People have different views about the necessity of making mistakes for children. While there are some benefits to children making errors, I believe that children should be left free to do so.

Some people hold the idea that giving children the right to make errors can help them go to victory. They can learn from mistakes, analyse the reasons for failure and find the right way to succeed by themselves. In addition, leaving kids free to make errors is conducive to fostering children’s awareness of creation. It can stimulate their creativity and give them more opportunities to think and innovate.

Other opponents may argue that children should be educated not to make errors since lots of mistakes come with harm and risk. By preventing them from doing so, children can be protected from those dangers. Besides, making too many errors in childhood may cause children to lose confidence in themselves. They are prone to remember mistakes they have made before and therefore find it difficult to successfully tackle problems in later life.

From my perspective, I strongly agree that children should not be restricted in making mistakes. Firstly, everyone makes mistakes and no one can live a perfect life. So it is definitely necessary for them to learn to get used to it as early as possible. Secondly, from mistakes, I am sure children can harvest something meaningful. For example, if a student mixes the chemical ingredient wrongly and ends up failing to complete a chemistry experiment, he can remember the right ingredients deeply since this mistake has left an impressive memory on him.

In conclusion, I can understand why people reckon that children should be given restriction to not conduct errors, but it seems to me that providing more freedom to them can bring more advantages to their upbringing.

It is sometimes argued that the effects of the evolution of globalization. Personally, I reckon that this change has affected almost every aspect of our lives, and it has both advantages and disadvantages.

Regarding its benefits, globalization has enriched our lives. People can taste all kinds of exotic cuisines that were not availiable before, and can easily fly abroad to appreciate marvellous scenery of foreign countries. Besides, with the establishment of more international enterprises as well as the development of international logistics and trade, more job opportunities are provided and more revenues are generated. Lastly, the globalized world also makes people more open-minded and inclusive because they have to live in multi-cultural society and cooperate with others from different backgrounds.

Speaking of its drawbacks, firstly, the advent of giant multinational giants has brought fierce competition, and they can dominate/occupy the domestic market of many countries without difficulty due to their price and technological advantages. Conversely, many native firms would find it tough to make profits and cannot survive, and some local industries cannot develop. Secondly, globalization is absolutely detrimental to the preservation of traditions. People tend to choose some universal goods, like McDonald’s fast food or Hollywood big-budget movies/blockbuster, rather than some conventional cuisines and domestic films. However, the gradual loss of traditional things will lead to the loss of multi-culturalism, a change that is not only harmful, but also irreversible.

In conclusion, I completely admit that/ fully acknowledge that a more open world is really conducive in lots of fields, but people should also pay close attention to the potential negative effects it may bring.

It is sometimes argued that should people provide protection for all animals. While it is true that preserving all animals seems difficult, I do believe that there are more benefits to doing so.

On the one hand, compared with protecting all animals, there are many disadvantaged people and countries that need help. They may suffer from diseases, die of starvation or drop out of school owing to poverty. Giving assistance to them is more important. Besides, government funds are limited. If this money goes to animal preservation, other fields like public healthcare and fundamental education will lack necessary financial support, which is not conducive to public interests. Lastly, some people believe that species cannot survive means that they are not suitable for the earth’s current environment, and it is nature’s selection, so just let them go.

On the other hand, I strongly argue that the protection of all animals is necessary and important. It is beneficial to the sustainment of bio-diversity. Some herbivore animals are the food of other carnivores like tigers and lions. If we just give shield to some parts of animals, it will lead to an imbalance in the food chain and damage to bio-diversity. In addition, protecting all animals can bring lots of benefits to humans. For example, some endangered animals like giant pandas, seem not “useful” to humans because we can not eat them for meat, but they contribute to local taxes as people all over the world are likely to go to their reserves and pay for a visit. Last but not least, the reason why some animals are regarded as useless is that people have not yet found their unique functions. For instance, people invented some radar related technologies after doing research about bats. So we should trust that people will learn more surprising knowledge from all animals than just currently useful ones.

In conclusion, while preserving all species seems to place a huge financial burden on people, I still hold the idea that its advantages outweigh the disadvantages.