's Task2
We can learn everything about the past from the drama in films and on television. Therefore,Β we no longer need to read historical books.
To what extend do you agree or disagree about this statement?
Over the last few decades, there have been dramatic ideas that watching movies and TV shows is a more efficient way to learn history rather than reading historical books, so there is no demand for such books. As there is some assertion to this validity, I completely agree. The aim of this essay is to analyse both perspectives as well as my logical conclusion.
First and foremost, learning the past from movies and television would conserve our time. In other words, nowadays, as most historical films are produced in a brief size, it could help us manage time more efficiently, expending a little time to watch the movies. In contrast, if you prefer to study history from books, it would consume too much of your time. A prime example of this is that I watched the historical movie about "Napoleon Bonaparte", and I spent only two hours to finish this, while my friend prefers to learn about him through books, and he spent a month to read this book. As a result, since learning history from films demands a little time, you could study many more things about the past.
Secondly, even more importantly, television shows and movies display a lot of things clearly. It is an undeniable fact that over the years the movie industry has developed rapidly with the assistance of modern technologies, so the quality of movies is increased. In addition, people have opportunities to feel the specific situations which occurred in the past with movies illustrating any historical objects in the films. As a consequence, by watching visual media products, there is arising the image about history in people.
In conclusion, I once again restate my position that studying history from media products brings more benefits than gaining knowledge about the past through reading books.
I could not paraphrase the topic more effectively.
We can learn everything about the past from the drama in films and on television. Therefore,Β we no longer need to read historical books.
To what extend do you agree or disagree about this statement?
Over the last few decades, there have been dramatic ideas that watching movies and TV shows is a more efficient way to learn history rather than reading historical books, so there is no demand for such books. As there is some assertion to this validity, I completely agree. The aim of this essay is to analyse both perspectives as well as my logical conclusion.
First and foremost, learning the past from movies and television would conserve our time. In other words, nowadays, as most historical films are produced in a brief size, it could help us manage time more efficiently, expending a little time to watch the movies. In contrast, if you prefer to study history from books, it would consume too much of your time. A prime example of this is that I watched the historical movie about "Napoleon Bonaparte", and I spent only two hours to finish this, while my friend prefers to learn about him through books, and he spent a month to read this book. As a result, since learning history from films demands a little time, you could study many more things about the past.
Secondly, even more importantly, television shows and movies display a lot of things clearly. It is an undeniable fact that over the years the movie industry has developed rapidly with the assistance of modern technologies, so the quality of movies is increased. In addition, people have opportunities to feel the specific situations which occurred in the past with movies illustrating any historical objects in the films. As a consequence, by watching visual media products, there is arising the image about history in people.
In conclusion, I once again restate my position that studying history from media products brings more benefits than gaining knowledge about the past through reading books.
I could not paraphrase the topic more effectively.