Coherence & Cohesion

Compulsory community service in secondary education has become a subject of heated debate. While some argue that students already face enough academic pressure, I would strongly argue that mandatory unpaid service should indeed form part of the curriculum, for reasons that extend well beyond the classroom.

The first, and perhaps most compelling, argument concerns character development. Teenagers who volunteer at care homes, food banks or environmental projects are exposed to realities that textbooks rarely capture. This exposure, in turn, fosters empathy and civic responsibility that few other school activities can replicate. Critics might counter that forced volunteering defeats the purpose of altruism, since an act performed under obligation is not truly selfless. This is a fair point; nevertheless, research into habit formation suggests that behaviours which begin as compulsory routines frequently evolve into genuine, self-motivated commitments once their benefits become apparent.

A second consideration relates to practical skill-building. Community projects routinely demand teamwork, communication and problem-solving — competencies that are notoriously difficult to teach through conventional lessons alone. Employers, moreover, increasingly favour graduates who can demonstrate real-world experience rather than purely academic credentials, and a structured service requirement provides exactly that kind of evidence.

Of course, implementation matters enormously. Schools would need to offer a genuine range of placements, and vulnerable students should never be pressured into unsuitable environments. Provided such safeguards are in place, however, the long-term benefits appear to outweigh the short-term inconvenience.

In conclusion, although mandatory service inevitably adds another item to an already crowded timetable, its capacity to cultivate empathy, responsibility and practical skills makes a compelling case for its inclusion in secondary education.

Urban transport policy sits at the centre of a long-running disagreement: should scarce public funds go toward roads for private vehicles, or toward buses, trams and railways? Both camps have credible arguments, though I ultimately side with those who favour the latter.

Advocates of road expansion point to convenience and economic necessity. Cars allow door-to-door travel at any hour, and industries reliant on freight or shift work argue that without adequate roads, productivity suffers. In addition, many suburban residents simply have no viable transit alternative, so new roads feel like the only practical response to their needs.

Supporters of public transport, by contrast, emphasise the well-documented phenomenon of induced demand: new roads tend to fill with traffic within a few years, leaving congestion unchanged while air quality worsens. A single train line can move as many commuters as a ten-lane motorway, at a fraction of the land and emissions cost. Cities that have expanded metro networks have seen commute times fall; those that have widened highways instead generally have not.

Weighing both positions, I find the transport argument more persuasive, chiefly because its benefits compound over time — every commuter who shifts to rail is one fewer car adding to gridlock. That said, a purely transit-first policy risks alienating rural and outer-suburban voters, so a sensible strategy would pair transit investment with targeted, modest road maintenance rather than large new motorways.

On balance, while both camps raise legitimate concerns, directing the larger share of funding toward public transport offers the more sustainable route out of this familiar urban bind.

Plastic pollution now reaches even the most remote corners of the planet, from Arctic ice to ocean trenches. This crisis stems from a handful of identifiable causes, each of which points toward a corresponding solution.

The primary cause is the sheer convenience of single-use packaging. Manufacturers favour plastic because it is cheap, lightweight and durable — qualities that, ironically, are exactly what make it so persistent once discarded. Compounding this, recycling infrastructure in many regions remains underfunded, so a large share of collected waste is never actually processed. Consumer habits play a role too: convenience has normalised disposability, and few shoppers pause to consider what happens to a bottle after they finish it.

Turning to solutions, government policy offers the most immediate lever. Bans or levies on single-use bags and containers have already cut consumption sharply in the countries that have introduced them. At the same time, investment in recycling technology — particularly chemical recycling capable of processing mixed plastics — would address the second cause identified above.

Manufacturers, for their part, could be required to redesign packaging using biodegradable or more easily recyclable materials, shifting the financial burden of disposal back onto producers rather than municipalities. Public awareness campaigns, meanwhile, can shift the consumer habits described earlier, though on their own they rarely produce large-scale change.

In short, plastic waste arises from a chain of convenience, weak infrastructure and habit — and breaking that chain requires policy, technology and behaviour change to move together rather than in isolation.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to raise a concern regarding a food processor I purchased from your store on the 3rd of June, order reference FP-2291.

Upon unpacking the appliance and using it for the first time, I discovered that the motor cuts out unexpectedly after only a few seconds of operation. Despite following the instructions precisely, the fault has persisted across several attempts, and I am now unable to use the product for its intended purpose.

Given this malfunction, I would like to request either a full refund or a replacement unit, whichever your store's policy permits. I have retained the original receipt and packaging, so returning the item should not present any difficulty on my end.

I would be grateful if you could confirm how you intend to resolve this matter, and by what date I might expect a response. I can be reached at the number below should you require further details.

I look forward to your prompt reply.

Yours faithfully,
Nabeel Ahmed

Dear Mr. Osei,

I am writing to request three days of leave, from the 14th to the 16th of next month, in order to attend my sister's wedding, which is being held in a different city.

As you know, I have already cleared the current backlog on the Meridian account, so my absence should not disrupt the project timeline. I have also spoken with Sana, who has kindly agreed to cover any urgent client queries while I am away.

This trip is important to me for family reasons, and I would be glad to make up the time beforehand if that would ease any scheduling pressure on the team. Please let me know if you need anything further from me before approving the request.

Thank you for considering this, and I hope to hear from you soon.

Best regards,
Nabeel

Hey Bilal,

Hope you're doing well! I finally got my acceptance letter for the university in Multan, so I'll be moving there in September. Since you lived there for a couple of years, I thought I'd pick your brain before I go.

First off, is the area near the campus decent for renting? I'm looking for somewhere quiet but not too far from everything — ideally close to a market and not too pricey either. Also, do you know if the internet there is reliable? I'll need it for online classes.

One more thing — any local food spots I absolutely have to try? You know I can't survive without good street food nearby!

Anyway, let me know whenever you get a chance. Would love to catch up properly before I move too.

Take care,
Nabeel