Some people think that zoos are all cruel and should be closed down. Others however believe that zoos can be useful in protecting wild animals.

Discuss both opinions and give your own opinion.


The morality of zoos has caught public attention for years, to the point that some exert great pressure on policy-makers to close such places for the welfare of wildlife species. However, looking at this from a conservation perspective, without the existence of zoos, there would be fewer species alive today.


Admittedly, critics of zoos posit that it is morally cruel to keep a species in captivity, thereby such places should be abolished. This is predicated on the fundamental belief that the movement of these captive animals is somewhat restricted, causing mental stress disorders among them. Nevertheless, in well-managed zoos, they can be scientifically proven to be healthier than their counterparts in the wild. This is because they get a varied and high-quality diet with all the supplements required, and any illnesses they may have will be treated.


To add further credence to my assertion, the closure of wildlife theme parks means fewer opportunities for conservationists to educate visitors to become more environmentally conscious in the forms of presentations about these wild life species and their habitats.


Therefore, in an effort to preserve these endangered animals on the verge of extinction, I believe that these captive environments have a key role to play. The very fact that animal species have been saved or reintroduced as a result of captive breeding can justify the very existence of zoos, in which scientists are allowed to undertake research on them to study how key species live, act and react. These findings can not only help prevent colossal numbers of animals from becoming threatened but also restore and repair ecosystems.


In conclusion, although animal rights activists claim that zoos can inflict cruelty to captive animals and these should be closed down,I believe that they are essential to the long-term survival of numerous species.

In some countries, more people are becoming interested in finding out about the history of the house or building they live in.
What are the reasons for this?
How can people research this question?


People are becoming more curious about the previous occupants of their homes. From a tangible heritage perspective, this trend generally stems from these owners’ cultural and social interests, and some viable methods will be proposed to unearth this kind of information.

There are several contributing factors in answer to this discovery. Chief of these is that home owners wish to understand its architectural history. It is fundamentally believed that every age has its own distinct architecture defined by prevailing ideas and construction materials. By thoroughly researching these, one can critically examine how the building’s architectural style was affected by social and cultural factors in the past civilization, thereby providing a historical link to our rich intangible cultural heritage. To illustrate this, if the building follows a medieval architectural style, they may discover that the previous occupant wished to express their wealth and prestige.


In order to unearth the history of their home, the owners can adopt some feasible approaches from data collection to research. First, they might opt to check public records. This would allow them to have access to a wealth of reliable information, ranging from the blueprints indicating the structural integrity of the building to who and when the house was erected. Once this investigation is carried out, it is suggested that the occupant of the house should have an extensive consultation with professional archaeologists.


In conclusion, the desire to discover the history of one’s home may be inspired by social and cultural factors, and this can be achieved by checking public records as well as taking an archaeological consultation.

In the future all cars, buses and trucks will be driverless. The only people traveling inside these vehicles will be passengers.

Do you think the advantages of driverless vehicles outweigh the disadvantages?

The association with many technological developments such as telepresence and virtual reality has facilitated the implementation of robotic cars in many potentially significant ways. While delivering automated vehicles to our roads may pose a number of challenges, I believe that this trend can promote positive changes in the future.


Admittedly, the drawbacks of driverless vehicles are evident. These include technical difficulties in ensuring that the vehicle works reliably in the infinite range of traffic, weather and road situations that may be encountered]. Because of this, members of the public are unsurprisingly questioning the reliability of these vehicles, which leads to another wider implication for society. The corollary of societal unreliability towards them has led to an understandable reluctance to trust and accept them as a part of the mobility landscape.So, It is mainly technical difficulties and societal changes towards automated vehicles that challenge the delivery of this new scheme to our roads.


However, I think that the benefits of this technological breakthrough brought by the automotive sector far outweigh any hurdles. Evidence suggests that a large percentage of road collisions involve human error as a contributory factor. Therefore, the introduction of automation can greatly help reduce the incidence of this, ensuring more safety for road users. Another ethical motive is for older and disabled travellers, who are challenged by existing mobility models, they can now enjoy greater travel autonomy if the vehicle can do the driving.


In conclusion, there are a number of hurdles that need to be conquered within a decade, but I do think there are far more benefits. This initiative for self-driving cars on the roads can only be viable through more robust and targeted research to resolve the existing technical challenges to gain consumer approval.