The advantage of English spreading as a global language will continue to outweigh the disadvantages The advantage of English spreading as a global language will continue to outweigh the disadvantages. To what extent do you agree or disagree? -- The issue of globalisation and, in particular, of the use english language as a tool of multinational communication has been in the headlines for decades. I agree with those who say that these processes can have a negative impact. However, some feel that there is nothing to be afraid of. In this essay I will examine both sides and substantiate my opinion. Regarding those who praise the spreading of Shakespear's language there are many reasons. Th primary argument is that it is immensely convenient to use one language which is understansable everywhere. It makes much easier traveling and creation multinational teams for any kinds of projects. Moreover, it creates opportunity for dialogue for different cultural and religious groups, what is crucially important at the moment, when isolation and tention are so high. Nevertheless, besides all advantages there are some negative aftermath. Surprisingly, one of the possible victims if popularisation English language is English language itself! There are two billions people who have English as a second language, which give a birth a number of sublanguages, such as Spanglish, Chineglish and much more, which are vulgarised and simplified forms of English. The result of this process in the really long run could be coming some grey English which will be only language on the Earth. In my view, in order to pervent such outcome we should protect other languages. To sum up, my strong belief is that there is nothing wrong in growing popularity of English language, but we should asses probable consequences and take serious measures to protect national identities of other language groups.

Old buildings - to knock down? Too much money has been spent on looking after and repairing old buildings. Therefore, we should knock down old buildings and build modern ones instead To what extent do you agree or disagree? --- The custom to preserve and respect ancient buildings has been kept for centuries. I agree with those who say that it is crucial for amy reasonable community. However, some feel that to care about old constructions is too costly and these funds should better be used for building new modern buildings which will replace old ones. In this essay I will examine both sides an substantiate my opinion. Regarding those who are for novelty in the field of architecture there are many reasons. For example, they mention that buildings constructed with usage of new technologies are much more practical and can better face requirements of the modern society. Additionally, they proclaim that this way is cheaper, thereby it let save funds for other needs, such as healthcare or education. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that this point of view is poorly grounded. The primary reason is that attentive position towards old buildings is a part of a natural respect for history which is essential for society. It goes without saying that a nation which do not remember its past has doubtful future. those of buildings which have an artistic value are important documents of certain historical periods, that's why they have social and educational significance. To conclude, my strong belief is that old buildings can be destroyed only if it's admitted that they do not have any value. and this decision should be made by social institutions which include historians and specialist of architecture. I hope that in the future more people will understand the crucial role of national memory in shaping our futurity.

It is more important for a building to serve a purpose than to look beautiful. Do you agree? The balance between pragmatism and art on the field of architecture has been a subject of hot debates for centuries. I agree with those who say that a beauty of a building is essential as well as its ability to face practical requirements. However, some feel that the architecture is rather craft then art and people should not be addicted to the appearance of their houses. I will examine both sides and substantiate my opinion. Regarding those, who do not consider design as kind of art, there are many reasons. The primary argument is that a building should be convenient and safe, hence there is no use, for instance, in balanced proportions of a city rail-station if its construction causes crowding and in order to get their trains passangers have to pass three stairways. Additionally, thet mention that the pursuit of beauty lead to going beyond the budget and term boundaries, which are hugely common in the construction business. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that this point of view is poorly grounded. The whole idea of contradistinguishing the appearance and other qualities is pernicious and out-of-date. There is a famous school of design named Bauhaus which besides other prominent achievements, promoted an idea that beauty and pragmatism are not enemies in design, but different sides of one coin. The matter of the fact is that exterior of things which we use has great impact on our mood and eventually can significantly change the life. This is particularly correct for architecture, since buildings are so notable and change appearance of the whole city. The great example, how dramatically can city design change social life is given us by New York. Its parks was redesigned, became much more friendly, turned into places of meet and relaxation. These processes changed the nearest neighbourhoods and, eventually, the image of the whole city. To sum up, my strong belief is that architecture should be practical and beautiful at once. Neglecting any of these components leads to creating cities where people would not like to live, which means negative social and economical consequences.

