Argumentative Essay-- TV Viewing #2

It is indisputable that the invention of television has brought a tremendous change to the life of its audience. The population of households in developed countries for the nonce who own at least one television set has exceeded ninety per cent (Sharif 1999). According to American Time Use Survey (2003), average hour spent by Americans per day in watching television is approximately 2.5 hours. Sociologists and experts are bickered over the issue of whether television is a blessing or a curse when there are claims that extensive television viewing has eaten into our lives. Correspondingly, I strongly assert that television viewing brings more advantages than disadvantages as it develops critical thinking, informs people about global issues and acts as a relaxing tool for its viewers.

First, television viewing encourages critical thinking, a skill that is indispensable in the society and schools. Through this amusing and interesting medium, it provides food of thought regarding issues over a variety of human problems ranging from globalization to homelessness. It also demonstrates subjects like science and geography in a distinctive and diverting way that helps learners to understand the information well (Leigh 2001). A case in point, families can comment on how a dispute is settled in programmes and consequently discuss over possible measures to better resolve the conflict (Sharif 1999). Accordingly, critical thinking is developed during the discussion over an issue.

In addition, there is no doubt that television allows access to the latest local and world issues (Rutherford 2002). People receive first-hand information on the latest events around the world via news programmes aired on television. Subsequently, young people become more aware of global issues and this indirectly inspires them to participate in certain favourable activities such as charity works (Sharif 1999). According to Rutherford (2002), the knowledge attained can also motivate public to be actively involved in the issues risen, thus applying pressure on authorities like councils, major companies and even national governments. This will urge the decision-makers to deliberate the responses from the audience and by doing this, it forms a force for democracy. Hence, it is assured that television viewing is beneficial when it connects people with world’s issues.

Furthermore, television viewing is literally beneficial in the sense that it assuages and relaxes its viewers after a hard day at work or at school. The rationale is that viewers can have a peace of mind and get prepared to focus on their next task. Moreover, by engrossing in a programme, they temporarily neglect their tension and frustration that resulted from the rising requirements and anticipations put on them. This is especially vital in helping them to regroup and gain a more balanced view over certain problems (Rutherford 2002). This can be further evidenced by the UK Time Use Survey (2000) which indicates that full-time workers spend their leisure mostly on television, video and radio. Ergo, watching television is definitely advantageous as it entertains its viewers.

All in all, I am in full support of the claim that television viewing brings more advantages than disadvantages as it develops critical thinking, informs people about global issues and acts as a relaxing tool for its viewers. Nevertheless, reports about television tend to concentrate on its adverse impacts (Leigh 2001). It is undeniable that television viewing can be harmful, yet not to the extent that it is nonsensical. Indeed, it is up to the viewers themselves to watch moderately or else television could be a scientific monster after all. Apparently, if viewers can use the medium intelligently and with discrimination over the choice of programmes, television can play a significant role in promoting positive values.

Argumentative Essay-- TV Viewing #1

It is indisputable that the invention of television has brought a tremendous change to the life of its audience. Nonce, the population of households in developed countries who own at least one television set has exceeded ninety per cent (Sharif 1999). According to American Time Use Survey (2003), average hour spent by Americans per day in watching television is approximately 2.5 hours. Sociologists and experts are bickered over the issue of whether television is a blessing or a curse when there are claims that extensive television viewing has eaten into our lives. Correspondingly, I strongly assert that television viewing brings more benefits than disadvantages as it develops critical thinking, informs people about global issues and acts as a relaxing tool for its viewers.

First, television viewing encourages critical thinking, a skill that is indispensable in the society and schools. Through this amusing and interesting medium, it provides food of thought regarding issues over a variety of human problems ranging from globalization to homelessness. It also demonstrates subjects like science and geography in a peculiar and diverting way that helps learners to understand the information well (Leigh 2001). A case in point, families can comment on how a dispute is settled in programmes and consequently discuss over possible measures to better resolve the conflict (Sharif 1999). Accordingly, critical thinking is developed during the discussion over an issue.

In addition, it is literally true that television allows access to the latest local and world issues (Rutherford 2002). People receive first-hand information on the latest events around the world via news programmes aired on television. Subsequently, young people can become more aware of global issues and this may inspire them to participate in favourable activities such as charity works (Sharif 1999). According to Rutherford (2002), the knowledge attained can also motivate public to be actively involved in the issues risen, thus applying pressure on authorities like councils, major companies and even national governments. This will urge the decision-makers to deliberate the responses from the audience and by doing this, it forms a force for democracy. Hence, television viewing is beneficial when it connects people with world’s issues.

