<p>PROMPT: The consumption of coffee and energy drinks has become increasingly common among teenagers. Some public health advocates debate whether to pass a law prohibiting the sale of such highly caffeinated beverages to people under the age of 18, similar to age restrictions place on the sale of alcohol and tobacco products. Some lawmakers support prohibiting the sale of coffee and energy drinks to people under the age of 18 because these lawmakers think caffeine is addictive and harmful to teens health. Other lawmakers do not support prohibiting the sale of coffee and energy drinks to people under the age of 18 because they think that doing so would be arbitrary since teens are not restricted from consuming other unhealthy products such as junk god and soda. In your opinion, should the sale of coffee and energy drinks to people under the age of 18 to be prohibited?
Public health advocators and parents are becoming increasingly concerned with the sale of highly caffeinated drinks to people under the age of 18. Some advocates believe that it is pointless to prohibit the sale of caffeinated drinks and may even be harmful to students. Other advocates believe that since caffeine is addictive it may be harmful to the health of teenagers.
While it is important to be healthy, there are other endless options out there which students may pick from that damage their body. The first step in improving the health of teenagers should not be banning coffee. When there is a McDonalds/Burger King at every single rest stop in America, there should also be serious doubt as to believe coffee is the root of health problems. Instead of focusing on coffee which benefits teenagers in many ways, the lawmakers should focus on banning or at least limiting fast food. This method would prove to be monumentally more effective and alter peoples lives in a much more positive light while barely affecting their benefits (ability to purchase cheap food).
One benefit that coffee provides to students is that it helps their late-night study session. Many times, a student has procrastinated the whole evening and faces a mountain of work to tackle or a huge exam to start studying for. Without the help of coffee, students would doze off into deep sleeps before even starting to grasp the material they were trying to learn. This energy boost helps them stay alert and focused and ready to bring home superb grades.
A problem with banning coffee is that many people, students in particular, are already hooked on it. A prohibition would just cause turmoil and result in terrible things. Remember the prohibition days back in history? People will smuggle and sneak around and trade until, ultimately, the problem is too much to handle and the band has to be lifted.
From a personal perspective, I already know this ban wont be effective. When have bans/laws ever prevented teenagers from getting what they want? Alcohol and marijuana use are probably two of the most popular teenage pastimes! Those are banned yet nothing drastic has happened to the amount of it in circulation. Banning caffeinated drinks will only add those products into that illegal circulation.
Some may still disagree and claim that energy drinks cause health risks. Caffeine is proven to be a drug and it may cause students to depend heavily on it. When there is a dearth of those drinks available to the already addicted pupil. Frustration will occur and the student will be less likely to perform well in the students studies for that time period. However, I believe that the pros of caffeinated drinks still outweigh the cons. Further mores, studies have proven that caffeine is an extremely effective pre-workout supplement, contributing to good health. Just because it is a drug does not mean it can not be beneficial in a students diet. </p>
<p>I didn’t have enough time to write a conclusion, couldn’t finish. Do I need to vary my sentence structure more? Do I need more big words? Does this flow? My tutor told me write a neutral intro. Use half a sentence of a counter argument, then state your position. And then go into 2-3 paragraphs defending your side. Then do a whole paragraph about the counterargument and refute it at the end and write a conclusion. Any tips will be appreciated.</p>
<p>PROMPT: In most states, a teenager can get a drivers license at sixteen years of age. However, because studies show that teenager sixteen to eighteen years of age are involved in more traffic accidents that any other age group, some state legislators debate raising the minimum driving age to eighteen. Some state legislators support an older minimum driving age because they think it will reduce the number of traffic accidents that involve teenagers. Other legislators do not support an older minimum driving age because they think it would be difficult for many families if teenagers were not able to drive to work or help transport younger siblings after school. In your opinion, should states raise the minimum age for obtaining a drivers license to eighteen years of age?
Educators and parents are becoming increasingly concerned with the age at which students are allowed to drive. Some legislators believe that causing the minimum driving to eighteen would cause too many internal family problems and prevent kids from getting to school. Other legislators believe that students under the age of eighteen are irresponsible and should not be qualified to be let out on the streets with an automobile.
