People are not alone when growing up, and most of us make friends. Some prefer to keep old friends because they value these friends as the most precious. But many, as they begin a new stage in their lives, will probably stay away from old friends. To me, making new friends is more important after starting different periods such as entering university or getting a new job.

At university, new friends could become more helpful than the old ones. During the first year at university, new friends often helped me in courses and community activities. I rarely received such supports from old friends since they were at other schools. Moreover, the benefit of new friends in the face of psychological problems may seem essential. I favored sharing my feelings face-to-face with new friends at college, especially when stuck in depression. Doing so allowed me recovered in time because waiting for old friends’ online consolation could be too long.

The second reason behind getting new friends lies in an enlarged social network, which is beneficial to finding jobs. Given such a factor, the talk of only keeping old friends could be silly. They may only supply limited resources and opportunities. By comparison, the larger the friend circle, the more and better the chances we probably obtain in finding a good job. Also, those skilled new friends working with us may help in our work projects. But what about the old friends doing business in other companies? They may even not know about our jobs. For this reason, making new friends has advantages over old ones.

In conclusion, new friends can be more valuable than old ones in specific situations. But in my opinion, making new friends and keeping the old ones are not contradictory. We often remain in touch with old friends while expanding our network.

The effectiveness of making friends varies from person to person. Some students broaden their circle of friends by traveling; others prefer to spend time on community activities to expand networking. These methods have their benefits. To me, becoming a member of a sports team works best to make friends.

Joining a sports team often requires regular training. That means you have more chances to build a connection with others. I once joined a volleyball team, and we trained two times per week. During these practices, we had to communicate a lot to complete the teamwork. This contact, in turn, efficiently helped me make new friends. Moreover, participating in games allowed me to build relationships with others who also enjoy volleyball. In my opinion, it is hard to imagine that a person on a team would barely interact with other members.

By comparison, you may travel only on vacations as a student. As a result, this approach often yields low-frequency communication with other people. Besides, you might prefer traveling alone since you would feel more flexible in arranging your schedule. If so, traveling would hardly expand your friend circle. While traveling is enjoyable, it may not help one make friends.

Community activities do provide opportunities to make a friend. You may be involved in numerous club events. During one, you meet a student from your school; at another, you get in touch with another student. You probably have only a brief interaction with them–no further contact after the activities. The lack of long-term communications also prevents a friendship when you meet a new person. Frequent exercises in a team, in contrast, offer you ample opportunity to maintain long-run interactions with others.

Overall, as far as efficiency and feasibility are concerned, I insist that nothing works better to build a lasting friendship than joining a sports team.

Nowadays, people are living in a world with enormous social interactions. It is nearly impossible for someone to separate himself from other people in daily events. During these activities, the attitude toward others we have displayed is of course a personal decision. To me, I insist that being rude is inappropriate for whatever reasons.

Showing bad attitudes could become lawbreaking. For example, recently, …[ don’t post such content on the site  ]

Also, impoliteness is less feasible to promote science. When discussing an academic hypothesis, a rude scientist who favors personal attacks on those having different ideas could destroy the discussion. Instead, it would be easier for others to accept his courteous query or opposition. This is how politeness could prevent a positive scientific debate from drifting into a mess.

Some people may argue that fighting back, in the same way, is fair if we have been treated rudely. But it does not assist in solving quarrels; even worse, it would corrupt the internet environment. Suppose you post an idea on Facebook but receive several unfriendly replies. If you return personal attack, rather than ignoring those impolite words, this mostly generates a vicious cycle. The worse your reply, the more spiteful the response you will receive.

Politeness is often said to be a personal characteristic. For me, it is no mere personality. Public morality, advances in science, and the harmonious internet environment require us to exhibit appropriate attitudes. For that reason, I believe it is better for everyone to keep polite, which could stand our society in good stead.

Based on business success in other areas, the author suggests that Health Naturally (HN) should build a new store in Plainsville. The author needs more evidence to support this suggestion; otherwise, HN may not make profits in Plainsville as the author expects.

The author indicates that numerous residents in Plainsville pay close attention to healthy lives. Many facts can invalidate this indication. For example, the boom in running shoes and exercise equipment does not confirm that the residents are concerned with health. Maybe it is tourists that induce the hot-selling of these products. While as for the residents, they may buy these products for the sake of low prices. Also, the exact proportion of the members of the health club to the local population is unclear. If minute, the proportion cannot represent the lifestyles of all residents. Besides, the compulsory fitness program does not reflect the students’ pursuit of healthy lives.

Additionally, the author evaluates the prosperity of HN’s products in a deficient way. Perhaps the new store of HN fails to compete with the local rivals. Even if the residents prefer HN, it does not guarantee that people will keep buying HN’s products. Assuming that HN raises the product prices for more profits, sales volume may decrease. The author needs further analysis of HN’s product competitiveness to strengthen the suggestion of building a new store.

According to the survey of profits in other places, the author believes HN should build a new store in Plainsville. But the validity of the company’s previous investigation remains questionable. The company may have investigated its profits in areas without competitors, which could lead to a biased conclusion. Unless the survey is reliable, it cannot be used to buttress the author’s suggestion.

It is reasonable that Health Naturally may build a new store in Plainsville for potential profits. However, this author’s argument is not concrete to persuade the company to invest in this place.

While the author speculates their new store will succeed in Plainsville, this argument lacks substantial logic in some aspects. Although the previous success and possible profits may persuade the company to build a new store, the author needs more evidence to support this argument.

The author indicates that multiple residents in Plainsville are potential clients for health-related products. Many facts can invalidate this assumption. For example, local residents may buy these products simply for low prices, or tourists induce a durable sale. Also, the club and classes sizes cannot represent the entire lifestyle if they are relatively small compared with the total population. In addition, compulsory regular exercise for schoolchildren is irrelevant to the hot-selling of these products. The lasting time of this program is unclear, and students may participate in exercises that do not require sports equipment.

Additionally, the author evaluates the prosperity of their products in a deficient way. Assuming local residents adore health-related products, they may not choose the products of Health Naturally. Whether the new store will succeed in competition against existing rivals is unknown. Even if the residents prefer Health Naturally, their enthusiasm for these products may not last for a long time. The author needs further analysis of their product competitiveness to strengthen this argument.

According to the previous success in those regions where residents care about healthy living, the author suggests that they should build a new store in Plainsville. Yet we have no idea about the validity of their investigation in the most profitable area. Maybe they investigate in regions where there are no competitors, or only in places where people prefer their products. All these factors could lead to a biased conclusion. Unless the previous survey is sufficiently valid and reliable, it cannot be used to support the author’s argument.

The previous success may attract the company to build a new store in Plainsville for possible profits. However, this author’s argument is not concrete enough to persuade the company to invest in this place.