Furthermore, television viewing is beneficial in the sense that it assuages and relaxes its viewers after a hard day at work or at school. The rationale is that viewers can have a peace of mind and get prepared to focus on their next task. Moreover, by engrossing in a programme, they can temporarily neglect their tension and foiling that resulted from the rising requirements and anticipations put on them. This is especially vital in helping them to regroup and gain a more equivalent view over certain problems (Rutherford 2002). This can be further evidenced by the UK Time Use Survey (2000) which indicates that full-time workers spend their leisure mostly on television, video and radio. Ergo, watching television is advantageous as it could entertain its viewers.

All in all, I am in full support of the claim that television viewing brings more advantages than disadvantages as it develops critical thinking, informs people about global issues and acts as a relaxing tool for its viewers. Nevertheless, reports about television tend to concentrate on its adverse impacts (Leigh 2001). We cannot deny that television viewing can be harmful, yet not to the extent that it is nonsensical. Indeed, it is up to the viewers themselves to watch moderately or else television could be a scientific monster after all. Apparently, if viewers can use the medium intelligently and with discrimination over the choice of programmes, television can play a significant role in promoting positive values.

Argumentative Essay-- Junk Food #Final

Should the sale of junk food in school canteens be banned?

The term ‘junk food’ refers to any food that is perceived to be unhealthy and of low nutritional value (Smith 2005). The issue of junk food in schools has been raised when it is being accused for leading to the increase in childhood obesity. ‘The nutritional value of food eaten by Australian children has been falling progressively over the past 30 years’ (Tran 2005, p. 6). Accordingly, I strongly agree that the sale of junk food in school canteens should be banned as it will degrade students’ health level, cause behavioural problems as well as create litter problems in the school compound.

First, junk food is indisputably bad for health. Most of the junk foods are of low nutritional value. For instance, chips, confectionery, soft drinks and hamburgers contain a high level of fat, salt and sugar which could aggravate the health of schoolchildren (Health Foundation 2005). Besides, according to Weekend News (2005), junk foods like instant noodles and chocolate bars have the potential to raise the kilojoules intake and subsequently bring to weight gain. That is why a lot of complaints on childhood obesity have been directed at junk food as it could contribute to further health problems such as heart disease, osteoarthritis and even cancers. Furthermore, the decline in the dental health of Australian primary school children acts as a significant evidence that the health level is worsening (Weekend News 2005). Hence, the sale of junk food in school should be banned as it is unhealthy for schoolchildren.

In addition, additives from the junk food such as synthetic flavour and colour enhancers have been proven to trigger behavioural problems, for examples, hyperactivity and poor concentration amongst children (Smith 2005). In fact, students’ learning potential is reduced when junk food is sold in schools. According to Food Show (2005), there is a response from Jack Green who mentions that an obvious improvement in students’ attitudes has been noticed when the school removed the sale of junk food. He points out that the students became calmer after lunch. Ergo, the sale of junk food in school canteens should be banned in order to cut down the behavioural problems in children.

Apart from that, fast food packaging is the major contributor to litter problems (Smith 2005). Subsequently, it will not only burden the cleaning costs but also downgrade the image of the communities for the rationale that litter is a safety and health hazard. Moreover, in a response by Jack Green in Food Show (2005), he states that litter such as cans, crisp packets, cartons and plastic containers are everywhere when junk food is sold in school. As a result, the school grounds man has no much time to spend on maintenance projects that benefit the school as he has to spend the time on cleaning the grounds. Overall, the sale of junk food has to be banned to reduce the litter problems in school.

All in all, I strongly assent to the ban of selling junk food in school canteens as it will worsen the health of students, cause behavioural problems as well as create litter problems in the school compound. Despite it shows an apparent decline for the canteen profits at Cook High School after reducing the sale of junk foods (School News 2005), this should never be the excuse to make junk food available in school canteens. In brief, school authorities should put the welfare and safety of students in precedence by banning the sale of junk food in school canteens.

Argumentative Essay-- Junk Food #2

Should the sale of junk food in school canteens be banned?

