Πριν από λίγο καιρό έδωσα εξετάσεις για το δίπλωμα του Toefl(τι είπατε? στ' αρχίδια σας?). Σας παραθέτω τις εκθέσεις που είχα γράψει για εξάσκηση(3 ολες κι όλες γιατί βαριόμουν του θανατά)όπου και προσπαθούσα να υιοθετήσω το αγγλικό στυλ γραφής(βλέπε "What a lovely shot my dear old chap" κατά τη διάρκεια αγώνα κρίκετ). Επιτρέπεται το clopy paste.
Thesis:The government should require all young adults to perform some kind of national service, such as military service or social work.
Response:
In general terms national service by young adults is a nice and effective way of offering to the construction of a healthy and economically robust society. Also, apart from the economic benefits, it contributes to the founding of the society’s moral basis.
Though, this is the light-shaded side of the moon. Just like any other aspect of life there are two sides of it, as national service has been used during recent past from authoritarian governments round the globe as a mean for obligatory and free of payment labour. So it becomes common sense that some preconditions have to be fulfilled by a state in order to request volunteer work from young adults.
First of all, the democratic liberties must be maintained if not augmented. By that way, national service will not be equalized in the conscience of youngsters as a “slavery” type of work. Also there should be some kind of moral reward for the services they offer such as a reward from the official authorities. Perhaps the most important element for an effective national service is the feeling of respect from the state’s part that must be embodied in the conscience of the youth. The young adults must feel that the state respects them. This can be practically expressed by services and benefits provided to them by the authorities. In other words, they must feel that they provide useful services to their citizens and not being exploited by the country they live in.
To conclude with, national service can become a tool of major importance in the development of country, equally economical and moral. Though, in order to be done in the right way there are too many preconditions that have to be fulfilled, something that reminds us of Thomas Moore’s Utopia.
Thesis: Some people think that scientists make the most important contributions to society. Other people think that the contributions of artists are the most important. Which position do you agree with? Give specific reasons and examples to support your answers.
Response:
It is generally accepted that both scientists and artists contribute at large at the development of a society, each one by his own special way. Though, their precious effort is focused on different domains determined by the great differences laying in the nature of their profession.
Scientists are more pragmatists and realists than artists and as a consequence their contribution has as a reference center the everyday life and the future of mankind. Their ultimate purpose is to optimize man’s life even if their discoveries have been misused from time to time, something that have already happened once with the use of the atomic bomb. In addition, their work becomes reality in our everyday life and motivates the coming generations for greater discoveries.
Artists, in general, express the vanity of man. They create pieces of art hoping they will remain intact during the passing of the years, reminding to the future generations the genius of man’s spirit. Other’s of course have more humble expectations and they create pieces of art, simply to express their feelings or for other unknown spontaneous reasons of the moment. They can be considered as the factor that enhances our society by broadening our spiritual horizons an by presenting perspectives not easily to notice during our daily routine.
To sum up, we notice that both artists’ and scientists’ contributions are of great necessity and there is no point in arguing which of the two is more useful. We could say that a healthy society must be equally scientifically and artistically developed so as to preserve a balance between realistic and romantic and to develop an interaction between the two of them. Is is not by chance that all great civilizations throughout history were scientifically and artistically developed after all.
Thesis:It is better to have one or two close friends than to have a large number of casual acquaintances.
Response:
It is generally accepted and proved throughout history, that man is a being fond of socializing. Actually, socializing is of vital importance for his well-being, because apart from enhancing the quality of his everyday life, it is also an important element of the society’s structure.
Thus, the long-lasting question of quality versus quantity exists even in this case. Is it preferable to have a few loyal and trustworthy friends or a large number of acquaintances? First of all, to get things straight, we have to highlight that the first option does not exclude the second one. Also, the above question is not a matter of right and wrong but more of a person’s personality. The pros and cons of these two cases are various. Choosing to have a narrow social relating only with a few good friends is based on the hypothesis that quality is better than quantity. Though, the danger of being socially isolated remains due to the fact that something could go wrong with these few friendly relationships. On the other hand having a large number of acquaintances but not any good friends is of no value if there isn’t a beloving person you can trust and develop more profound relations with him/her.
In addition, it’s a person’s lifestyle that regulate his decisions considering the sector of socializing. For example, a PR manager in a multinational company is expected to have more casual acquaintances than real friends. On the other hand, a scientist located on the north-pole for research is expected to have more good friends than acquaintances.
To sum up, it becomes crystal clear that there is no wrong or right considering the ways we decide to socialize but it depends on our lifestyle and personal attributes that constitute our personality.
