Every city has old buildings. Every year the governments around the world spend large sums of money restoring them. Some people consider this a huge waste of money and they believe the governments’ budget should go to building new houses and roads, while others insist that the restoration of old buildings in cities is well worth the money.

There are a host of reasons why some urban old buildings should not be restored. To start with, the old buildings are no longer suitable for people to live in, therefore they should be destroyed and give way to new buildings so that people, especially young people in the cities have more living spaces. Secondly, the old buildings can cause inconveniences for the city dwellers. Since there is not a direct route through the old buildings, people sometimes have to go to and off work by making a long detour around them, and in this way much of their time is wasted. Finally, the old buildings may give rise to safety problems. More than 100 people, for example, are killed or injured each year in my city, just because of the collapse of some ancient buildings.

Yet old buildings - at least some of them - are significant historically and culturally, and hence should be restored for that reason. They carry some important messages about the city or even the whole nation. The Summer Palace, for instance, is a perfect reminder of how the imperial family in the Qing Dynasty in feudal China were living and so has great cultural significance. Such old buildings, if well preserved, can become tourist spots and attract thousands of visitors from around the globe.

We all need a memory of our past. Many old buildings do have historical and cultural value which tells us who we were. We need to take good care of these buildings and keep them as long as possible, however much money it may involve, so that they can tell the stories of the city or the nation to our future generations. Of course, the money squandered on those old buildings with little value should be used to solve more practical problems such as housing and traffic.

Crimes can be detestable, while minor offenders and their crimes are from time to time treated with leniency. Thus, some argue that laws should not discriminate, and equally punish minor criminals—an opinion that this essay is against.

To begin with, minors are yet to approach their maturity, and their crimes, albeit serious, should be punished with the consideration of their young age. Internationally speaking, countries might define the start of adulthood differently—18 being the most common—but they commonly believe that there is a distinction between minor crimes and adult crimes. Minors are likely to be given a better chance for rehabilitation when they commit crimes because of their inexperience of life and possibly better life prospects. In that case, milder punishments are inflicted onjuvenile delinquents: lesser sentencing and relatively less harsh correction facilities are introduced in their cases.

Moreover, considering the correction process, minor offenders should not be punished equally as adult criminals. Despite the above-mentioned arguments that are in young offenders’ defense, crimes, especially felonies by minors, deserve heavy punishment to deter crimes and reduce the harm of those crimes to the society. However, sending minors to adult prison might entailunexpectedly negative results. First, minors are naturally closer to more sophisticated criminals and crimes, which aggravate juvenile delinquency. Second, when in adult correctional facilities, young criminals might be threatened by assaults by adult prisoners, mostly sexually,which is nowhere closer to the purpose of rehabilitation.

In sum, law breakers, be they minors or not, should be punished for their wrongdoings, but lesser sentences and special correctional facilities might be more reasonable and helpful.

I think the news media mainly plays two important roles in modern society – providing information and influencing public opinion – and I think its influence is generally positive.

Obviously, the news media provides people with vast amounts of information in various forms. We can access it by listening to the radio, reading newspapers and magazines, watching television and by surfing the Internet. The ability to access news media is important for individuals and organizations because we make many decisions based on the news provided to us. Some of these decisions are mundane. We check the weather forecast to see whether we should take an umbrella to work. Other news, such as that about the business world, could influence whether we invest our savings in certain companies listed on the stock exchange.

The news is often presented to us in certain ways, using specific words to try to control our feelings and thoughts. This can be the main negative influence of the news media. Very often, the news media portrays people in simplistic ways, giving us some facts, but not the whole story. In the USA, some news media tends to support the Republicans whilst others tend towards the Democrats and the portrayal of individuals can reflect this. This is somewhat inevitable, because the editors, journalists and owners of the news media have opinions and biases. So, I think that it would be better if people checked news stories from different sources instead of only using one source.

Despite the fact that the news media can report events incorrectly or with bias, I think that the general influence on society is good. More factual information gives us the chance to make better decisions, both in our personal lives and in our working lives.

In this essay, I shall explain why I think we that should value old age and youth, without suggesting that one is better than the other.

I feel that we should celebrate the fact that so many people make it to old age. In the past, thanks to war, disease and the dangers of childbirth, most people were not so fortunate. Particularly in Western societies, a large (and growing) proportion of the population is past the age of retirement and most of those people are enjoying life. Many have saved enough money to live well and travel around the world or to play golf or to do whatever it is that they enjoy. They value the time they have and want to make the most of it. Simultaneously, societies around the world value the elderly for the experience and knowledge that they have gained over the years.

At the same time, cultures and individuals around the world value youth. Some people value it so much that they are prepared to spend plenty of money on maintaining a youthful look, through the use of make-up and plastic surgery. Youth is often seen as a time to be dynamic and fun, developing new ideas and trying things differently. This can be very useful to an economy. Would China have been able to develop so quickly in recent decades without a large supply of young people ready to take their chances in Shenzhen or Shanghai?

