Government should pay for the health care and education. Do you agree or disagree?Health care and education can always attract enough public attention, for they are closely connected with people’s welfare. Some people suppose that it is government’s duty to shoulder the responsibility for those two important aspects. As far as I am concerned, I am in total favor of this opinion.Initially, the government’s fundamental principle of serving the people justifies this obligation. There is no denying that the significance of government lies in the fact that this organization can better people’s life, and meanwhile the health care and education can best illustrate living standards. Therefore, inevitably, government should pay for those significant fields to fulfill its promise for people.Moreover, the taxes collected from citizens determine that government should stick to this duty. It is clear that government has levied a large amount of money from its citizens in the hope of striking a balance in society and if poor people fail to enjoy a qualified medical service and receive excellent education, what is the significance of heavy taxation? Consequently, as for health care and education, government ought to take the responsibility, ensuring all the people, especially the needy to be equally treated.On the other hand, it is highly probable that government has been too overburdened financially. For example, among other responsibilities, traffic jam, poverty and crime are up to national or local authorities to solve, which are usually confronted with budget problem. However, if suitable policies can be pursued and efforts form various fields canbe coordinated, we have good reasons to believe that government can address all the issues concerned.Overall, despite the fact that it is a challenge for government to pay for the health care and education, inevitably, no one but administration should pay the bill. At the same time, relevant organizations have to be motivated to ensure more satisfactory health and education for individuals.The government should control the amount of violence in films and on television in order to decrease the violent crimes in society. To what extent do you agree or disagree?It is alarming that violent crimes abound in the present society, so government should take some measures to tackle this severe problem. To ban all the content of violence in films and on television is one of the necessities that government has to take up. As for this choice, I have a different idea.Admittedly, violent pictures exert a negative impact on people, especially youngsters. Due to vulnerable mentality, the youth are prone to violence and resort to it when they are confronted with troubles in life. And on the mass media such reports of crimes are not exception to the public. As for me, nevertheless, it is more disadvantageous to limit the amount violence for the purpose of the prevention of violent crimes as following reasons.If government strictly controls what will be broadcast in the programs, the freedom of speech, which is the foundation of the mass media, will be in the danger of intervention. No doubt that nearly every social progress has been achieved by the means of proper supervision of mass media, and for example, corruption of power of public servants hasbeen contained to a large extent. Furthermore, common people are endowed with the platform to express them, which helps government to be informed of people’s needs punctually and accurately.What is more, violence on the mass media is not the only reason leading to sharp jump in violent crimes. It is generally agreed that divorce rate rocketing in modern society is more a main culprit. When children are still young, what they urgently need is enough love and suitable guidance from parent. Parents divorce without taking into account the interests and psychology, and their children fall victim to this lack of parental love. According to the latest survey, it is no wonder that most of juvenile delinquencies derive from the impact of divorce.G overnment’s interference with the freedom of the press is far from the ideal way of decreasing social crimes owing to relevant negative influence and the low efficiency. In my opinion, families, schools and government have to coordinate themselves to address this thorny problem to stabilize our society.Unlike other countries, police in UK do not carry guns. Some think it leaves citizen unprotected, while others think it reduces the overall violence in our society. Discuss both the views.It is supposed that policemen with guns can better protect common people against potential dangers from increasing social crimes. In UK, there is a different situation where police patrol without any weapons, and perhaps this practice seems surprised to most tourists from other countries. Inevitably, a spirited debate arises.As the strong deterrent to various offenses, the police should be equipped with advanced guns to guarantee social security. No doubt that world-wide financial crisis hascaused an alarming increase in unemployment, which contributes to the sharp jump in social instability. Furthermore, those criminals are usually heavily-armed, posing a serious threat to other people’s safety including policemen themselves. As a result, if conflict between criminals and the police takes place, the latter will be vulnerable to the attack, not to mention to protect the interests of the public.Of course, police carrying guns contain justified worry. To err is human and those people who stand for justice and law are no exception. If policemen with arms are drunk or lose their hot temper in a quarrel, then they will turn into murders and guns serve as tools to aggravate damage to other people. Moreover, depending on weapons to solve social crimes is likely to bring out street fighting, thus causing numerous injuries to passersby. In my opinion, however, before legal policemen, they have to receive strict training both physically and psychologically, so it is unlikely that guns to combat criminals turn into threatening tools.All in all, my view is that only by the facility of arms, can police maximize the efficiency of cracking down on social evils. Meanwhile, it is essential to strengthen relevant education on self-control and morality of the police to guarantee no malpractice. Someone maintains that universities should give knowledge and skills connected with students’ future career.Others think the true functionof the university is to