AI and its risks. The issue of the artificial intelligence has been in the headlines for decades. I agree with those who say that AI as any other new technology has own risks which should be considered in advance. However, some feel that these fears are poorly grounded and we should develop AI without any special precautions. In this essay I will examine both sides and substantiate my opinion. Regarding those who is praising robotos there are many reasons. First off all they mention their immense usefulness and a great number of possible applications. For example, just to move away from traditional ideas about robots, there is a project of creating robots wich can swim through the ocean and absorb contaminated water, using chemical reaction to produce electric energy for further motion while cleaning up water. At the end of its lifecycle such robot will just decompose, because it's possible to construct them from biodegradable materials. Such approach let us use thousands of such robots. It goes without saying, that robots can make the world better and safer place. Nevertheless, despite the fact that I share all this enthusiasm, in my view, any new technology should be regarded carefully, due to the fact that unknown can be potentially harmful. It is well known from cognitive science that people are prone to underestimate the global risks. What is even worse, we usually overestimate advantages of technology which we like, while underestimate its risks, cost and disadvantages. As far as I am concerned, humanity has no option to refuse usage the robots or to stop investigations in the area of AI. But, despite all attractiveness of these studies, scientific community should exert all efforts to calculate risks and to prevent them in advance. This is way for designing really friendly and safe AI. To conclude, my strong belief is that we should not neglect the opportunities which revealed by technical or scientific progress, but our duty is to be responsible users of all these fascinating inventions.

Art for everybody? The issue of the talent and genius has been a subject of a great interest for centuries. I agree with those who say that creativeness can be learned and developed as meny other skills. However, some feel that only people marked with divine touch can create Art which begins with capital letter A. In this essay I will examine both sides and substantiate my opinion. Regarding those who do not believe that we all can be creators there are many reasons. For example, they notice how low is a ratio of successful artists among legions of those who had only a hot desire without talent. How many centuries have gone, exclaim they, but have you ever seen a new Leonardo?! Additionally, they mention their own inability to paint, to sing and to invent something absolutely new. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that this point if view is poorly grounded. As far as I'm concerned, we all born to be creators. Child's desire to explore the world and create new things is so immense, that many of them continue despite mistrust and mockery of surrounding. Unfortunately, public opinion and modern educational system do not encourage young people to develop creativity. In my view, this situation partly related with needs of the industrial period, when society required rather laborers then painters and musicians. The world is changing, but these systems have a great inertia. Indeed, establishing establishing a new direction in art is not possible for everybody. This requiers a certain boldness and readiness to sacrifice ofr own dream. Nonetheless, create something new, get pleasure from artistic activity, put a part of own personality into painting, music or text - this is possible for any person who have enough determination and work ethic. To sum up, my strong belief is that art is available for anybody. I hope that in the future more people will be able to express themselves this way.

Stay in school? The issue of necessity staying in school has been in the headlines for decades. I agree with those why say that it should be a personal choice of a student. However, some feel that complete school education is essential. In this essay I will examine both sides and substantiate my opinion. Regarding those who support motto "stay in school" there are many reasons. The primary argument is that decent education provide the better chance to get well-paid job. Additionally, they mention that less educated children are more prone to mess up with drugs and all types of criminal behaviour, thereby less probably are about to become responsible and full-fledged citizens. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that this point of view is poorly grounded. The most obvious reason is that education without motivation is not effective. Unfortunately, children are forced to make a key decision about their education when they really are not ready for it. Too often we can observe students who hate the process of learning and do not feel a slightest curiosity for the subject. They do not feel themselves a creators of own fate and just play a role prescribed them by parents and society. In my view, much better way is getting some working experiences, the opportunity to feel the taste of real life. If this scenario eventually will led a young person to a deliberate decision to continue education - we will get a determined student with clear vision of his (or her) goal. To conclude, my strong belief is that decision about education should be voluntary and responsible. There is no reason to stay in school by any cost.

Teachers vs. internet, intro It goes without saying that technologies have changed approaches in many areas of life dramatically, including methods and ways of education. I agree with whose who say that, despite the technological breakthrough and appearing a great number of new resources of knowledge, the significance of teachers in education stay essential. However, some feel that mentors are not necessary nowadays and students can do without them. In this essay I will examine both sides and substantiate my opinion.

Cheap plane tickets vs. environmental risks The issue of environmental consequences of the commercial aviation has been in the headlines for decades. I agree with those who say that there is necessity to create funds designed for handling ecological problems caused by air travels, hence air companies should pay special fees, sufficient to heal the damage. However, some feel that such measures will deprive a lot of people opportunity to travel, which is unacceptable. In this essay I will examine both sides and substantiate my opinion. Regarding those who support freedom of air travel there are many arguments. The primary reason is that travels is excellent way to spend holidays, beneficial both personally and socially. Apart from entertainment, tourism is base of economic for many countries. Additionally, the touring helps create connections between people belonging to different nations and countries. This is especially crucial at the moment, when tension between cultural and religious groups are so high and the need for dialogue is so great. Nevertheless, despite all my sympathy for these reasons, my strong belief is that this point of view is poorly grounded. However much advantages give travels for us, we shoukd not support them at the cost of destroying environment, that is home for all of us! The Stanford University published a study in 2012, which shows that one flight across Atlantic cause more harm then all private cars of passangers for the year. In my view, the damage should be calculated and compensated, despite the fact that this will affect the cost and availability of tickets. To sum up, I firmly believe that this mindful and attentive approach should be a standart in the use of any harmful technology.