According to Jemma Smith (2005), the term ‘junk food’ refers to any food that is perceived to be unhealthy and of low nutritional value. The issue of junk food in schools has been raised when it is being accused for leading to the increase in childhood obesity. ‘The nutritional value of food eaten by Australian children has been falling progressively over the past 30 years’ (Tran 2005, p. 6). Accordingly, I strongly agree that the sale of junk food in school canteens should be banned as it will degrade students’ health level, cause behavioural problems as well as create litter problems in the school compound.

First, junk food is indisputably bad for health. Most of the junk foods are of low nutritional value. For instance, chips, confectionery, soft drinks and hamburgers contain a high level of fat, salt and sugar which could aggravate the health of schoolchildren (Health Foundation 2005). Besides, according to Weekend News (2005), junk foods like instant noodles and chocolate bars have the potential to raise the kilojoules intake and subsequently bring to weight gain. That is why a lot of complaints on childhood obesity have been directed at junk food as it could contribute to further health problems such as heart disease, osteoarthritis and even cancers. Furthermore, the decline in the dental health of Australian primary school children acts as a significant evidence that the health level is worsening (Weekend News 2005, p. 6). Hence, the sale of junk food in school should be banned as it is unhealthy for schoolchildren.

In addition, additives from the junk food such as synthetic flavour and colour enhancers have been proven to trigger behavioural problems, for examples, hyperactivity and poor concentration amongst children (Smith 2005). In fact, students’ learning potential is reduced when junk food is sold in schools. According to the website ‘The Food Show’ (2005), there is a response from Jack Green who mentions that an obvious improvement in students’ attitudes has been noticed when the school removed the sale of junk food. He points out that the students became calmer after lunch. Ergo, the sale of junk food in school canteens should be banned in order to cut down the behavioural problems in children.

Apart from that, fast food packaging is the major contributor to litter problems (Smith 2005). Subsequently, it will not only burden the cleaning costs but also downgrade the image of the communities for the rationale that litter is a safety and health hazard. Moreover, in a response by Jack Green in ‘The Food Show’ website (2005), he states that litter such as cans, crisp packets, cartons and plastic containers are everywhere when junk food is sold in school. As a result, the school grounds man has no much time to spend on maintenance projects that benefit the school as he has to spend the time on cleaning the grounds. Overall, the sale of junk food has to be banned to reduce the litter problems in school.

All in all, I strongly assent to the ban of selling junk food in school canteens as it will worsen the health of students, cause behavioural problems as well as create litter problems in the school compound. Despite it shows an apparent decline for the canteen profits at Cook High School after reducing the sale of junk foods (School News 2005), this should never be the excuse to make junk food available in school canteens. In brief, school authorities should put the welfare and safety of students in precedence by banning the sale of junk food in school canteens.

Argumentative Essay-- Junk Food #1

Should the sale of junk food in school canteens be banned?

According to Jemma Smith (2005), the term ‘junk food’ refers to any food that is perceived to be unhealthy and of low nutritional value. The issue of junk food in schools has been raised when it is being accused for leading to the increase in childhood obesity. ‘The nutritional value of food eaten by Australian children has been falling progressively over the past 30 years’ (Tran 2005, p. 6). Accordingly, I strongly agree that the sale of junk food in school canteens should be banned as it will degrade students’ health level, cause behavioural problems as well as create litter problems in the school compound.

First, junk food is indisputably bad for health. Most of the junk foods are of low nutritional value. For instance, chips, confectionery, soft drinks and hamburgers contain a high level of fat, salt and sugar which could aggravate the health of schoolchildren (Health Foundation 2005). Besides, junk food generally contains chemical additives such as synthetic flavour and colour enhancers. According to Weekend News (2005), junk foods like instant noodles and chocolate bars have the potential to raise the kilojoules intake and subsequently bring to weight gain. That is why a lot of complaints on childhood obesity have been directed at junk food as it could contribute to further health problems such as heart disease, osteoarthritis and even cancers. Furthermore, the decline in the dental health of Australian primary school children acts as a significant evidence that the health level is worsening (Weekend News 2005, p. 6). Hence, the sale of junk food in school should be banned as it is unhealthy for schoolchildren.

In addition, additives from the junk food have been proven to trigger behavioural problems, for examples, hyperactivity and poor concentration amongst children (Smith 2005). In fact, students’ learning potential is reduced when junk food is sold in schools. According to the website ‘The Food Show’ (2005), there is a response from Jack Green who mentions that an obvious improvement in students’ attitudes has been noticed when the school removed the sale of junk food. He points out that the students became calmer after lunch. Ergo, the sale of junk food in school canteens should be banned in order to cut down the behavioural problems in children.

