Nafisa notes

https://youtu.be/KqTAVprbJmg?si=p9EkCudJnSXcdXGd

#dailydoseofarticles

Some researchers believe that Mars should be considered a potential future planet for human habitation and that more money should be invested in research into making this possible. To what extent do you agree or disagree?   It is claimed that Martian planet should be colonized in order to have habitable environment for humanity and investment should be directed to achieve this aim. Although there are some advantages of colonizing Mars, I believe that it is expensive and there are other social issues here on Earth.   It is commonplace to see scientists researching the means of Mars colonization because of population boom and scarcity of resources. There are more than 8.3 billion individuals on the planet, which is the number expected to rise more than 9 billion by 2050. In order to provide basic necessities such as food supplies and shelter, international communities should find a way to offer all the availabilities, which can be challenging, especially when humanity is running out of resources. In other words, by 2050, there will not be only an increase in the number of people, also there is going to be a scarcity of resources such as available land, fertile soil and water, making it difficult to provide housing, grow crops and offer drinkable water. Mars can be a fertile ground to conduct research and build facilities where people can live, which can present an urgent relief when there is a humanitarian crisis on Earth.   Nevertheless, I insist that colonization of Mars can be expensive and time-consuming. It takes approximately millions if not billions to launch a rocket into Mars and conduct a research let alone transferring half of population to this planet. To achieve this ambitious project, international space stations, such as Nasa and SpaceX should invest billions of dollars. Faced with prohibitive prices, they might find it difficult to accomplish this goal within a short space of time, or at least until 2050. Investment for providing salary and basic necessities for workers in space stations should be taken into account as well, which can cost extra amount of money to cover, considering there are usually more 150-200 highly skilled space engineers who dedicate long hours of their time.   Also, there are other social problems which need to be addressed on the planet Earth, ranging from food scarcity to communicable diseases. There are millions of people who suffer from food shortage worldwide. Take Nigeria, a country in Africa, as an example. Malnutrition and food scarcity are significant problems which have become the norm, especially among children. Not eating enough food is causing weakened immune system and child mortality. In addition to food shortage, diseases are presenting a noticeable crisis for many. In 2019-2020, humanity experience the worst outbreak of Covid-19, which took the lives of many people. In that situation, World Health Organization realized that not many developing countries were ready to provide healthcare for their population, making them susceptible to losses of lives. Although there is not any global outbreak of communicable diseases now, international communities and governing bodies should prepare for unexpected diseases that might spread. In the face of these current issues, colonizing Mars as a potential future planet might seem less imperative.   In conclusion, although Martian planet can provide land and recourses for growing population on Earth, it is far less important, when there more pressing social issues right now.   524 words 40 minutes #task2

The bar graph compares the data about the three carbon emission sources- gas, oil, and coal- over the course of two decades (1990-2010). Overall, it can be seen that coal become a negligible contributor of CO2 over the years while the reverse is true for gas. Also, it is worth noting that the figure for oil somewhat fluctuated, while showing an increase in the middle of the period before declining. With regard to the main contributors of CO2, gas and coal, a significant difference can be pronounced, with their respective figures standing at around 210 million and roughly 305 million tonnes of CO2, exhibiting a 105 million difference. However, over the years, the difference narrowed down, with the figure for gas surpassing coal, the former reaching 300 million tonnes while the latter decreasing to 250 million tonnes, representing a 50 million difference. Gas kept producing more and more carbon footprint over the period, becoming the biggest air pollutant, reaching its peak of around 320 million tonnes, the highest figure over the given period. Coal emitted less carbon dioxide year by year, decreasing to around 198 million tonnes, becoming the least significant source of CO2. As for the oil, this figure stood at around 260 million tonnes in 1990, the time when it produced the most amount of carbon emissions compared to following years. After that figure showed mild differences, with its emission amount, ranging from approximately 252 million tonnes to about 205 million tonnes. 244 words 20 minutes #task1