These are the main reasons why I think that it is a mistake to value either old age or youth and not the other. Of course, most people will value one more than the other, possibly depending on their age. However, as a culture - as a society - we should value both.

The extent to which people are influenced by advertisements can be measured in terms of the high sales of popular consumer goods, many of them being unnecessary or completely useless. Mainly through the media, advertisements on products and services are able to penetrate the public mind with half truth and half lying. In many cases, consumers are becoming so greedy that they are not only buying things they really do not need but also spending the money they do not have.

Although advertising gives people a chance as consumers, actually most advertisements tend to cause them to desire for something worthless. Under such circumstances, it is easy to change people's need into greed. So much so, they are constantly encouraged to want things--want this and want that. This human behavior is haunted by the media from all fronts: on radio, on television, and online, not to mention printed circulations such as newspapers and magazines. Obviously, a great number of "impulsive" buyers are persuaded under the illusion that new products or services could make a difference in their lives. Despite all the benefits of the free market economy, the effects of unreliable advertising are particularly negative in that the power of advertising does not reflect the real needs of the society in which products and services are sold.

Worse still, many consumers are convinced to waste money they do not have. Surrounded by advertisements, people are too unwise to perform a balanced act between income and expenditure. Increasingly, what seems to be good for economy begins to backfire because advertising is misleading consumers deeply into commercial debts which they probably could not afford to pay in due time. Thus, instead of improving people's lives, advertising may be considered as a "necessary evil" in modern time. Furthermore, as manufacturing and service companies are competing to have a larger share of the market, it is next to impossible to expect the media to reduce the amount of dishonest advertising. Besides, when it comes to making money, companies and the media are in the same religion.

After all, greed being a human instinct, consumers have only themselves to blame for their foolishness toward advertisements. Since outlawing commercial advertising is out of the question, people should educate themselves to be more prudent in buying and spending behaviors. As for consumers, what better measures can be taken to protect themselves other than self-control?

As can be argued, government rules can easily become obstacles to scientific achievements. Usually, most of the world's headline-making scientific discoveries do not come through governmental establishments, admitting that fiscal funding is often essential to helping such success to happen in the private sector. It is false to suggest that the government should carry out and control scientific research because the issue is not only about money but also brains.

Just because public funds matter, it does not follow that the government should restrict that kind of freedom of thinking which is vital to imaginative minds. Apart from that, nothing is more naive than for the government to play the role of police and rule research activities. Yes, freedom--that is how scientific breakthroughs are born. It goes without saying that probably billions of government's money may be needed to carry out research projects in various scientific fields, but it must be considered that great scientists tend to ignore, or even go against the rules. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how many scientific discoveries could have been missed as a result of unnecessary regulations. To put it strongly, control is the death of scientific research.

Scientific research should not be forced in any event. It is because a research problem is less likely to be solved by any apparatus which money can buy than to be solved by the brains of a free head that money cannot always buy. Thus, it does not seem proper for official amateurs to "know" what on earth scientists are doing. Otherwise, it would not be called "research" in the real sense of the word. Trying to heavily monitor scientific brains is perhaps a dangerous attitude since the consequence is always too much foliage and too little fruit. That can explain in part why the government ought to shift most of the pledged fiscal spending from the public to the private sector.

All aspects taken into account, scientific research is two things: billions and brains. With little doubt, the success in a country's scientific discoveries relies on both sufficient funding from the government and on creative minds from private companies in which pure research is worth every penny it costs. All the government has to do is grant money and expect that somewhere, something incredible is going to be known. (Created by Jeenn Lee Hsieh)

When visiting foreign countries some people think that it is advantageous to learn their cultures and traditions. How do you think people can learn other cultures and traditions? Why do you think that some people are interested in learning those traditions and cultures while others are not? Give reasons for your opinion and include any relevant examples from your knowledge or experience

It is common to experience culture shock when visiting other countries with different traditions and customs, particularly for an extended period of time. Some visitors are interested in adapting to foreign cultures and effectively manage culture shock; some people are not. There are several reasons why we can better enjoy travelling with an open mind and develop an appreciation for cultural differences across the world .

As visitors in foreign lands, we are probably in for the feeling of disorientation, insecurity and anxiety in unfamiliar situations. altogether known as culture shock. This phenomenon is understandable because values, behaviors and social customs we routinely take for granted no longer serve us in different surroundings. Of course, it takes time to learn a 'do-as-Romans-do' attitude, but it is always advisable to keep an open mind. We ought not to give in to the temptation to isolate ourselves into the comfort of what is familiar. Perhaps, all we need is a little more patience to understand the new environment in its historical and social context. In all events, the right thing to do is to observe objectively, and not to judge automatically as if anything different is 'wrong' or 'negative'.

