Some people believe they should keep all the money they have earned and should not pay tax to the state. Do you agree or disagree?
In recent years, growing numbers of countries have suffered from a serious shortage of tax revenue. Under such circumstances, however, many experts believe that citizens should be allowed to preserve all the money they have managed to earn at work with no salaries contributed to a country. I am, nevertheless, not convinced by this view.
Admittedly, it is understandable some reasons behind people’s unwillingness to pay taxes. As the economy is still slowing down worldwide, most ordinary citizens have witnessed a dramatic plunge of their disposable incomes as salaries are cut substantially. To make the situation even worse, living costs in many cities have been rising with prices of things from fruits to houses reaching higher levels than ever. Therefore, some impoverished men and women would sincerely hope their incomes can be used to make live much better rather than pay for expenditure of the administration.
Despite the facts presented above, the lack of money would impose significant threats to governments and ultimately the entire society. After all, the maintenance of many important sectors such as public health and police force requires uninterrupted funds from the administration. Without the government paying salaries to doctors and police men and women, few people are likely to be willing to devote themselves whole-heartedly to the pursuit of criminals and the treatment of patients. As the result, it is citizens who would turn out to be victims in a chaotic society.
In conclusion, my stance is that paying taxes shall be the responsibility of each citizen. At the same time, however, the administration must take the living conditions of taxpayers into account and relieve the financial burden of the lower and middle class.
12.02.09 全球化 ≈ 12.01.07
The spread of multinational companies and the resulting increase of globalization produce positive effects to everyone. Do you agree or disagree?
In recent years, growing numbers of international companies have extended their reach to almost every corner of the world. Under such circumstances, therefore, some experts believe that the ongoing trend of globalization will turn out to be positive for each citizen. I am, nevertheless, not convinced by this view.
Admittedly, the development of multinational companies would indeed be beneficial for some people. Executives, for example, are able to witness a much faster growth of their companies because they can take advantage of both inexpensive labor force and cheap natural resources in many developing countries to produce their products in a much cheaper manner. At the same time, it is also possible for companies to enhance their cooperation with local agents and help increase sales in countries such as India and China, where the dramatic economic growth has nurtured growing numbers of youngsters with strong purchasing power.
Despite the facts presented above, the indiscriminate expansion of major companies everywhere is far from being helpful universally. In part due to the nature of multinationals(因为跨国公司的本性), their local branches would always hope maximize their profits as larger market shares are grasped. (跨国公司当地的子公司，希望在更多的市场份额被抓住的时候，把利润扩展到最大)Under such circumstances, it is inevitable that many local companies, which suffer from the lack of technologies and funds, would have no choice but to close their doors and lay off workers because their inability to compete against foreign counterparts and win. To make the situation even worse, (使得情况更糟糕的是)many foreign companies would intentionally relocate assemble lines of toxic products into developing countries, leading to chronic poisoning of local residents.(有毒产品生生产线，移到发展中国家，导致当地人慢性中毒)-对人有坏处2
In conclusion, my stance is that countries should always welcome the inflow of foreign capital. At the same time, however, they should also help local companies to enhance their competitive edge in order to make them stronger in the middle of fierce competition.
In recent years, the dramatic development of digital media has make children become influenced increasingly by commercials aiming at them. Under such circumstances, however, some experts believe such advertisements should be outlawed because they have extremely negative impacts on kids. I am, nevertheless, not convinced by this view.
广告，不同意：让步段—有些广告要被禁止，但另外一些要被鼓励。 Admittedly, some advertisements with the intention to sell harmful products to children【定语给广告设定属性，什么样的广告，为下面论证做铺垫，卖有害产品给孩子的广告】 should indeed be prevented from being broadcasted. After all,
【什么广告？怎么有害？有害就是禁止它的理由】children and teenagers are still too young to tell the difference between right and wrong.=背景A孩子不能明辨是非 The overexposure to the influence of commercials promoting junk food and online games, for example, would make many children become addicted to those products. =过程B 举例什么广告，怎么毒害孩子（过程）Instead of realizing how much their physical and mental states would be adversely affected, some teenagers would believe eating humbuggers or wasting huge sums of time in the virtual world as cool trends rather than terrible habits. =结果C （影响）
Despite the facts presented above, it is by no means to claim that 承认坏的要禁止，commercials for the benefit of the younger generation shall also be banned.（但绝对不是说好的也要禁止）什么样的广告，有什么积极作用。 Many advertisements actually play a very important role in fostering many critical moral values.（有些广告有积极作用） The protection of environment and respect for the elder generation, for example, are concepts which cannot be easily understood by young boys and girls without the use of images or even animations. 公益广告。At the same time, some toys that are safe and able to help the development of children’s intelligence shall
also be permitted to show because the money generated by them can be used by TV stations to produce documentaries and cartoons to further educate the younger generation. （对孩子健康的广告-给电视台创造收入-还能再创造对孩子有好处的节目）
In conclusion, my stance is that commercials should be used by TV stations properly in order to help the younger generation. Under such circumstances, they should not be stopped from helping children positively.
Some people think young people should be required to stay in full time education until they are at least 18 years old. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
In recent years, the basic education of children and teenagers has been highly emphasized by many experts. Therefore, some of them believe that the younger generation should be required to stay in schools until 18 years old. I do agree with this view.
Admittedly, as the economy is slowing down, many poor families are impoverished and thus cannot pay for the tuitions of their children in primary or middle schools. In such cases, it is indeed understandable that some custodians would hope that their boys and girls can get jobs or married with a wealthy couple in order to get rid of poverty rather than keep on investing the education.
Despite the facts presented above, it is by no means to claim that teenagers’ right to get elementary and middle school education should be deprived. After all, kids and teenagers are still so young that they cannot tell the difference between right and wrong. At the same time, unfortunately, their parents are intensively busy and therefore have almost no time to provide them with guidance and supervision. Under such circumstances, therefore, it is not surprising that the best way to prevent them from wasting of their precious time on playing online games or even being misled by chaotic views in the society is to put them under the watch of experienced teachers until they reach their adulthood. In this way, students are able to not only acquire essential knowledge which lays down a solid foundation for their future career development but also lower their chances of committing crimes.
In conclusion, my stance is that the education of younger generation is key to the development and long-term prosperity for all nations worldwide. That is why the administration shall provide funds in order to make sure that no child is left behind.