Apart from that, fast food packaging is the major contributor to litter problems (Smith 2005). Subsequently, it will not only burden the cleaning costs but also downgrade the image of the communities for the rationale that litter is a safety and health hazard. Moreover, in a response by Jack Green in ‘The Food Show’ website (2005), he states that litter such as cans, crisp packets, cartons and plastic containers are everywhere when junk food is sold in school. As a result, the school grounds man has no much time to spend on maintenance projects that benefit the school as he has to spend the time on cleaning the grounds. Overall, the sale of junk food has to be banned to reduce the litter problems in school.

All in all, I strongly assent to the ban of selling junk food in school canteens as it will worsen the health of students, cause behavioural problems as well as create litter problems in the school compound. Despite it shows an apparent decline for the canteen profits at Cook High School after reducing the sale of junk foods (School News 2005), this should never be the excuse to make junk food available in school canteens. In brief, school authorities should put the welfare and safety of students in precedence by banning the sale of junk food in school canteens.

Text Production Final Draft

What are the potential effects of global warming in terms of climate change and how can they be arrested?

It is undeniable that our mother Earth is facing a dominating issue which is global warming. Although the scientific and technological revolution has led human beings a luxurious and convenient life, this blessing ceases to be a tremendous advantage when it has simultaneously brought us into a life of devastation. As a matter of fact, global warming, or simply defined as the gradual rise of Earth’s temperature, is caused by a phenomenon called the greenhouse effect. Scientists believe that the emission of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide is the major contribution to global warming. Accordingly, it is imperative for us to explore the potential aftermath of global warming in terms of climate change and subsequently map out compatible strategies to resolve this issue to its minimum.

One of the feasible impacts of global warming has to deal with the geographical change of the Earth. Sea-level rise is an inevitable consequence. Woodford (2006) illustrates that the expansion of sea water and the melting of glaciers and ice sheets are driving up the sea-level. The IPCC estimates that sea levels will rise between 0.18 and 0.59 meters by 2099. Besides, global warming may also shift major climate patterns as well as prolong and intensify current catastrophes such as hurricanes, tornadoes and droughts. There will also be paradoxical phenomenon where a country is facing severe drought at the same time a neighbouring country is having horrendous flood. The rapid disappearance of ice shelf in Antartica and the dramatic topographical change in Greenland are several instances demonstrating the effects of global warming.

Apart from that, global warming may also disturb the world’s ecosystem when the loss of species and lives occur. According to Albert Gore, the main character in the film An Inconvenient Truth (2007), species loss is now occurring at a rate of 1000 times greater than the natural background rate. A case in point, the warming oceans are bleaching the coral reefs and this has put most of the fish species in jeopardy. Moreover, the erratic climate change will also bring disastrous effects on human beings all over the world. Hotter summers will lead to more cases of heat stroke and deaths. Resurgent infectious diseases such as malaria, are predicted to emerge and cause further deceases. Mosquitoes, for example, breed faster in warmer climates, spreading diseases to more people (Riebeek 2007). Furthermore, the intensifying catastrophes such as hurricanes, tornadoes and typhoons will sacrifice millions of lives too.

Realising the deleterious impacts we may get from global warming, more pragmatic measures should be implemented to arrest this obstinate problem. Reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide and using energy efficiently are those steps that should be put in precedence. For instances, buy energy-efficient appliances, recycle, plant more trees and switch to renewable energy such as solar energy. We can also practise car-pooling, use a bicycle or walk instead of drive a car, or maybe use a hybrid car if possible. In addition, according to the film An Inconvenient Truth (2007), the main character Albert Gore says that when the warnings are accurate and based on sound science, then we as human beings, whatever country we live in, have to find a way to make sure that the warnings are heard and responding too.

After all is said and done, global warming has the potential to bring us disastrous consequences. The current anomalous climate change should act as a portent to all of us that we are going to reap as we have sown for the worsening global warming. In fact, we are witnessing a collision between our civilization and the Earth (An Inconvenient Truth 2007). One may concern about the economic growth when measures of using less energy are carried out, but have we ever thought that how are we going to enjoy the affluence if we do not have a healthy Earth? Ergo, it is up to us as human beings to make the right decision. The fact is, we do have the ability to avert this issue and secure the nature for our next generation.