151. Some think that ambition is a good quality. Is it important to be ambitious? Isit a positive or negative characteristic? What is your opinion? 150 words

Foods are called medicines in the ancient times. A few people believe that government should enhance the taxes to woo the people to begin taking the healthy meal. I encourage this activity if implemented by the authority. However, I do encourage some extents going for junk foods. This essay will discuss my support in both cases with some details. In Tamil, we equate foodstuff to medicine. If you practice healthy and hygienic cuisine habits, you can get rid of thousand diseases. For instance papaya is meant for tropical and some extent temperate weather. If you consume at cold weather, you may end of upsetting stomach (dysentery) due to body heating nature of papaya. So you should aware of what kind of foodstuff you are consuming. The second example is a peanut. It is one of the common diet in Asian countries. But it is allergenic to North Americans. Hence to lead a healthy activity you should have the best knowledge of what you are eating. Nevertheless, having an unhealthy meal is not a bad idea. It is relatively tastier and gives happiness to the people. Happiness stimulates endomorphine in the brain. The hormones reduce the stress. So it depends how much you take this kind of meal. Overdose is harmful to your well being. Moreover unhealthy foods are easy to cook because most of the unhealthy foods are fast foods. People who live in this fast phase of life have no choice have to go for fast foods. But have to limit their intake as it screw up your life in the wrong run. In conclusion, I would encourage ministry to provide subsidies for those feeding healthy fare. But it does not mean that government should concentrate completely on eradicating unhealthy foods such as fast food, can food, and frozen meal because we need some time to save time due to our busy life schedule.

6.Many people believe that film is a less important art than other forms such as literature and painting.To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people put forth the argument that movies are less valuable art forms than literature and paintings. I completely disagree with this argument. In my opinion, films have the same artistic value as writings and drawings. It is true that literature, paintings and sculptures have a much longer history than movies. They are also deeply rooted in the culture and that makes them priceless representation of various eras. For example,literature of each century gives us an accurate description of life in those times. Paintings and sculptures have the same value. Needless to say they are a goldmine of information for historians and anthropologists. However, it is wrong to measure the historic and aesthetic value of an art form by the number of years it has been in existence. It is true that films are a newer form of art and entertainment.However, just like literature and paintings, films also reflect the era in which they are made.They also showcase the growth of technology. What’s more films are intrinsically linked to literature and there are many filmy adaptations of classic literature. Another advantage that films have over other art forms is that they enjoy mass appeal. Actually, films reach a greater audience than books or other art forms. This popularity itself makes them a valuable form of art and a good medium for conveying socio-cultural messages. Better still, unlike a novel or a drawing, a film is a labour of love of hundreds of artists and technicians and going to cinema is rated as the highest form of entertainment today. To conclude, I believe that films / movies have the same artistic value as literature and painting. One cannot gauge the value of films merely from the number of years of history they have; nor can one consider them less valuable just because aesthetic preferences differ.