1. Some people think advertising may have positive economic effects. Others think it has social effects because individuals are not satisfied with who they are and what they have. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
In modern society, advertising boards or screens can be seen around every corner of megacities. Obviously, advertising plays an indispensable role in stimulating the sales of products. While every coin has two sides, excessive exposure to advertisements produces negative effects on the society and individuals as a whole.
It must be admitted that due to the promotion of products, manufactures are able to achieve abundant profits. In such an information-driven global market, it is advertising that enables consumers from different countries to be informed of the functions and features of consumption goods made in both locals and abroad. Without advertising campaigns, firms can hardly enlarge the circle of their customers and survive in fiercer competitions. What’ s more, as tax payers, they tend to make more contributions to the growth of government revenue for their higher gains.
On the other hand, some people cannot help wondering the drawbacks of advertising industry since it may lead to unhealthy lifestyle. It is a common practice for advertisers to design a romantic and exciting life or exaggerate the benefits of certain products. For example, models wearing the latest dress and the most attractive high-heels with a limited handbag seem the shinning diamond in the sun. As a consequence, customers especially the younger generation become unsatisfied with what they already have and are likely to waste time and money on trying fancy goods.
However, as far as I am concerned, consumers’ real demands determine their purchase decision. That is to say, advocates of advertisement’ s negative impacts neglect the fact that in some situations, buyers hold higher expectation of a product or their purchases are based on impulses rather than reason. Therefore, the efforts of manufactures to promote their goods are not to blame. Besides, related laws should be launched to ensure that there is no deception in any advertisement and promote highly healthy competition among producers.
2. Some people think that one of the best ways to solve environmental problems is to increase the cost of fuels for cars and other vehicles. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
The severity and urgency of properly addressing environmental problems are hardly arguable, yet the specific method is contested for decades. Although many choose to believe the solidity of dealing with these issues with higher price of fuels, I consider this as too narrow an approach.
While the occurrence of positive outcome towards environment is almost inevitable were the price of fuels to increase, the final result may not be as expected for long. Rooted from the human nature of rejecting any cost increase, the leading reason for the optimistic attitude of this particular approach would be the effect on limiting the number of cars and therefore reducing the amount of environment-damaging gas emission. However, since the cost of public transport would also be affected, resistance in people with the need of travel seems to be inevitable, hence the impossibility of achieving the desired goal.
In addition, the delicacy of eco-system and the complexity of environmental issues make the proposal mentioned above nothing but a delusion. In fact, one must not only notice the close interaction within the sub-system of environment, for example the pollutant in soil will eventually migrate into water body, but also fully appreciate the necessity of comprehensively solving environmental problems, meaning that the overall performance of any eco-system will not become better if only the air quality were to be improved. Therefore, the method of meddling with fuel price can only be described as biased, as it merely focuses on the issue of air pollutants.
Overall, increasing the price of fuels is most defiantly not the best solution to environmental issues, as it has neglected both the reaction of consumers and the complexity of environment.
3. The young people in the workforce are changing their jobs or careers every few years. What do you think are the reasons? Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
Relatively frequent change of job and career in youngsters is becoming increasingly common. There are several reasons to explain this trend, and generally I believe it could be beneficial.
The reason of this development is not complicated: information is becoming more accessible, actionable, and leverage-able than ever before. In the past, if one were to switch jobs, they would have to search job openings in the newspaper, print out a resume, write a cover letter, and then mail them to a potential interview. This process can and will be repetitive, for there is no grantee that job hunting can always be as smooth as one may assume. Such endeavor, most of which will be in void, can cause great pain for every job hunter, especially those who have a family and personal life to manage. In the modern era, however, such hassle does not exist anymore due to the fundamental shift of information actionability—we can now find hundreds and thousands of job openings on the internet at a click of a button, not to mention the growing number of headhunters.
Associated with this trend, benefits are many: people are having more options to pursue career avenues of interest. In fact, such changes would allow and encourage people to try as many paths as they like, and therefore give them more freedom to control and create the life they want, as the general public can have more confidence and resources than before. Some, however, would argue that a frequent change would create a sense of uncertainty, but one should also fully appreciate that nothing in life is guaranteed, and it would be wise to strike first.
Overall, although some believe changing jobs or careers should not be frequent, I believe it is beneficial, as people can now truly grasp their life and future.