Parents are the best teachers.

Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. You should give reasons for your answer
using your own ideas and experience.
Write at least 250 words.
Model Answer 1:
(Agreement: Parents are the best teachers)
Whether parents are our best teachers or not is a never-ending debate and people are divided both in favour
and against this argument. Both have a very strong contribution and influence on a childs learning but in my
opinion, parents overtake the teachers in terms of teaching their children.

First of all, I would like to point out that a teacher is not merely a person who takes a text book and read texts
from there to a student. Rather a teacher is someone who devotes his/her times to teach someone everything
that someone needs to know to advance to next step. Morality, intricacies of life, subject matter knowledge, art,
science, history, value of time etc. are something that cant be taught through academic books and a good
teacher is someone who teaches someone these all.

Now that we know the true responsibility of a teacher, we can easily compare our parents and teachers. The
things that we learn from our parents are far more important than what we learn from our teachers. I am not
denying the invaluable knowledge we learn from our teachers through our academic years, but what we learn
from our parents are incomparable. We learn to survive, talk, and distinguish well from bad, values of life,
morality and such important other things from our parents. We are the true reflection of our parents and our
characters are shaped by their personality and behaviours. Later the teachers help us to enhance our
knowledge, horizon and our view of life but the very foundation and ground are made by our parents.

The parents sacrifice so many things of their life just to ensure a better life for us and nothing in this whole
world could even be compared with their sacrifice for us. Think of a student who is unable to pay his/her
monthly school fees would be cast away from the school and the beloved teachers would scarcely be there to
help him/her. On the other hand, the parents would always be there with their every possible effort to help the
child.

To solve the ever-increasing environmental hazards

throughout the world, the best way is to increase the price of
fuel.
What is your opinion on the above assumption?

You should write at least 250 words.

Model Answer 1: (Agreement)
Environmental or natural hazards are the results of physical processes that affect humans and environment
every day and harmful for both in the short and long run. As the use of fuel increases to keep up with modern
demands and increased population, the world is becoming more vulnerable to environmental hazards and
disasters. Floods, earthquakes, severe thunderstorms, toxic or oil spills immediately come to mind when
comprehending this issue, implying that all these things are inherently hazardous.
One of the most effective solutions to these environmental hazards is to raise the price of fuel. The use of
petroleum and gasoline can release toxic chemicals into our atmosphere. These chemicals escape into the air
during refilling, from the gasoline tank and carburettor during normal operation, and from engine exhaust.
Transportation sources account for about 30-50% of all harmful emissions into the atmosphere. The
industrialisation is another reason for the omission of harmful chemicals too.

Smog is another environmental hazard. It causes human respiratory stress, and damages many plants,
significantly reducing farm crop yields and the health of trees and other vegetation. Burning gasoline emits
significant quantities of a wide range of harmful gases into the atmosphere. For example, carbon monoxide is a
poisonous gas produced by incomplete combustion. Carbon dioxide, a normal product of burning fuel, is non-
toxic but contributes to the greenhouse effect, which is also known as global warming and it is probably the
most dangerous threat to the human existence.

Raising the price of fuel would mean that people would use less petroleum and gasoline. They would find other
alternative means of transport to save money, which would mean using less high-priced fuel for everyday
purposes. For example, cycling is a healthy activity and it saves the earth too. Also, for a long journey, people
could try to find friends together for car-pooling. Carpooling saves a lot of fuel and would save a lot of money
too. But other things should be considered to reduce the use of these dangerous fuels. A government should
implement strict rules of using cars, for instance no less than 4 persons should be allowed to drive a single car.
The price should be increased in a thoughtful way because if the price is so high it will hamper the average
people's life leading. There are so many people yet use public transportation for movement and the increased
price will make their life miserable. The prices of many necessary daily ingredients also increase with the price
of the fuel.

Many environmental hazards like smog and global warming are increasing around the world due to the
excessive use of petroleum and gasoline in our daily lives. Raising the price of fuel could make all the
difference to the environment. It would force people to use petrol in a more responsible way and use it less,
and therefore be the most effective solution to the problem of ever-increasing environmental hazards though it
might have some side effects but those can be controlled by the proper initiatives by the Government.

(Approximately 501 words)

(This model answer has been prepared by the site developer. However, please note that this is just one
example out of many possible answers.)

N.B: You should be able to pick up different points from this essay and organise your answer in your own style.

Model Answer 2: (Disagreement)

There are several reasons that are causing the environmental harms and this has become an urgent issue to
discuss and bring a solution about. The number of ever increasing cars is one of the reasons that leads to
affect the environment negatively and there are some assumptions that increasing the fuel price would solve
this problem. But the reality would be different, and increased fuel price will cause lots of other problems while
it would contribute very little to reduce the environmental pollutions and hazards. So this cant be the best
solution in any way.

First of all, the maximum numbers of cars are owned by the rich people and fuel price would not restrain them
from using the cars. The price of fuel, in fact, increased significantly over the past 12 years and that has done
nothing to reduce the car usages. On the contrary, the number of cars running on the roads has increased
more than expected. Besides, the fuel price determines the market prices of other daily necessary products
and increasing the price would only bring misery to the low and medium earning class population. Electronic
wastages, industries, household electrical devices, deforestation, chemical wastages, unthoughtful activities of
people are causing more damage to the mother earth than the gas omission by the cars. We should focus on
those aspects as well before increasing the price of fuel just based on an assumption.

The main idea of increasing the fuel price is to reduce the number of cars running in the street and to restrain
the car owners from using the cars less. But that would prove to be a ridiculous solution especially when car
owners are mostly high earning class and they would not bother about the fuel price.

