The government should offer internet access to all of citizens at no cost.1.Easier attaching to information2.More convenient for citizens to communicate3.Decrease burden for poor peopleNever do topics concerning internet fail to fascinate us under the ever-increasing development of internet nowadays in the modern society. A lot of people believe that internet is to citizens what water is to fish. From my perspective, I support that citizens accessing to internet should be free based on the following reasons.It is obvious that we are now in the new era of global information, so accessing the internet could be really important to us. If the government proposes that the citizens could use the internet for free, we will concerning about the cost no more so that we can check a lot of information posted online which means we are able to attach to information. Or else, citizens will have to choose cheaper but much slower ways to search for information such as going to the library or asking other people. For instance, I have homework to do every day and the teacher usually puts the materials I may need onto schoology—an online application that can store information. So when sometimes when I am outside home, I cannot use it because it will create cost, in this situation I feel it is necessary for the government to let us using the internet for free.No overstatement, the internet is really connecting the world together. It goes without saying that applications such as Wechat and Facetime have given rise to great convenience on conmunication. However, a lot of citizens still cannot enjoy the convenience because the internet has cost. I am fully convinced that if the government make the internet free, it will be easier to communicate. Taking my friend as an example, I can talk face to face with him with the help of Facetime.We can absolutely say that the price of accessing to internet is really high for working class people, if it is free, it will reduce the burden on poor families. Since the world is developing so fast, a lot of people have to pay money on the internet because they need to get information online even though they are lacking of money. For instance, if a working class family only have the total income of six thousand yuan monthly, and they pay one hundred on internet, wouldn’t this be a burden? Basically it will decrease the burden of citizens to free the internet.In conclusion, all above taken in account, we can safely reach the conclusion that government should let citizens access to internet without paying. It is because it can let citizens be easier attaching to information and be more convenient to communicate. Besides it can burden for poor people.Getting advice from friends who are older than you is more valuable than getting advice from friends your same age.1.Same feeling and easy to be useful, know each other better; not rational or does notwork(bad ideas)2.Accumulate experience, previous experience to help me make better decisions3.Maturity brings more thoughtful and achievable suggestionsNever do topics concerning getting advice from others fail to fascinate us in the modern society.A great deal of people believes that getting suggestions from older friends can benefit more. Itotally support this opinion based on the following reasons.Granted, friends of the same age can communicate more easily so that their suggestions are more suitable and may probably fit our motivation. The wildly accepted truth is that the suggestion our friend gives us can be more achievable if we listen to them because we have got the same idea with our friend. So in order to benefit us and make us want to accept the advice, we should take advice from same aged friends because they know us better than older friends. However, their solutions can never be rational and they hardly work. In this sense, listening to a older friend is more useful.There is a saying that listening to the old to avoid troubles. This clearly express the idea of we should take the advice from friends who have greater age than us. They have accumulated knowledge and experience hence age will provide a person with insight and wisdom. Taking their advice is like directly walking on a path to success. Take me as an example, my neighbor is a freshman and I always consult him on English learning skills because he is older. He can always provide me with a useful way doing it because his experience has already passed the suggestions that do not work and leave the most efficient one. I can make a significant progress after consulting him a piece of advice.Older friends can find out your disadvantages easier and point it out directly to help you get better. To be honest, a friend as the same age can be immature and have no useful and achievable suggestions because they are not thoughtful enough. Older friends can provide us with really nice suggestions that are suitable for ourselves uniquely. I can always make progress because I have a friend who is three years older than me. She recently suggests me to manage my time properly because she finds out that I am sometimes slow at things and have low efficiency. My study and life are becoming better due to her advice.In conclusion, all the reasons taken in account, we can safely reach the conclusion that taking suggestions from your older friends are more useful. It is because same age friends are not rational while older friends have previous experience to help making better decisions. Besides, maturity brings more thoughtful and achievable suggestions.As a leader of a city, what would you do to ensure the prosperity and success of the city?a.Creating job opportunities