Society is based on rules and laws. It could not function if individuals were free to do whatever they wanted to do. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

 A community can have people with diverse cultures, ethnicities, characteristics, opinions, and lifestyles. Some people believe that for a peaceful and functional social structure, people’s choices must be analysed and curbed if needed.

I wholeheartedly agree that some form of limits must be placed on the extent of freedom one could exercise, as otherwise there would be utter chaos, especially in this era of rising highly advanced technologies that even experts fail to understand completely. What would happen if everyone could enjoy ultimate freedom? There would be nothing to stop criminals and wars, and just a few nuclear explosions would be enough to annihilate the entire world. Even social animals like ants, elephants, monkeys, and so on follow some basic form of unwritten rules based on mutual understanding without which their own ecosystem will be in danger. Similarly, humans too follow rules to sustain ourselves and our ecosystem.

But obviously, we do not follow the rules that we used to a century ago. The constitution must change with time, as the aspects that govern human life change. For example, with time we discover and invent new products that change our basic needs and/or the way we attain our needs, like the internet. Also, the constitution must change with our increased understanding of the world. For example, we understood the harmful effects of nuclear weapons on our ecosystem and introduced strictures like the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons to save our environment. Furthermore, the laws must properly represent all the sections of society and grant a certain level of freedom to its individuals.

Rules and regulations are thus essential for the existence and function of a society, provided they do not discriminate against its individuals and are updated with the changing times.

Some people believe that it is best to accept a bad situation, such as unsatisfactory job or shortage of money. Others argue that it is better to try and improve such situations. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

 Life offers a lot to deal with, sometimes they are not what one wants. Some suggest it is better to make peace with it, while others believe it is best to strive and achieve one's dreams.

If a person accepts their unsatisfactory situations to be their fate and blocks any efforts or opportunities that could change their life, then it would lessen their risk of failure and their encounter with unexpected instances. However, such a life could also be monotonous and wistful. During my higher secondary education, I wanted to choose humanities instead, due to family pressure, I opted for science. Years have passed, and I have grown to like this field, but I still wonder how my life would have been if I had followed my passion.

Unlike me, some people would consider it never too late to follow their dreams. Such people grab opportunities and find ways to console their wistful souls. As a result of their efforts, their life would have lots of surprises stored for them, even bad ones that could put them in great misery. They might find it hard to settle down while running behind their dreams but if they hit the jackpot, it would be a lifelong achievement.

My considered opinion is that, it is not possible to lead a life based solely on one concept. In real life, we sometimes need to ignore unpleasant parts of our lives, like a boring desk job, and focus on the better parts, like the six-figure salary it offers. Also, the urge to follow our dreams and wants is inherent to all living beings, and it is important to survive. So, I suggest people choose according to the circumstances they are faced with.

Nowadays many people travel to foreign countries for pleasure. Some believe this travel has a negative impact on the countries travelled to. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

International tourism has grown in popularity over the years, but its value to the host country is frequently debated. I believe that there are both benefits and drawbacks for the host country.

Many people in most countries rely on the tourism industry for a living, and many more rely on the entertainment industry. As a result, international tourism has a significant economic impact on the host country. Furthermore, such trips can inspire foreigners to return to the country for further education, employment, investments, and other reasons. International tourism is critical for fostering a sense of empathy and harmony among nations. During a food tour in Pakistan, I met some wonderful people who challenged my preconceived notions about the country.

However, enjoyable travel can be harmful to some countries that have environmentally sensitive areas such as coral reefs, forests that are critical habitats for endangered species, water bodies that are home to red-listed fish and reptiles, and so on. Tourism in these areas by people who are unaware of the importance of these species and are unfamiliar with the terrain can disrupt the sensitive ecology. Also, wherever it is, responsible tourism must become the norm for the environment to remain hygienic and pollution-free. Lakshadweep, for example, is an island with rare coral reefs, and visitors are quite often restricted to protect them.

In summary, with responsible tourism and intensive care for the environment, leisure travel could be a boon to the host country, as it improves the economy and helps create harmony.

People are living much longer than before, and this creates enormous pressure on government services. What are some of the effects of a much larger, older population and what can governments do to deal with this problem?

 As the medical care systems have advanced and the fertility rate has stayed persistently low, the demography has shifted to a larger older population. This poses new challenges for the authorities as currently, the economy, health systems, and societies around the globe are organised around the younger population demographic.

The implications of the growing older population, especially those over their sixties, are numerous. There will be a decline in the labour force, as the retirement age is generally between 60 to 65 years. This reduction in the workforce leads to a downfall in both production and consumption, which can affect the sustainability of social security, eventually leading to economic recession. Also, due to widespread ageism, particularly in health-related research and data collection, sustaining the health of the elders becomes difficult.

The problems asserted by the higher share of elders in the demography can be translated into opportunities if the governments can bring reforms to the current system. The first step is to address issues of ageism within society. Also, to maintain a good economy, a lifelong active society could be encouraged by improving the long-term medical health systems, supporting inter-generational interactions, and allowing certified education open to all age groups. Such activities can also help the seniors psychologically. Furthermore, to manage the decline in the workforce, utilising advancements in electronics, robotics, and AI could be an apt solution.

Overall, the ageing population is a result of having a good economy, but this could be maintained in the future by bringing reforms that are also beneficial to the seniors. These include the elimination of ageism, realising the complex nature of ageing, identifying elders with the will and ability to contribute to society, ensuring long-term total healthcare systems, and utilising technological advancements.