https://youtu.be/ICYTZWCy4I8?si=Wrn1xUwuX-E2vrps

https://youtu.be/2nVmKcITs7k?si=9uO6fABzujBpchKN

Some believe that pets should stay at home at all times, while others feel they should be allowed outside the home.  Discuss both views and give your own opinion.   It is claimed that pets should always be held indoors, with others saying they should spend time outside home. Although there are some advantages of keeping domestic animals indoors, I believe that they should be freed to spend time outside, with safety precautions are taken in advance.   It is commonplace to see individuals adopting different types of animals to keep company. Many of those keep their pets inside because of safety issues. In an urban environment, it has become the norm to observe streets filled with vehicles going back and forth, imposing a danger to domestic animals. In other words, in many cities, there are not many barriers separating houses from main roads, making in dangerous for pets to wander around, as there is a high risk of getting hit by a car. Tashkent, a capital city of Uzbekistan, can be a good testament of this, where many people loosen their dogs so that they can enjoy outdoors without fences in between. However, in some extreme cases, they might be hit by a fast-moving car, bringing about fatal accidents. Thus, many individuals keep their pets inside to avoid such hazards.   Nevertheless, I believe that they should be given access to the outdoors, because of their prehistoric nature and biological instincts. Most adopted pets are dogs and cats, which were wandered around in the wilderness million years ago, before they were domesticated.  Their physiological and psychological well-being is closely linked to   outdoor activities. Exposure to fresh air and natural surroundings enables them to remain active and reduces stress caused by confinement. Faced with the pressure of restricted environment at home, pets might feel depressed, causing a reduced lifespan and other health issues.   Also, I believe that if there are safety measurements, there is no room for concerns for pet owners. In urban settings, many individuals live in high-rise buildings, meaning there might be a limited space for their pets to spend time. However, pet owners can use leashes and collars to supervise so that they will have maintain control over their pets’ movements. In rural environment, there might be enclosed gardens, which can be appropriate settings for pets to have outdoor activities, only if these places are surrounded by fences. Take an outskirt of Tashkent as an example. Some people installed fences around their properties in order to keep their pets safe without being exposed to external dangers.   In conclusion, some might want to keep their pets at home all the time due to safety concerns. However, I believe that most pets were wild animals before they were domesticated, meaning they need outdoors to stay mentally sane and some safety measurements can deter accidents.   443 words 40 minutes #task2

The table and bar chart show how much time men and women allocated to pursuing leisure and household activities. Overall, it can be seen that men spent more time on leisure pursuits such as consuming content from TV, video, radio and sports, with reading being the only exception. Also, it is worth noting that women generally devoted more time for doing household responsibilities compared to males, who only spent much time for repairing work. With regard to leisure activities, TV, video, and radio are preferred popular choices by both genders, with their respective figures standing at 137 minutes, accounting for the largest proportion of time spent, and 118 minutes. Reading comes next in terms of a leisure time preference, meaning men dedicated 18 minutes, while women spent a minute less than that. Sport, by contrast, was the least popular spare time activity across both genders, with men spending 4 minutes more compared to women, who allocated 11 minutes on a daily basis. As for the household activities, women were more involved than men. Cooking and washing are the most time-consuming household tasks, with women dedicating around an hour and 15 minutes, the housework requiring the most amount of daily time, which was around 45 minutes more than time men allocated for this housework. Women and men were engaged in shopping for around 35 and 25 minutes, respectively. Washing clothes and ironing were done by both genders, albeit with different time allocations, around 10 minutes by men and approximately 30 minutes by women. Repairing is the only housework, where men dedicated more time than their female counterparts, with roughly19 minutes, which was around 10 minutes more than women expanded. Despite this, it remained the lest time-consuming housework among both genders. 289 words 20 minutes #task1

#wordoftheday

#wordoftheday

#wordoftheday

#wordoftheday