Introduction: It is often claimed that advances in technology have had a overwhelmingly positive effect on education. I largely agree with this view because digital tools increase access to information and personalise learning, enabling students to progress at their own pace.

Paragraph 1: Firstly, the internet and educational platforms have democratised access to high-quality resources. Students from remote regions can now attend virtual lectures, follow MOOCs and consult online libraries that were previously unavailable to them. For example, many learners in rural areas of developing countries have completed certification courses from world-class universities, thereby improving their employment prospects.

Paragraph 2: Secondly, technology facilitates personalised learning. Adaptive software assesses a student’s strengths and weaknesses and offers tailored practice, which speeds up progress more effectively than one-size-fits-all classroom instruction. Consequently, weaker students receive extra practice in problem areas while advanced learners can move ahead, reducing boredom and dropout rates.

Conclusion: In conclusion, while technology cannot replace effective teaching completely, it substantially enhances educational access and individualised instruction; therefore, I agree that technological progress has improved education.

Introduction: Some contend that governments should shoulder the entire cost of public transport to ensure affordability. I disagree with this position because full public funding can lead to inefficiencies and places an excessive burden on taxpayers.

Paragraph 1: A primary reason for opposing total government funding is that it reduces incentives for cost control and innovation. When transport operators rely entirely on subsidies, they may neglect service quality and operational efficiency. For instance, systems that are heavily subsidised frequently experience delays and poor maintenance because there is little financial pressure to improve.

Paragraph 2: Moreover, universal government funding can be fiscally unsustainable, especially for countries with limited budgets. Allocating large sums to transport may divert resources from other critical areas like healthcare and education. A more balanced model — combining moderate subsidies with user fares and private partnerships — tends to deliver better services while remaining sustainable.

Conclusion: To sum up, although public transport should be affordable and supported where necessary, expecting governments to pay the full cost is impractical and may undermine service quality; hence I disagree with the view.

Introduction: There is debate about whether advertising aimed at children should be prohibited. I partially agree: advertisements for unhealthy food and age-inappropriate products should be banned, but educational and public-service adverts can be beneficial.

Paragraph 1: Evidence shows that commercials for sugary snacks significantly influence children’s preferences, contributing to poor diets and childhood obesity. Banning such adverts during children’s programming would reduce unhealthy consumption and help parents maintain healthier diets for their kids.

Paragraph 2: Conversely, advertisements that promote literacy initiatives, vaccination campaigns or road safety can have a positive impact. These adverts raise awareness and support beneficial behaviours, so an outright ban on all advertising would remove a valuable channel for public education.

Conclusion: In conclusion, a selective ban that targets harmful advertising while allowing educational messages provides a reasonable compromise; therefore I partly agree with the proposal to ban adverts on children’s TV.