for the unemployedb.Lowering food pricec.Providing affordable housing1.The issue is more important in citizens’ consideration2.To propel the economy growth easily3.Easy to see the changeNever do topics concerning city prosperity fail to fascinate us in the modern society. A lot of people always assume what to do if they were the mayor. I suppose I will put a lot of effort on lowering the food price instead of creating jobs or decrease house price based on the following reasons.As a matter of fact, everyone in the city will consume food. So the food issue must be the essential problem that we will consider first. The people can never be satisfied with a dear food price. If the citizens are not happy with the food price which they see three times a day, they will not work efficiently which cannot make the city richer. Since the food price is the mostconsidered thing, I think I should solve it initially. On the other hand, house issue has not that much worry because people who have house will not worry about this problem anymore, so does the job issue. Food plays more important role in daily life, therefore people consider less about house or jobs because food is the basic supplement.Beside, lowering the price of food will effectively propel the economy. If the food price is lowered, a great deal of people will decide to buy more things. Take me as an example: I tend to buy more things as the price decrease. Using the same money to buy more things is really beneficial to citizens. And they will feel accomplishment because the things use to be expensive now become affordable. On the contrary, lowering the house price can only make rich people become richer because they are able to buy more houses and the living price of renting a house will become dearer due to the greediness.Moreover, the change of decreasing food price is more easily to be seen since the effort is lower than the other two choices. If the government does significant things to pay same effort in to deal with three different issues, the most successful one must be the easiest one. The issue that concerning food can be the most successful one therefore it will make the city be more prosperous. Comparing to the others, it seems that providing jobs will cause the waste of labor force because the total work in the city stays the same, providing new jobs means doing useless jobs or decreasing the average work done by people. In both situations, there will be abuse and waste of labor. The house providing plan will not work, too. Because the price of the housing is not easy to control so it will not work to cultivate prosperity.To conclude, all reasons taken into account, we can safely reach the conclusion that choosing to decrease the food price will give rise to prosperity of the city while providing house and jobs will not have the effect. It is because the issue of food is more important in citizens’ consideration and it can propel the economy growth easily. Besides, it is easy to see the change.It is better for the old to take risks and explore new things than young people.1.Although old ppl have experience, their life is shorter2.Supporters of society cannot die3.Save labor force of the society b/c the old cannot do hard work/ Save young ppl to contributeb/c they are more creativeNever do topics concerning the old fail to fascinate us in the modern society. A lot of people think that exploring new things are take the risk should be done by the old. I am one of the supporters of the point of view based on the following reasons.Granted, the young are virtually a better choice for taking risks and exploring new things because they are relatively more courageous and curious about new things. New things is to the young as water is to the fish, since they are Interested in them, they can have better result for risk-related researching or experiments. Hence they are more efficient in those kinds of exploring. However, the young are not suitable for risks because they are too young.The old should be responsible to take the risks and let the young be safe because they are the new generation who will be the supporters of the society. It is the young who will take over the hard mission of running the country in the future so that they cannot die or be hurt so badly in the exploring. For instance, if the medicine that will cure cancer is available but still need human experiment to test the medicine invented and the volunteers may be harmed or even die. Therisks in this sort of exploring in medical field should be taken by the old. Because in this case the result is not depend on the quality of intellect and don’t have any requirements that is better to be done by the young so the two are both equal. Therefore, choosing the old is because they have shorter lives left.Besides, the young is more creative and stronger to do hard works. If some of them die or hurt in accident in exploring, the old cannot replace them nor do their jobs because they are really significant. For example, if twenty scientists are needed to go to the South Pole for expedition, the relatively older scientists should do the job because it is so dangerous that if they do not come back safely, the nation will lose those supporters of the nation’s scientific department and the work cannot be replaced by the old. So we should let the old to take the risk.To conclude, all reasons taken in account, we can safely reach the conclusion that the old should do risk-related explorations. It is because their life is shorter and the supporters of society cannot die. Besides, it can save labor force of the society because the old cannot do hard work.。