While students may prove to be more reckless than adults when driving and although safety is important, many steps can be taken to prevent injury and continue to provide all the benefits driving has to offer. Many people have the luck of being given a car at an early age. If this privilege was taken away many families would need to completely alter their lifestyles to make through each passing day. Schedules are hectic, work is difficult and the miserable economy isnt making it any easier on people. While teenagers are a bit less cautious than regular drivers, I believe there are many solutions that can be taken to prevent those problems.
One solution would be to require younger drivers to take an extensive drivers ed course before are let out on the road by themselves. The students can be taught the dangers of alcohol abuse and drag racing every day in class. By drilling these ideas into the minds of students, it can be ensured that younger drivers will get into less accidents. Consequences can be made more severe for younger drivers as well. Stricter laws will put a little fear into their hearts which will make them more cautious on the road.
If the driving age was raised to eighteen, tons of families would be in a dilemma. From a personal standpoint, I can say that I would probably end up causing my dad to get demoted at work. Like me, many other students actually have no means of public transportation or just live way too far to make that kind of trip. If I was not able to drive now it would only aggravate my problems. Allowing me to drive to school mitigates external problems away from school and saves precious time.
Some may still argue and believe that teenagers cause too many accidents and need to be taken off the streets. It is evidenced by higher insurance rates for teenagers. Also studies show that teenagers are more likely to drive under the influence than adults are. However, I still believe that by taking proper precautions and treating younger drivers more like adults both sides win. The driver is taught more responsibility while still allowing for maximum benefits and decreasing risks.
To summarize, the driving age should be left the way it is with stricter regulations for the drivers under the age of eighteen. The pros would outweigh the cons if these restrictions were passed. Teenagers will arrive to school on time, ready to learn and parents will be able to continue working at their day jobs brings money home for the family.</p>
<p>essay 3
if anyone ever looks at these, look at this one first or if it’s your only one, lookat this one.</p>
<p>PROMPT: Rather than concentrating on doing one thing at a time, high school students often divide their attention among several activities, such as watching television and using the computer while doing homework. Educators debate whether performing several tasks at the same time is too distracting when students are doing homework. Some educators believe multitasking is a bad practice when doing homework because they think dividing attention between multiple tasks negatively affects the quality of a students’ work. Other educators do not believe multitasking is a bad practice when doing homework because they think students accomplish more during their limited free time as a result of multitasking. In your opinion is it too distracting for high school students to divide their attention among several activities when they are doing homework?
Educators and parents are becoming increasingly concerned with students who multi-task when doing their homework. Some educators believe that multitasking derails students from their main foal of completing their homework. Other educators believe that multitasking allows for students to perform other beneficial recreational activities during free time.
While it is important to partake in activities rather than schoolwork, schoolwork comes first and is more crucial to a student’s success as opposed to free time. Allowing students to multitask is evidently working. We live in a culture where teenagers can effortlessly access electronic devices such as the iPod, a computer, or an Xbox. The educators are right. These gadgets can be extremely distracting during these times in which technology is so rapidly advancing. What is the solution to this problem? Although it may be difficult, require students to hand in more handwritten work. This may pull away students’ attention from all the gizmos that are readily available for use.
Time is money. One major benefit of focusing solely on homework for a certain period of time is that precious time is saved. By only looking at a single piece of paper, the student will make the process of grasping the material much easier. Now the student is prepared for class. Even more free time will be available for each individual and they will not have to sacrifice any knowledge. Instead of trying to do various tasks at once, the student who tackles them one at a time will maximize his pleasure and benefits. Homework will no longer interrupt the brand new episode of Housewives while Housewives will no longer interrupt homework; both sides win.
From a personal perspective, I know that multitasking while doing homework causes problems. I have friends who have ended up spending the whole day in class clueless because they did not put all of their effort into their homework. Some have even take it as far as copying homework five minutes before the bell rings in addition to being clueless! Multitasking throws students off track and holds them back from reaching their true academic potential.
Some may still argue and say that multitasking while doing homework proves to provide a better experience. It is true that forcing students to focus on one task at a time is not to be considered a cur-all. Students many still copy work, come into class clues, and cheat the honor system regardless of whether they are multitasking or not. However, I do believe that focusing on homework alone promotes a better learning environment and can aid in a student’s attempt to absorb the most knowledge they can.
To summarize, taking things one a time is how students should go about their daily activities. Valuable hours of free time can be saved while still allowing the student to get the most out of their work. Furthermore, students will be prepared for class more often and less likely to cheat.</p>