provide knowledge for its own sake. What isyour opinion?People devote their prime time from about 18 to 22 years old to university life, and usually unforgettable memories are accompanied even all the life. The unique significance of university determines that what kind of knowledge is taught will inevitably draw considerable attention. As a result, it is worthwhile to ascertain whetherknowledge for the purpose of successful hunting an ideal job, or that without any utilitarian function.If skills acquired in university are greatly conducive to students’ future jobs, then they are more efficient in solving problems at work. Currently, jobs are gradually divided into subtle sectors, which require expertise in a particular field. Therefore, courses designed for future jobs can definitely enhance students’ confidence and boost their producti vity considerably. By contrast, students who learn only theoretical subjects without any practical value will be stuck in a dilemma, and fail to accomplish the assignment efficiently.Of course, study for its own sake is not absolutely groundless. After students enter higher education, it is a must to lay a solid foundation for their future life. If the principle of being useful to jobs after graduation is the only yardstick to determine whether subjects taught are crucial or not, then students, inevitably, are deprived of numerous opportunities to access other human civilizations, such as literature, which are surely beneficial to the all-around development of youngsters. Many students have exposed the severe problem that lack of cultivation in other fields besides their majors hinders promotion in jobs. In my opinion, however, after graduation students have sufficient time to make up for knowledge they are not familiar with but beneficial to their development.All in all, my view is that the main function of university education is to render graduates more competitive and guarantee suitable jobs for them. After all, never too old to learn and students can find more time to acquire extra knowledge if necessary.In many countries, more and more young people are unable to find jobs after graduation. What problems do you think youth unemployment will cause to theindividual and the society? What are the possible reasons and make some suggestions.The so-called maxim among contemporary college students is that graduation means exact unemployment, which reveals unbearable anxiety imposed on modern young people. The failure to secure a job deprives the youth of the chances of making an independent living, and it is a total waste of teachers’ efforts and national educational budget. Some graduates are even involved in crimes due to a continuous depressing mentality. Worse, this severe problem exacerbates national burden and affects an efficient solution to other social issues, such as traffic and environmental pollution, because government has to be responsible for and invest in the livelihood of those young people.Probing into this worry, perhaps we can find the following two root causes. Initially, impractical pursuit of highly-paid jobs is the main culprit. While being fresh from college, they insist in aiming to find high-end jobs, which are able to provide them with both satisfactory salary and comfortable working conditions. And they are too fastidious about job types, reluctant to work from grass roots level. Moreover, compared with people with jobs, college graduates lack working experience, so they are in a disadvantageous position in job markets. Currently, companies need recruits with rich experience in particular fields and training costs can be possibly sharply cut, so people who hop from one job to another stand a better chance of being employed than inexperienced graduates.In view of serious hazards of the problem, government should pursue policies more favorable to young people, for example, rewarding those corporations who recruit college students with commercial tax exemption. Meanwhile, besides mastering theoretical knowledge, college students have to give top priority to practical skills such as team spirit and interpersonal communication, which can be achieved through part-time jobs, oractivities in various university societies.There is no doubt that the younger generation are the deciding factors of success for different countries. Consequently, it is high time that individuals and society as a whole made efforts to address high unemployment of young people.预测：Do the positive effects of advertising outweigh the negative effects?Billions of money is spent on the space research. Some people say that it should be spent on improving the living standard of the people on the earth. Do you agree or disagree?What are the causes of and solution to the problem of the scarcity of water resource? (the demand of economic development, Fountain Square, public bath, /lack of the awareness of water conservancy: raise the price of water, strengthen the water-friendly education)Modern students are under great pressure compared with other people. What is your opinion?( Pressure means more motivation to absorb more knowledge; encourage them to be more competitive; be detrimental to health, hinder the efficiency, more stressed, become melancholy, abnormal psychology. Some people think that children of different abilities should be educated togetherwhile national sports team should be supported by government financially. Do youagree? enhance national reputation, be more efficient/impose burdens on the nation, independent development without government intervention, too much pressure on athletes.It is a fact that many scientific institutes have researches with live animals. Some people regard them as cruel and unnecessary while others believe they are justified in the interest of human welfare. Discuss the two views and give your reasons.We can put down museums in the city for they are of no much importance. Do you agree? better conserve traditional legacy, respect history/attract more people in a various wayThe creative power of human beings will decrease with more application of modern technology. Do you agree?: be more comfortable materials, become indolent, lack field trip /be detrimental to health Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve traffic and pollution. Do you agree or disagree? What other measures do you think more effective? (decrease the number of private cars, resource saving/affect the development of economy, infringe on the benefits of car owners/education)。