Nowadays, international tourism is the biggest industry in the world. Unfortunately, international tourism creates tension rather than understanding between people from different cultures. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
?? To what extent do you agree or disagree? 在多大程度上同意或不同意出题方式。
?? 话题类型：旅游+国际化。话题词 international tourism, tension, understanding, different cultures
Recent decades have witnessed the flourish in global traveling and it has become a lifestyle for the normal people. Some contend that this trend has caused tension between diverse cultures rather than enhancement of understanding, but I find such opinion flawed and hard to justify.
Admittedly, international tourism seems to bring some misunderstanding between local populace and foreign travelers. For example, many people believe that the tourism have aggravated or spoiled the visited locations due to pollution and littering. However, it seems to me that these bad behaviors are not caused by international tourism, but by the lack of personal moral principles, and even some of the locals have these flaws too. Meanwhile, with close supervision and rigid regulations, these issues can be strategically addressed.
Therefore, I personally believe that the international tourism should be promoted because of its enormous benefits, especially in the aspect related to the enhancement of understanding of diverse cultures. First of all, this kind of tourism can certainly make travelers access and feel the first-hand experience，by which I mean experiencing cultural differences in person can substantially stimulate people's curiosity and desire for exploration. Therefore, it is not rare that travelers fall in love with the culture of the host country and work as cultural ambassadors later. Besides, international tourism eases tension between people of various nationalities through enhancing multicultural communication. In other words, although reading the second hand information presented on the social media or other publications may partially ease the misunderstanding caused by the ignorance and prejudice, we find it confusing to interpret or complying with diverging cultural norms without experiencing civilizations on a first hand basis. Luckily, traveling gives people a feasible solution by the means of accessing the different land.
In conclusion, international tourism connects people in various countries rather than separating them. Far from causing tension, international tourism improves people's relationship from different cultures.
Host countries 所在国
Some people think it is more important for the government to spend more money promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illnesses than the treatment for people who are already ill. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
To access whether the government should invest money in the prevention of illness or the related treatment, I might have to consider how to define certain utterances made by this topic. From the perspective of the government, it is reasonable for them to spend money in the area that is beneficial to the overwhelming people; however, the take-home message is how the government is to define “importance”.
There are, of course, people out there holding that government spending should be better given out to prevent diseases from happening via promoting a healthy lifestyle rather than to treat those who have already been ill. To them, the number of people currently without health problems but awaiting a better living condition is always more than that of the latter. That means the macro-economic allocation should firstly fulfill the need of most of the tax contributors to make sure the investment is persuasive. The financial flows are considered useful if they are used to things like organic food produce, fitness facilities set in residential surroundings, or even better air condition. They are much closer to the daily health of the public and would be somewhat easily proved to avoid certain food-related, sedentariness-driven, and pollution-oriented illnesses. Whereas the expenditure invested in the medical industry seems comparatively “invisible”, as it is always enjoyed solely by the minority who are put into the physical problems, and would be also hard to judge whether this money would be finally valuable. There also exist failures in the treatment; it sounds obscured to verify whether the cured patients get well because of the financial input in the medical facilities or just because of their immunity.
However, the thinking presented above doesn’t allow one to think of real importance that the investment in the medical area may have, and precludes them from recognizing the potential hazards and irrationality that lie. No matter how a healthy life is to promote, one must admit that in some cases, the lifestyle that is deemed “healthy” by our current knowledge cannot effectively “prevent illness”. Then it is not surprising that in the hygiene history, some paradoxical health rules considering certain living habits would be meaningful or harmful, have finally been proved unacceptable. We should also realize that for certain illnesses, the solely healthy lifestyle is certainly not enough. People are prone to diseases easily if there were no systematic medical expertise, facilities, or resources in dealing with them. In that case, investing in a healthy life promotion is spectacularly meaningless. The myopic thinking given in the prompt distracts us from rationally thinking what the “importance” truly means; it is then incomparable between the two investment directions in terms of the importance because of our still limited knowledge to our current health care and to the unknown future.
In conclusion, I would agree that the policy of government investing in a healthy lifestyle cannot be considered more significant than in disease treatment.
The government has the duty to ensure its citizens have a healthy diet, while others believe it is individuals' responsibility. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
It is argued that whether the government has the obligation to participate in an effort to stem the country’s increasing epidemic of obesity and a host of other chronic problems resulting from unhealthy diet. Although it appears to be more to a matter of personal choice, personally, I believe that there leave some actions to be desired from the authorities side.
