【正文】 ount throughout life. For this reason I believe children will always look to their parents for moral guidance and parents will always serve as the final authority on issues concerning discipline and acceptable modes of behaviour. Whether or not this is how it “should” be is beside the point, because the primacy of this parentchild relationship is accepted by almost every culture in the world and certain areas of belief and morality religion and sexuality, for instance are generally considered to lie within the family domain. If one accepts that schools in many countries would be very hesitant to intrude into these areas of family business, then it follows that their mandate for imposing discipline and providing moral instruction is strictly limited to certain areas that are considered by society to form part of a school’s responsibility. Examples of such areas are how a child performs academically, or whether or not his behaviour while at school conforms to socially accepted standards. However, even in these areas schools can only go so far and will have to, at a certain point, consult with parents in order to agree on a course of action that is acceptable to both parties. In conclusion, schools certainly have a part to play in reinforcing and exemplifying moral codes, but ultimately parents are responsible for discipline and guidance in these areas.5: More and more children’s writing and math ability are affected by puters and calculators. What are the advantages and disadvantages of limiting the use of those tools? In all developed and some developing countries, puters and calculators have bee such monplace items that it would actually be very difficult to limit their use. However, it might be possible to limit their use in the classroom, especially during primary school years when children are taught to write by hand and solve mathematical problems on paper. By keeping these tasks a mandatory, regularly assessed part of the primary school curriculum, while simultaneously keeping puters and calculators out of the classroom, children could at least be taught basic petence in these areas. Beyond this one advantage, however, I think it would be a mistake to limit their use, for the advantages of these tools far outweigh their disadvantages and being able to operate them is nowadays an essential skill in itself. To be able to use a keyboard, send s, write reports and produce spreadsheets are all skills that are being increasingly important not only at school and work but also in the realm of everyday life., and I believe that the best way for children to learn such skills is through the familiarity that es from having unlimited access to puters. It would be a serious disadvantage indeed to not be able to use a puter upon finishing school and entering the workplace. Regarding calculators, I don’t believe they have any negative effect on a child’s mathematical ability at all, given that maths is primarily a conceptual subject in which the concepts involved need to be understood when using a calculator or solving problems on paper. In fact, the time saving qualities of calculators can be seen as an aid to mathematical progress and the same is true for any subjects in which puters play a part. 6: Some people say that it is inhuman to transplant organs and give birth to test tube babies. To what extent do you agree of disagree with this statement?People who hold these kinds of convictions tend to be religious fundamentalists who believe that medical procedures such as transplants and artificial fertilisation are transgressions of God’s laws as set down in the bible and other religious texts. According to this philosophy, only God has the right to give and take life and it is unacceptable for doctors and other humans to interfere with the natural processes that form part of his creation. Personally, I reject ideas of this kind on several levels. Firstly, I have no religious convictions of my own and think that religious dogma should play no part in the lawmaking processes of modern societies. Secondly, such ideas rest on a distinction between what is natural and what is not that in my view cannot be supported on logical grounds. Humankind began to interfere with socalled “natural” processes long before scientific advances made it possible to transplant body organs, and if one is going to object to such lifesaving procedures on the grounds that they are unnatural then one must also object to the first time one of our distant ancestors sharpened a stick to defend himself against a hungry lion. Finally, I think that the medical procedures under discussion here are just two recent examples of technological advances that over the last century have vastly improved and prolonged the lives of billions of people. If one accepts that science should be used for the benefit of humankind and that everyone has a right to live, then one cannot object to any medical innovation that makes it possible to save lives or bring new lives into being. 7: People find it hard to gain traditional foods nowadays. They believe it has been dramatically changed. Find out the possible reasons and give your opinion.Industrial processing, synthetic additives, chemical pesticides and genetic engineering are just a few of the reasons why it’s difficult these days to find food in a purely natural state. However, I don’t believe most people care a great deal about such change, and indeed they probably support it if the consequence is that food remains plentiful, inexpensive and easy to obtain. In regard to this point, one can see that consumer demand has also played a part in the disappearance of traditional or organic food, in that consumers these days are largely urban dwellers with regular jobs that are generally unwilling to take the time required to find or prepare traditional food if it means going out of their way or interrupting the smooth running of their dai