Electronic devices are gaining importance in societies. With unrestrained use of them, I accept that people may lose the ability to communicate face-to-face, but those devices may benefit some minority groups.

People today may lack the time and motivation to communicate offline. The internet connects individuals, luring people to immerse themselves in the virtual world. Due to such services, people prefer to chat online rather than face-to-face. Therefore, those people may lose interaction skills, because they have little time to practice their communication skills in the real world. At the same time, those people attracted to the internet could lose the desire to use their communication skills. To a large extent, technology products have fulfilled people’s expectations. A person thus might find it unnecessary to maintain relationships with friends. From the perspective of his/her friends, they may think this person loses the ability to speak properly.

In contrast, with the increasing use of connected devices, some people have improved their efficiency of communication. This is because phones or computers enable humans to communicate at any time or place. For instance, some business partners once flew all over the world to negotiate, but now they can achieve this goal by a video call. Moreover, this trend may benefit the disabled who fail to communicate as usual. With the help of electronic devices, they can type messages or record videos to convey information. They would not trouble others due to their abnormal speaking speed.

In conclusion, concerning the effects of phones or computers, they may block communication at first, but they are also beneficial to communication in some respects.

Thank you for your suggestions! They are so useful.

In many countries today people are living in a “throwaway society”, where things are used in a short time and then thrown away. What are its causes? What are its problems?

Modern societies seem to be overwhelmed by throwaway culture. Companies and customers today get used to the short lifecycle of products. In my opinion, both might contribute to the throwaway society. Also, this phenomenon would put an extra strain on the environment.

A current change in buying habits may prompt this throwaway lifestyle. People today prefer to access product information online, enjoying the feeling of searching and purchasing goods. The internet provides a platform, reminding us to shop all the time. Under such influence, people always buy the newest products, such as smartphone, even though the old one is still functional. Moreover, companies should facilitate this outcome. They might capitalize on customer behavior to promote products. For instance, their online advertising, serving profits, aims at luring clients to enjoy the latest products. Many people hence are inclined to consider which items they can update.

As a consequence, this trend threatens the environment. Profits have driven manufacturers to produce excessive goods, which could deplete natural resources.  Many trees are cut down to produce manifold household items. If people replaced their old but usable furniture, it would result in destruction of forests. On the other hand, discarded items may pollute surroundings. Some products such as batteries are not biodegradable, which can pollute a large area of water or land. If manufacturers just promoted this product, regardless of its chemical hazard, it would damage the environment.

In conclusion, customers, influenced by online information, prefer to discard old-fashioned objects in a short time. That could put an extra burden on the environment.

Genetic engineering, due to its possible applications, concerns both scientists and ordinary people. In my opinion, I believe humans can mitigate the risk of this technology and apply it well to medicine and agriculture.

Some opponents assert that human beings may abuse genetic technology. In terms of medicine, researchers would attempt to produce biological weapons. Owing to the development in gene editing, humans might be able to revamp their genes. This could give a person a chance to be a super villain that devastates the world, instead of pleasing himself by watching a violent movie. That would be a disaster for all nations and citizens. In terms of agriculture, the study on genetic projects can damage the environment by accident. Due to genetic research, crops may evolve to quickly absorb nutrients. If farmers plant them in their fields, without any intervention, those crops would consume most resources. That could turn natural ecozones into semi-arid deserts.

In my view, most scientists would utilize genetic technology for helping people. Considering the medical use, governments would use it to ensure citizen’s safety. For instance, doctors can correct a genetic defect before a child is born. Also, if a person has an organic failure, doctors can replace the ruptured one if robust organs accessible to cultivate. Considering agricultural use, governments can handle the risk of genetic plants. They can designate a separate area for growing modified plants. Moreover, researchers could devise a modified plant that acts as a fertilizer for other plants. That will benefit both humans and the environment.

In conclusion, this technology could jeopardize our society, but I would argue that humans can adhere to the ethics of genetic research and apply it well.

Genetic engineering, due to its possible uses, concerns both scientists and ordinary people. While it has the potential to endanger life on earth, I am convinced that humans can apply this technology well to medicine and agriculture.

In those two fields, some opponents assert that human beings will abuse genetic technology. As for medical use, researchers may try to produce biological weapons. Because this technology enables them to eliminate inferior genes but to remain superior ones. Thus, anything has been envisaged once may appear in the real world, like super soldiers. That would be a disaster for all states and citizens. As for agricultural use, the study on genetic projects may damage the environment inadvertently. This is because researchers have selected out modified crops with a fast speed to absorb nutrients in the soil. If farmers plant them in natural environment, without any intervention, those crops will occupy most resources. Their unconscious behavior may turn natural ecozones into semi-arid deserts.