To better appreciate differences culture-wise, it is also important that we learn beforehand enough background information about a country we are ging to. In case we know close to nothing about that country, it means that we might have no interest in its culture, so why should we visit there in the first place? For visitors, a little bit of knowledge about a foreign culture tends to be misleading. But it doesn`t have to be that way. For instance, making an effort to learn the local language and social customs can increase communication skills and proper behaviors, both being of great help to demonstrate an interest in a different culture as well as integrating with the local community. In fact, before travelling it pays to learn something of many things about a foreign country's culture and tradition, ranging from the greetings to the clothing to the before-meal ceremonies.

Visiting a foreign country can be a rewarding experience if we are open-minded and knowledge-conscious toward any different culture. It seems necessary to reduce the negative impact of culture shock so that the entire visit would become pure fun. After all, when we come across a new environment, we don't expect to experience everything exactly like back home, do we?

In some major cities in my country, China, heavy traffic becomes increasingly problematic to commuters. This situation can be due to the fast pace of urban development.

The migration policy in China leads rural peasants to big cities. Also the convenient modern facilities and business opportunities in urban areas attract young generation in smaller towns seeking a reasonable career. While cities are expanding, the travellers have to cover further distance than they used to. Unluckily the public transport system built years ago is not well functioning. It is at this point that car purchase sounds reasonable. On top of this, the political will of enhancing economy should be responsible for various urban issues including traffic congestion. In order to stimulate domestic consumption, the public are encouraged to own their private cars, but in metropolises with dense population, such lifestyle is hard to be sufficiently supported.

To deal with traffic issue, some actions can be taken. Firstly, satellite cities can be a pragmatic approach to decentralize urban resource, thereby reducing urban population density. These satellite cities featuring self-sufficient can largely reduce daily travel if people are encouraged to live near their workplace or their school. Exclusive avenues for cycling can be set so that short-distance travellers would like to choose riding a bike instead of squeezing in a bus.

Public transport should be improved in terms of route, timing, comfortableness and service courtesy so as to encourage commuters to take. The larger capacity of public vehicles compared with private cars can effectively ease the traffic pressure on city roads.

In contrast, private cars should be discouraged from using for short distance travel. The approaches include charging a high parking fee, more expensive petrol or restricting in driving days.

In many countries, museums used to be free for visitors to enter. But recently, admission fee is introduced due to a cut in funding from the government.

There are reasons for such proposal. Firstly, charging admission keeps a museum run healthily because it provides museums some funding for maintenance and expansion. As we generally know, building a museum with special characters and functions costs substantially more money than an ordinary residential building. Operation spending including security, staff salary and enriching the collections also need constant financial support. If all this cost has to come from taxation, that would be unfair to some taxpayers who do not visit museums at all. Also charging admission can compensate publicly funded museums for cuts in subsidy granted by the government and do not drop their service quality and security. Meanwhile this would not threaten other independent competitors which rely on their income from entry fees.

However, some people disagree with charging entry because they are convinced of some adverse impacts on the society. It is true that a museum is a venue about learning and enjoying as well. It is the access to vivid presentation of knowledge and local culture and history, and charging admission would decrease the number of visits, hence undermining the inspiration for knowledge and cultural heritage preservation and transmission. Another concern about charging admission of a museum is that a museum, as an important educational resource, may lose its educational function because some students in a disadvantaged position would be deprived of a museum tour.

In conclusion, although free access to a museum can promote culture and education, it leads to financial pressure on a museum. Accordingly students should be given a preference treatment and this can be effective with the government’s constant funding for student museum visit. Adults should be charged of admission to a museum. A virtual museum can be another promising option for those less well-off because it is much cheaper to build and run, and therefore can be provided free.

While the economy is booming in many countries, the funding for arts has been decreasing. The main reason is that some people overly emphasize social services such as medical care and education, but underestimate the intangible role of the arts as they find it difficult to quantify their benefits.

If we were to judge something by its material value, social service surely plays a more direct role in benefiting people’s life than the arts. For example, education empowers people with knowledge and skills that make capable workers. Improving healthcare system leads to better public health and better quality of life. Tackling environmental issues can make the earth a better place for us to live. If the taxpayers’ money is put into the development of infrastructure, living standard would be increased.

However, these do not necessarily increase the happiness of people as they are by nature emotionally connected to the world around them. That is to say the quality of life does not solely depend on materialism.

Humans are emotional beings and need not only bread to eat but also roses to enjoy. It is the arts that deal with the non-material aspects of life such as passions, values and relationships which significantly influence people’s feelings and judgments. The arts in many various forms have to do with human’s inner feelings and value system which are ultimately central to people’s behaviors. Another important benefit is that the arts inspire people to see their world from a personal point of view which is usually very unique and creative. And creativity and innovation is a crucial quality for an individual to excel in society and make the best of their life. Other values of the arts include relaxation and entertainment, safe way of channeling energy and passion, enhancing understanding between cultures and races.

To conclude, the arts are as important as basic social services for humans, although they benefit us in different ways. To maintain a healthy and robust society, governments should offer financial support in all areas of society including the arts.