Some people think that people who choose a job early and keep doing it are more
likely to get a satisfying career life than those who frequent change job. To what
extent do you agree or disagree.
There is a growing concern that pursuing a job can have a better result than people who
make alternations in their occupations. In my opinion, I strongly agree that sticking to a
certain career can bring people satisfactory life.
On the one hand, doing one job can lead to a fulfilling working life. First, a stable
occupation would conducive to bigger promotion if individuals work with high
commitment and dedication. For example, the average starting salary in Vietnam is 3
million dong per month. However, the payment promotes to 8 million Dong after 3
months of trial period. Second, get-along staffs are more trustworthy than those you just
know them a short period and you could aware what you employer requires after a long
time becoming a partner at work. Therefore, this can culminate in a more comfortable
working environment and increasing work efficiency especially in doing teamwork.
On the other hand, people frequently change jobs fail to have satisfying career life.
Freshmen are likely to handle judgments about their experience inadequacies and
discriminately made to do works that are out of their duty. Job hoppers might have the
state of being unemployed, which makes their living condition get worse. Companies
only provide their full-time employees pension and health insurance during work and
retire. For instance, in many developing countries such as Vietnam, the retirees find it
easier to live their old life with the money from the pension. The people change jobs
constantly are not able to receive these advantages. To the job hoppers, they are more
likely to have shallow relationships and hard to find the connection with other staffs.
In conclusion, I believe that a permanent job would offer more positive benefits than
changing job frequently. (289)
The society would benefit from a ban on all forms of advertising because it serves no
useful purpose and even be damaging. Do you agree or disagree?
It is suggested that the society can gain beneficial from prohibiting all kinds of
advertising. Moreover, an advertisement is believed to bring no use and cause drawbacks.
In my opinion, this assumption is a highly subjective point of view, and therefore I
completely disagree with it.
It is undeniable fact that advertising plays a crucial role in human life with useful
purposes. Advertisement is a mean for companies to communicate with their potential
customers. Thanks to advertising the information comes faster to customers. With
advertisement, people are informed the choices they have, by that, they can compare each
product to another to find the better. For example, on the commercial of facial cleansing
bushes, they pointed out the advantages and the drawbacks of Foreo and Clarisonic so
that individuals can buy the appropriate to their needs. Advertising is a creative industry
that needs large workforce; therefore, many people can find their job.
From another prospective, the society would have undesirable implications if advertising
is banned. People search the price of products before shopping and generally try to find
the cheapest one with the same quality. At this point, commercials help us save money by
providing information on markets and properties of products. Nevertheless, cooperates
and companies nowadays need advertisement in order to survive in fierce competition.
Excellent advertisements do boost the sales of commodities and thus increase the
business profit. For instance, a local shoes brand in Vietnam, Biti’s, which was thought to
go bankrupt, suddenly came up with the commercial on a music video. In result, their
products were rapidly out of stock.
In conclusion, we cannot deny the advantages that advertising brings to the society and it is not
for the sake of everyone’s interests that advertisements have to be prohibited. (293)