However, I agree with a more optimistic opinion that humans can mitigate the risks and conduct genetic research in a responsible way. From a medical perspective, governments may tend to use this technology it to protect citizen’s safety. For instance, doctors can correct a genetic defect before a child is born. Also, if a person has an organic failure, doctors can cultivate a robust organ, such as a kidney, to replace the broken one. From a genetic food perspective, governments can handle the risk of genetic plants by some methods. They can designate a separate area for growing modified plants. Moreover, researchers may invent a genetic plant that plays the role of fertilizer to other plants. That will benefit both humans and the environment.

In conclusion, I believe if we are cautious about the possible downside of genetic engineering, it will exert a positive influence on life on earth.

• Some experts believe that it is better for children to begin learning a foreign language at primary school rather than secondary school. Do you think the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?

A second language is a compulsory course in many schools; however, educators are not sure whether this subject should be set up in primary school or in secondary school. I believe that the former arrangement benefits children more.

Children pick up languages much more effortlessly than teenagers. Most linguists believe there is a critical period for children to acquire language. During that period, they could not distinguish the first language from the second language, so they would treat or learn them in the same way. Also, young children’s brains are programmed to acquire their mother tongue. In this case, people can easily master another language at their early age, just like their native languages. In contrast, if a person missed out on this vital chance, they may have difficulty in learning another language. For example, they may fail to understand grammar, remember vocabulary or imitate the accent of native speakers.

Another advantage is that children can allocate more time and energy to learning languages in primary school. This is because the secondary school curriculum is heavier than that of primary school. Children may sacrifice their language learning time in order to complete other subjects. For instance, many Chinese students have to spend a massive amount of time to study new subjects such as physics, chemistry and biology. In this case, their exposure to foreign languages may become insufficient, a factor that may hinder acquiring a new language.

In conclusion, I am convinced that young children’s innate abilities should be harnessed, and anything that contributes to language learning should be encouraged.

Mastering a second language is a necessary step for many students, and some are convinced that children should start learning languages in primary school. Though this arrangement may cause some problems, I still think it can provide a firm foundation for their development.

The first advantage is that young children pick up languages more effortless than teenagers. Most linguists believe there is a critical period for humans to acquire language, as at that time their brains facilitate the entire process. In contrast, people who have missed out on this crucial chance will have difficulty in learning languages. For example, they may fail to understand grammar, remember vocabulary or imitate the accent of native speakers

Next, the curriculum in primary school is more flexible than in secondary school. Students will absorb tremendous knowledge as soon as they enter secondary school. Thus, they may spend less time learning languages. For instance, Chinese students have to spend a massive amount of time to study new subjects, such as physics, chemistry, biology, as well as homework. In this case, their exposure to foreign languages will be insufficient, a factor which may cause a failure to acquire a new language.

On the other hand, learning another language too early may result in some issues. It may burden well-off families. Some people can employ personal English teachers to help their sons or daughters, but deprived families cannot afford this service. Even if they engage one, it would be an extra and heavy expenditure, because people who live on a tight budget will not go aboard and use foreign languages.

In conclusion, though this policy is not suitable for all students, I think anything that contributes to language learning should be encouraged.

Mastering a second language is a necessary step for many students, and some are convinced that children should start learning language in primary school. Though this arrangement may cause some problems, I still think it can provide a firm grounding for their development.

The first advantage is that young children pick up languages more effortless than teenagers. Most linguists believe there is a critical period for humans to acquire language, as their brains facilitate the entire process. In contrast, people who have missed out this crucial chance will have difficulty in leaning languages. For example, they may fail to understand grammar, remember vocabularies, or imitate the accent of native speakers

Next, the curriculum in primary school is looser than in secondary school. Students will absorb tremendous knowledge as soon as they enter secondary school, thus may spend less time on learning languages. For instance, Chinese students need massive time to study new subjects, such as physics, chemistry, biology, as well as homework. On that occasion, their exposure to foreign languages will be insufficient, thus resulting in a failure to language acquisition.

On the other hand, learning another language too early may bring about some issues. It may burden well-off families. Some people can invite personal English teachers to help their sons or daughters, but that is unaffordable to deprived families. Even if they did it, it would probably be an extra and heavy expenditure, because people who live on a tight budget will not go aboard and use foreign languages.

In a word, though this policy is not suitable for all students, I think anything that contributes to language learning should be encouraged.