The best solution to address this utmost concerning issue is to introduce an environment friendly energy source
like solar energy system, to improve the public transportation system & train system so that people mostly use
these systems instead of always using their own cars, increasing the awareness of the people so that they do
not directly contribute to harm the environment, and making strict rules so that deforestation, chemical
wastages and other harmful ways of environmental pollutions get reduced.

(This model answer has been prepared by the site developer. However, please note that this is just one
example out of many possible answers.)

Model Answer 3: (Disagreement)

Increasing the price of oil is one of the main strategies elaborated in order to act against the worsening of
habitat condition. Nonetheless, such a solution could be not enough to stop the phenomenon.

The idea of raising prices of environmentally risky goods is not a recent hypothesis. It is named Pigovian tax,
and it aims to reduce the use of such goods. It really affects consumption, balancing the advantage of using a
certain product with the disadvantage of a growing cost to obtain it. Consequently, consumers tend to move
toward less expensive goods. This tendency is advantageous because the State doesn't need to deal with
enterprises: the loss of clients means a consequent interest in enterprises toward green energy. The market
works as a stabiliser, more than an element damaging the environment. Therefore, this policy can be
advantageous.

On the other hand, disadvantages are more influential than positive effects. Firstly, the effectiveness of the
Pigovian tax lies on the ability of actors in finding a good to be used as a substitute. What if a country invested
many resources in road transport? What if a State can rely on massive oil reserves? In short, such a choice
must consider both the existence of alternative sources and the historical industrial evolution of the country.
Moreover, the importance of such an asset as the one of energy makes the use of incentives and changing in
prices an unreliable and dangerous tool. It could create too many damages for an excessively unpredictable
policy.

All things considered, many doubts remain about the hypothesis of using prices as a lever to modify the way
how people behave when dealing with energy and petrol. Some positive consequences are certainly
undeniable, but risks are still higher than expected benefits. Consequently, betting on alternative solutions
would be desirable.

(by - Francesco Finucci)

Model Answer 4: (Disagreement)

It is an irrefutable fact that to diagnose the ways for saving the environment is one the serious matters among
the countries. Many nations are finding the solutions to this ugly growth. As it has been heard that increasing
the price of fuel can be proved as an effective solution. However, I do not endorse this observation.

While spotlighting to the above aspect, I can explicitly say that this prediction can have adverse impacts on a
society. Being price of fuel at the peak, the fairs get heavily increased. With that, the people's life would
probably get more miserable. This practice will contribute to deteriorate the situation of poor people. For
verification, it is illustrated that there are millions of people in the world, who go to their work by public
transportation. It has been proved both in developing and developed countries, whenever the price of oil
increases; the fairs of public transportation do not take enough time for reaching the climax.

Furthermore, there is no full proof surety that after raising the price of fuel, the car owners would abandon
driving their vehicles. The dramatic increase in the folks' income has witnessed that the societies are richer
than the past. If they can afford to buy a car then expenditures of oils are not beyond their approach. For
instance, in both developing and developed countries, the total number of car holder has increased markedly.

Fuel is not used to run cars only. It is also used to run industries and machines. So increasing prices of it would
hurt the industrial productions as well. By increasing fuel price Government would be in a great dilemma and
would not be able to control the price of the daily commodity. The increased price of the fuel would only make
problem to the poor people while rich people who mostly own cars would find a way to buy it. The main concern
is the pollution prevention, not the fuel price. There are other ways of doing so rather than increasing the fuel
price. Increasing fuel price would create some international crisis and nations who produce fuel would get
benefits from that while the poor nations would struggle.

All things are considered, the obvious conclusion to be drawn is that increment in costing of fuel is not an
exceptional measure to reduce the environment hazards rather it is a reactionary work. There are many other
solutions that can be applied. Like government should prompt eco-friendly vehicles and public transport by
handovering them with extraordinary facilities. It should also make people aware of the menaces of pollutions.

(by Jaspartap Singh)

Model Answer 5: (Disagreement)

The requirement and consumption of fuel have increased manifolds to meet the demands of world population
for industrial growth, power needs and transportation purposes etc. The demand for fuel is only going to
increase in the coming years as projected and forecasted by the energy experts. Many governments are taking
various measures to curb the demand for this commodity due to the heavy cost involved in import etc.

While some people believe that increasing the cost of the fuel would save the environment from more
damages, others opine that that would only create more misery for the poor people.

Besides the financial constraints for many governments, a general but very important issue that needs to be
addressed on war footing basis is the environmental hazards associated with the massive use of this
commodity that is not only harmful to the mother earth but also poses great dangers to the human health.
These dangers include toxic effluent dumped into the sea which can destroy sea-life, pollutants released in the
air causing air pollution which can affect agriculture, ozone layer etc. Human beings can suffer problems from
breathing to some life-threatening diseases as cancer etc.

So what option do we have? Perhaps one of the options but not the best one is to increase the cost of fuel
which will have its own negative effects in the countries where poverty level and inflation is already high and
the public miseries will increase. A better option might be to conserve the consumption of fuel by promoting
energy conservation and creating a national policy suggesting various measures.

I would like to end my subject on the note that each country has to prepare a line of action by keeping the
interest of its people and economy in mind.

In summary, the things we learn from our teachers are important for our lives and with those valuable lessons
and knowledge we prepare for the future but the things we learn from our parents shapes who we are, who we
become and their contribution is much more important compared to the contribution of the traditional academic
teachers and thats why in my opinion parents are best teachers.

(This model answer has been prepared by the site developer. However, please note that this is just one
example out of many possible answers.)