Admittedly, people have every right to live their own life especially in the aspect of food choice. Therefore, it is the individuals who are to be blamed if they unfortunately fall into unhealthy eating habit. For example, because of the lack of self-discipline, people cannot resist the urge to order a decadent dessert or deny themselves the pleasure of snacks and junk food. Or for people who value work above health, they starve themselves all day, and then gorge themselves until bedtime or eat on the run, standing up or while driving.
Such as it is, however, the government still has much of a role to play in the attempts to safeguard the health diet of its citizen. First of all, the government could revise dietary recommendations and guidelines that emphasize proper nutrition and motivate personal initiative in maintaining a healthy diet, as it is indicated that the overwhelming majority of people have little nutrition elementary knowledge, dietary safety common sense and cooking knowledge. Secondly, it is the responsibility of the government to take every possible measure to ensure food safety in the country. Administrative systems need to be created administrative systems in a bid to prevent food safety incidents and raise the overall level of food safety. In a fight against the illegal use of additives, people can only count on the authorities to intensify supervision and increase penalties for violators.
In conclusion, it requires the effort from both sides to address the prevalence of unhealthy diet. The government definitely has an essential part to play in an effort to reverse the situation.
Some scientists believe that studying the behaviour of 3-year-old children can tell which children would grow up to be criminals. To what extent in your opinion is crime a product of human nature or is it possible to stop children from growing up to be criminals
Many have questioned whether it is possible to determine a link between genetics and criminal behavior. In my opinion, despite strong resistance in many quarters, crime occurs and is partially fostered by biological traits and still actions can be taken to intervene before antisocial behavior escalates into crime.
There is now little scientific doubt that genetics play a part in the development of traits that have the potential to lead an individual down the path of illegal behavior. Many genes may affect brain functioning in ways that either increases or reduce the chances individuals learning various complex behavior patterns. Specifically, some genes influence difficult temperament, impulsivity, novelty seeking, and lack of empathy, which predispose people to be exposed to environmental risks and make it hard for people to express emotions in what would be considered a positive manner, leading people to engage in anti-social behaviors like enjoy getting lost or doing something crazy just for fun. Also a lack of positive developmental traits is proven directly connected with antisocial behaviors. When individuals drift from adolescence onto adulthood, symptoms of aggression, property destruction, deceitfulness, and rule violation may be exhibited in the workplace and home.
Such as it is, social skills and environment is a doorway to unlocking genetic traits that are instilled in people. Therefore, approaches intervening early in children’s life such as preventing them from abuse, domestic violence and exposure to emotional harm may well be effectively adopted. As physical punishments of slapping, hitting and punching provide a pattern to be modeled when youngsters are themselves frustrated and disenchanted, parental disciplinary tactics could be suggested or emphasized. Besides, providing instructions and guidance on anger management and emotion language or reinforcing helpful behavior both at school and home will definitely diminish the likelihood of embarking on or persisting in a criminal career.
In fact, it is a combination of both biological factors in addition to social environment that molds people into who they are. Although genes dictate the mindset of one that chooses to engage in criminal behavior, certain temperament interacting with a myriad of experience, acquired interpersonal competencies, academic skills and effective strategies will avoid the pattern of such behavior.
As is known to all, the only solution to poverty and hunger is economic growth. However, many people raise objections to economic progress on the ground that it will cause huge damage to the environment.
It is true, of course, that rapid economic growth often comes at the expense of the environment. This has happened again and again in the world, especially in the developing countries. The relentless urbanisation process, for example, has destroyed numerous natural open spaces and animal habitat, and had the dull concrete buildings in their place. Meanwhile, it is not uncommon at all to see the rivers and streams around paper factories (or other manufacturing factories) are so polluted that the water is no longer drinkable.
Yet this does not follow that we could do without economic growth. For one thing, only with fast economic development can people have the opportunities to enjoy a better material life, which is the first-tier need of all people at all times. Though this does not suggest that people's insatiable desire should always be met by developing economy, we can rather safely say that economic growth is often the primary concern for all people, especially those living in poverty and hunger. For another, though economic growth will necessarily bring negative effects on the environment, the effects can well be minimized or even eliminated. Covered with green trees and grasses, many big cities have now attracted birds and other animals back again. The rivers and streams around factories have become clean, too, as purifying technologies are put into use.
My opinion, then, is that economic growth is forever needed in spite of its potential risks to the environment. What we ought to do is try to find ways of reducing its effect on the environment, rather than give up economic development altogether.
支付后复制完整内容，限时特价: 0.99元/篇 (原价￥10)