In today’s world, there has been more and more emphasis on health. Some argue that there are too much 
sugar in the food and drink 
products available on the market and the government should charge an additional fee on 
products with high 
sugar levels. Personally, I agree with 
this approach and I will list out some of the benefits below.


Firstly, charging higher prices will definitely reduce people’s intake of sugary 
products. Sometimes, the public is simply not aware of the number of carbohydrates contained in the drink they purchase, as manufacturers nowadays tend to find ways to label their 
products as healthy even though they are not. 
For instance, some juice shops label themselves as healthy by emphasising their 
products’ freshness. 
However, they never inform their customers of the amount of 
sugar contained in one regular size juice, which can be extremely high for some items 
such as grape juice. 


Secondly, making these unhealthy drinks more expensive will help consumers make better choices when purchasing 
such 
products. They are simply bad for health as they can lead to problems 
such as obesity and diabetes. The general public should definitely not be encouraged to consume 
such 
products. 
In addition, with more and more people switching to healthier diets, the nation will definitely benefit from savings on healthcare in the long run.

Some argue that consumers should have freedom of choice and should not be punished for choosing sugary 
products which are often more tasty than  others. 
However, leading manufacturers in the food and drinks industries have been focusing more and more on research for new 
products that contain less 
sugar, but still taste similar to the original 
products. 
For example, coca-cola has come out with a few new versions of coke 
such as coke zero. 

In conclusion, sugary food and drinks are harmful to people’s well-being and higher price should be charged so as to help people control their carbohydrate intake and eventually improve the health of the population.

Some people argue that students should focus more on their syllabus rather than doing jobs. Yet, I completely agree that half-time jobs are important for scholars to teach them responsibilities and the value of money.

To begin with, the teens can learn how to be responsible, punctual and manage their time effectively while doing a part-time job. For instance, while working, it is their sole responsibility to report on time and do the duties properly. By this , specific skills are learnt by the young people which will help them in the near future.
In addition, the pupils will be able to unearth the value of money. They will spend less  unnecessarily and maybe even be capable to pay their necessities and bills. They can even fund their higher education. 

For instance, the youngsters will think twice before paying for unnecessary items because even the small amount of money they get is of utmost importance. They will focus more on the budget. Hence, this attitude will make them become better individuals. Therefore, part-time employment is a great notion.
However, some people argue that the students should focus only on their studies. They claim that the scholars will get easily distracted from their studies while doing the temporary jobs and score poor grades in academics. But, today's teenagers are very intelligent and wise. They know how to manage studies along with their job. 

In brief, doing a part-time job while studying is an excellent idea to be brought up to students worldwide. It is one of the best ways to get trained for difficulties. 

Therefore, it is hoped that this will benefit them to brighten up their future.

It is argued that mobile 
phones are not necessary for pupils and should be prohibited to use, while some people believe that it is not a big deal to allow 
children to use their gadgets at 
school. In ,the essay both viewpoints will be discussed and my opinion will be provided. 


First of all, emergencies are not a rare thing in modern schools and mobile 
phones can be literally a lifesaver. 
For example, a 
school like many other places in a space where a lot of contingencies could happen from mere medical emergency to 
school shooting and mobile phone would provide students with an inevitable tool of communication to get help. 
Moreover, 
children could face  violence and harassment from teachers and without ,
phones they would be unable to record justifications and collect evidence of tutors' misbehaviour.  


Nevertheless, gadgets and 
phones, 
in particular, are highly attractive and engaging time killers, forcing pupils to spend a large amount of time on the Internet 
instead of studying. 
As a result, 
children could not master 
school subjects and successfully apply for  college to become professionals. 
Besides, today all students want to get the best and expensive phone, but not all parents can afford it. 
Subsequently, 
children from wealthy families with expensive mobile 
phones make inequality more vivid and incline less fortunate 
children into depression.

In my opinion, mobile 
phones as other gadgets provide a great range of opportunities to improve the studying process, so it is counterproductive to ban 
phones at 
school, teachers just should learn how to include them in the learning process. 
For instance, tutors could carry out interactive tests on 
phones and engage students that that tend to be more distractive.

In conclusion, at 
first ,sight mobile phone can be perceived as a distractor, but with an attentive and creative approach teachers can successfully implement it in the learning process.

The opponents of children’s household tasks usually put forward an argument that doing housework is time-consuming. Nowadays, children are always busy with their study, which prevents them from helping their parents with household tasks or even having free time for themselves. It is, therefore, argued that housework may take much of the children’s little spare time. In other words, it is unfair for children on grounds that they will not enough time for other important activities.

More or less, there seem to be a point in their argument. Nonetheless, doing housework will make children more independent. Take me as an example. My overprotective parents in one way or another have made me clumsy. In fact, I usually find it difficult to complete my household tasks as my parents always stop me from doing around the house. Meanwhile, my older sister has done everything by herself since she was a child. As a result, she is successful in any business, both at home and at work. It is no doubt that the tasks she did has helped her to be more independent than me. The adherents of children’s housework add that doing household tasks helps children learn how to manage their time properly for hard jobs in their life as well as their study.

Furthermore, doing around the house will make children proud of themselves as a member of the family, thereby it actually strengthens the bonds among family members. In fact, most children are not clearly aware of their duty. If the adults, however, let them do some tasks and give them compliment in time, this not only can make children proud of themselves but also encourages them to do more good things. Therefore, doing housework will give children an opportunity to contribute to the family, as a truly mature member and, at the same time, the families with children lending a helping hand with chores will certainly be close-knit and happy. 

In brief, in modern age, it is necessary for children to have proper guidance to get practical experience from their own tasks so as to be well-prepared for their life. Handling household tasks is considered an ideal way for teenagers to nurture well-rounded development, as it is beneficial in various aspects.