Some people argue that History is one of the most essential subjects taught at school,

while others hold a completely different view. In my opinion, the importance of Science
and Technology should never outweigh that of History, as both subjects serve
fundamentally different purposes in education.

Those who favor Science and Technology may do so out of concern for keeping pace with
the rapidly changing world. Since the Industrial Revolution, fields such as engineering,
biotechnology, and information technology have been advancing at an extraordinary speed.
To meet future labour demands, many governments emphasise STEM-related subjects and
allocate substantial resources to laboratories and training programmes. As a result, school
timetables are often dominated by mathematics, physics, chemistry, and computer science.
Supporters believe that mastering these subjects provides students with marketable skills
and creates access to highly paid and stable job opportunities.

Nevertheless, this should not lead us to overlook the value of History. Unlike scientific
subjects, History provides cultural awareness and ethical understanding. Through learning
about past events, students develop a clearer sense of identity and understand why their
society follows certain traditions. For example, knowledge of historical conflicts or
colonial experiences helps young people interpret modern political relations more
accurately. In addition, by studying both achievements and mistakes of earlier generations,
students can gain insights that guide future decision-making. A society that neglects
History may repeat errors simply because its citizens lack awareness of previous
consequences.

In conclusion, although Science and Technology are indispensable in modern education,

the role of History remains unique and irreplaceable. It fosters critical thinking, cultural
connection, and moral judgment. Therefore, I firmly believe that History continues to be
one of the most crucial subjects in any curriculum.
People hold differing views on whether children should be allowed to make their own
choices in everyday matters. While some argue that this may lead to selfish behaviour,
others believe that decision-making is an essential part of personal development. I agree
with the latter view, as guided choice helps children build responsibility and independence.

Those who worry about excessive freedom argue that children base decisions on personal
desire rather than long-term consequences. A child, for instance, might choose to eat only
sweets or spend hours on electronic devices simply because it is pleasurable. If such
behaviour continues without boundaries, children may grow into adults who prioritise their
own preferences and fail to consider the needs of others. This concern leads some parents
to believe that limiting children’s choices is necessary to maintain discipline and social
awareness.

However, when children are allowed to make choices under proper guidance, the outcomes
can be highly positive. Adults can help them think through consequences by explaining
both advantages and disadvantages of each option. Over time, this process strengthens
critical thinking skills and teaches children to take responsibility for their actions. For
example, choosing their own extracurricular activities encourages them to commit to long-
term goals and develop confidence in their decision-making abilities. Such experiences
gradually prepare them for more complex decisions later in life.

In conclusion, although unrestricted freedom may encourage selfishness, guided decision-

making is a valuable educational tool. Therefore, children should be given opportunities to
make choices within a supportive and structured framework.
Although agricultural techniques have improved dramatically in recent decades, hunger
continues to be a major global issue. This essay will explain the reasons behind this
paradox and suggest potential solutions.

The main cause of ongoing hunger is the uneven distribution of technological progress.
Most innovations, such as genetically improved crops or automated irrigation systems, are
developed in advanced countries that already enjoy food security. These technologies aim
to increase commercial efficiency and global competitiveness rather than address world
hunger directly. In contrast, many less-developed countries still rely on traditional farming
methods that are highly vulnerable to climate change, droughts, and extreme weather
events. When harvests fail, food shortages quickly emerge and trigger secondary problems
such as rising food prices, malnutrition, and political instability.

To address this issue, greater international cooperation is essential. Developed countries

could share technological knowledge by sending agricultural specialists or establishing
training centres in regions that face chronic food shortages. Additionally, partnerships
could be formed to invest in sustainable infrastructure, such as water-efficient irrigation
systems or community seed banks. These efforts not only improve local food production
but also promote long-term agricultural resilience. Scientific institutions may also benefit
from such cooperation by gaining access to rare crop varieties and diverse ecological data.

In conclusion, hunger persists mainly because technological advancements are not equally
accessible across nations. The most effective solution is for technologically advanced
countries to collaborate with less-developed regions, providing expertise and resources to
strengthen agricultural productivity and reduce food insecurity.
Some environmental advocates argue that households do not recycle enough waste and
that recycling should therefore be made legally compulsory. I agree that legislative
measures play an essential role in increasing recycling rates.

Opponents may believe that new laws are unnecessary, as many people already recycle
voluntarily. They argue that recycling is simple and requires only minimal effort. From
this perspective, introducing additional laws would create unnecessary bureaucracy. Law-
making is time-consuming, and once regulations become outdated, further amendments are
required, leading to administrative inefficiency.

However, voluntary participation alone is insufficient to achieve meaningful environmental

impact. Despite public campaigns and school education, a significant number of
individuals still fail to recycle consistently. Some people avoid sorting waste because it is
inconvenient, while others simply lack motivation when no consequences are involved.
Human behaviour tends to follow the path of least resistance, meaning that without clear
rules or penalties, recycling rates will remain lower than expected. Laws not only set
minimum standards but also influence public attitudes. When recycling becomes a legal
obligation, individuals are more likely to view it as a shared responsibility rather than a
personal choice.

In conclusion, although some argue that compulsory recycling laws are redundant, legal
frameworks are the most effective way to ensure high participation and long-term
environmental protection. Therefore, I strongly support making recycling a legal
requirement.
In today’s fast-paced world, scientific advancements are occurring at an unprecedented
rate. As a result, whether research findings should be openly shared has become a widely
debated issue. I strongly believe that scientific information should be made publicly
accessible whenever possible.

Opponents argue that researchers receive little reward for their efforts if their results are
released freely. Many scientists invest years of labour, financial resources, and expertise
into a single project. If their findings are openly accessible, they risk losing competitive
advantages and may watch others gain recognition or profit from data they did not help
generate. This situation can understandably lead to frustration and discourage future
innovation.

Nevertheless, the broader benefits of open research far outweigh these drawbacks. When
data are freely shared, scientists no longer need to repeat fundamental experiments, which
significantly increases efficiency. Open access also encourages collaboration, allowing
researchers from different disciplines and countries to build upon one another’s work.
This interconnected environment accelerates discovery, leading to breakthroughs in fields
such as medicine, climate science, and renewable energy. Furthermore, open research
enhances transparency and public trust, as findings can be reviewed, reproduced, and
discussed widely.

In conclusion, although sharing research may reduce individual advantages, the long-term
benefits for scientific progress are considerably greater. Therefore, I firmly support making
research information publicly available for the advancement of global knowledge.