Today many people use the internet and smartphones to transfer money to friends, family and businesses. Is it a positive or negative development? The development technology, particularly smartphones and the internet, has enabled people to send money to any person or business. While there are some downsides to transferring money online, I believe that it is a change for the better.
There are some reasons why sending money online can be deemed unfavorable. First, there is a risk of online frauds. My father, for instance, has recently fallen victim to a website and lost about $200 after downloading an application on his smartphone, which was supposed to offer commission-free transfers. Second, there are accessibility issues. People living in remote places like deserts or mountains have very poor mobile connection, let alone internet access. For them, it is more convenient to send money in a traditional way.
Despite the negatives mentioned above, I believe that sending money with the help of the internet and smartphones is a positive change. The main reason why this is so is convenience it offers to users. While banks don’t work 24/7 and ATMs are placed only in specific places, online transfers can be made whenever and wherever possible. Aside from this, sending money via the internet provides instant support or help. A student studying in a foreign country, for example, can easily ask for money from friends or family members during an emergency, such as ill-health or an unfortunate accident. Due to these reasons, online transfers should be seen as progress.
To sum up, whereas online money transfers may not be accessible to all and are potentially vulnerable to scams, I feel that their convenience and speed outweigh any of the drawbacks.
#task2 #alisher_types #mock_writing #positivenegative #aGoodOne
Scientific research should be carried out and controlled by the governments rather than private companies. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? It is suggested that the government be in charge of conducting scientific research, not private entities such as businesses. Although there are some valid reasons for this suggestion, I am personally opposed to it.
Government oversight over research in the area of science can be justified on several grounds. The most potent reason for this would be prevention of unethical practices. Some companies, like cosmetics and drug manufacturers, test their new products on animals and in some extreme cases, on humans, in the name of scientific advances. This raises moral questions over animal and human safety. The government could also play a critical role in sharing scientific research results in a just and meaningful manner. Companies are sometimes reluctant to share their research results, but the government could disseminate knowledge obtained from scientific research efficiently with extensive resources at its disposal and to people who need it the most.
Despite these reasons, I object to having the government control scientific research. The main problem here is research progress being stifled as a result of excessive regulation. That is, inherent bureaucracy which comes with government intervention could hamper research speed as well as business operations. Allowing businesses autonomy in scientific research would also fuel healthy competition. Having been given freedom to research and experiment and deliver new products, companies would be more driven to innovate, which will ultimately benefit the economy. Finally, government involvement can sometimes lead to malicious meddling when there are corrupt officials involved. In these regards, government being responsible for scientific research can be undesirable.
In conclusion, government control over scientific research is justifiable in some ways, but I believe it is an unwise course of action as it can hinder progress and market competition and possibly, create chances for unlawful acts.
#Mukhammadali_Issues
