This post is written after my real writing test some days ago, so the topic might not be 100% accurate as I can remember, but I hope you can make review for it. Many thanks!
While families are crucial in children's development, the impact outside the house is of more important. Do you agree or disagree with this? State your opinion and include relevant examples.
Nowadays, children's experience and development has become a heated debate throughout the public. Most people advocate that societal impacts stand above families' teaching regarding children's character building. As for me, this statement is partly agreeable and this essay will clarify both points
On the one hand, people should recognize that the major influence leading to children's growth comes from the outside world. This means as kids are exposed early to open environment, they can gain consciousness of how the world is like, ultimately interacting with strange surroundings. Children like this tend to acquire much knowledge and easily outperform their friends and peers. This is evidenced as celebrities' success comes from early interaction with the outside world. "King of Golden Medals" Michael Phelps was influenced by his mentor to learn to swim in his youth using his abnormal appearance, which made Phelps the person he is today. Besides, positive surroundings beyond house can shift a child's mind, which leads to his/her critical thinking and talents essential for his/her future
On the other hand, there are arguments against the mentioned statement. In fact, as far as children's development is concerned, families take more responsibilities for this. Home can outclass society due to experienced knowledge capable of teaching children the rights and wrongs. Furthermore, close relationships with family members prove their trustworthiness towards children, becoming someone they can rely on. One possible counter-evidence may be the outcome of families' influence.
Edison was educated by his mother as she believed in his potency, and time proved that Edison had become one of the best scientists known to world. The similarity also occurred to Napoleon, since his competitiveness, rightfulness, and outstanding leadership - important factors for his success - were inheritance from his family.
In conclusion, the mentioned views have created a dilemma when people evaluate the impact of this controversial issue. To my extent, while many positivities arise, negativities are also imminent. The impact from both sides, especially from outside the house, should be taken into consideration
While families are crucial in children's development, the impact outside the house is of more important. Do you agree or disagree with this? State your opinion and include relevant examples.
Nowadays, children's experience and development has become a heated debate throughout the public. Most people advocate that societal impacts stand above families' teaching regarding children's character building. As for me, this statement is partly agreeable and this essay will clarify both points
On the one hand, people should recognize that the major influence leading to children's growth comes from the outside world. This means as kids are exposed early to open environment, they can gain consciousness of how the world is like, ultimately interacting with strange surroundings. Children like this tend to acquire much knowledge and easily outperform their friends and peers. This is evidenced as celebrities' success comes from early interaction with the outside world. "King of Golden Medals" Michael Phelps was influenced by his mentor to learn to swim in his youth using his abnormal appearance, which made Phelps the person he is today. Besides, positive surroundings beyond house can shift a child's mind, which leads to his/her critical thinking and talents essential for his/her future
On the other hand, there are arguments against the mentioned statement. In fact, as far as children's development is concerned, families take more responsibilities for this. Home can outclass society due to experienced knowledge capable of teaching children the rights and wrongs. Furthermore, close relationships with family members prove their trustworthiness towards children, becoming someone they can rely on. One possible counter-evidence may be the outcome of families' influence.
Edison was educated by his mother as she believed in his potency, and time proved that Edison had become one of the best scientists known to world. The similarity also occurred to Napoleon, since his competitiveness, rightfulness, and outstanding leadership - important factors for his success - were inheritance from his family.
In conclusion, the mentioned views have created a dilemma when people evaluate the impact of this controversial issue. To my extent, while many positivities arise, negativities are also imminent. The impact from both sides, especially from outside the house, should be taken into consideration
