Which Statement Best Describes the Introduction of an Argumentative Essay

Every bit online learning becomes more common and more and more than resources are converted to digital course, some people have suggested that public libraries should be close downwards and, in their place, everyone should exist given an iPad with an due east-reader subscription.

Proponents of this idea state that it will save local cities and towns money because libraries are expensive to maintain. They likewise believe information technology will encourage more people to read because they won’t have to travel to a library to get a book; they can only click on what they want to read and read it from wherever they are. They could also access more materials considering libraries won’t have to buy physical copies of books; they can merely rent out every bit many digital copies as they demand.

However, it would be a serious fault to supercede libraries with tablets. First, digital books and resources are associated with less learning and more issues than print resources. A study done on tablet vs book reading found that people read xx-xxx% slower on tablets, retain 20% less information, and understand 10% less of what they read compared to people who read the same information in print. Additionally, staring too long at a screen has been shown to crusade numerous health issues, including blurred vision, dizziness, dry eyes, headaches, and centre strain, at much college instances than reading impress does. People who employ tablets and mobile devices excessively too have a higher incidence of more than serious health issues such every bit fibromyalgia, shoulder and dorsum pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, and muscle strain. I know that whenever I read from my e-reader for too long, my eyes brainstorm to feel tired and my neck hurts. We should not add to these problems by giving people, especially immature people, more than reasons to look at screens.

Second, it is incredibly narrow-minded to assume that the only service libraries offering is book lending. Libraries have a multitude of benefits, and many are only available if the library has a physical location. Some of these benefits include acting as a tranquillity written report space, giving people a way to converse with their neighbors, holding classes on a variety of topics, providing jobs, answering patron questions, and keeping the customs continued. 1 neighborhood found that, after a local library instituted customs events such as play times for toddlers and parents, chore fairs for teenagers, and meeting spaces for senior citizens, over a third of residents reported feeling more connected to their customs. Similarly, a Pew survey conducted in 2015 establish that most two-thirds of American adults experience that closing their local library would have a major touch on their community. People run across libraries equally a way to connect with others and get their questions answered, benefits tablets can’t offer nearly too or every bit easily.

While replacing libraries with tablets may seem like a simple solution, it would encourage people to spend even more time looking at digital screens, despite the myriad bug surrounding them. Information technology would also end access to many of the benefits of libraries that people have come to rely on. In many areas, libraries are such an important part of the customs network that they could never be replaced by a unproblematic object.

Malaria is an infectious disease caused by parasites that are transmitted to people through female Anopheles mosquitoes. Each twelvemonth, over half a billion people volition become infected with malaria, with roughly eighty% of them living in Sub-Saharan Africa. Almost half a million people die of malaria every yr, most of them young children nether the historic period of v. Different many other infectious diseases, the decease toll for malaria is rising. While there have been many programs designed to improve access to malaria handling, the best way to reduce the impact of malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa is to focus on reducing the number of people who contract the disease in the first place, rather than waiting to treat the disease after the person is already infected.

There are multiple drugs available to treat malaria, and many of them work well and save lives, but malaria eradication programs that focus too much on them and not enough on prevention oasis’t seen long-term success in Sub-Saharan Africa. A major program to gainsay malaria was WHO’due south Global Malaria Eradication Programme. Started in 1955, information technology had a goal of eliminating malaria in Africa within the side by side ten years. Based upon previously successful programs in Brazil and the United States, the program focused mainly on vector control. This included widely distributing chloroquine and spraying large amounts of DDT. More than ane billion dollars was spent trying to abolish malaria. Withal, the program suffered from many bug and in 1969, WHO was forced to admit that the program had not succeeded in eradicating malaria. The number of people in Sub-Saharan Africa who contracted malaria besides as the number of malaria deaths had actually increased over 10% during the time the program was active.

I of the major reasons for the failure of the projection was that it set uniform strategies and policies. By failing to consider variations between governments, geography, and infrastructure, the program was not nearly as successful as information technology could have been. Sub-Saharan Africa has neither the money nor the infrastructure to support such an elaborate program, and it couldn’t be run the way it was meant to. Virtually African countries don’t have the resource to send all their people to doctors and get shots, nor tin can they beget to clear wetlands or other malaria decumbent areas. The continent’southward spending per person for eradicating malaria was just a quarter of what Brazil spent. Sub-Saharan Africa but tin can’t rely on a programme that requires more money, infrastructure, and expertise than they take to spare.

Additionally, the widespread use of chloroquine has created drug resistant parasites which are now plaguing Sub-Saharan Africa. Because chloroquine was used widely but inconsistently, mosquitoes developed resistance, and chloroquine is now nearly completely ineffective in Sub-Saharan Africa, with over 95% of mosquitoes resistant to information technology. As a result, newer, more expensive drugs need to be used to forbid and care for malaria, which farther drives upwards the cost of malaria treatment for a region that can ill afford it.

Instead of developing plans to care for malaria after the infection has incurred, programs should focus on preventing infection from occurring in the first place. Not only is this plan cheaper and more than effective, reducing the number of people who contract malaria too reduces loss of work/school days which tin farther bring down the productivity of the region.

Ane of the cheapest and most effective means of preventing malaria is to implement insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs).  These nets provide a protective barrier effectually the person or people using them. While untreated bed nets are still helpful, those treated with insecticides are much more useful because they stop mosquitoes from bitter people through the nets, and they help reduce musquito populations in a community, thus helping people who don’t fifty-fifty own bed nets.  Bed nets are besides very effective because well-nigh mosquito bites occur while the person is sleeping, and so bed nets would exist able to drastically reduce the number of transmissions during the night. In fact, manual of malaria tin can be reduced past as much equally 90% in areas where the use of ITNs is widespread. Because money is then scarce in Sub-Saharan Africa, the low cost is a keen benefit and a major reason why the program is so successful. Bed nets cost roughly two USD to make, last several years, and can protect ii adults. Studies have shown that, for every 100-thousand more nets are being used, one less kid dies of malaria. With an estimated 300 meg people in Africa not being protected by mosquito nets, there’s the potential to save three meg lives past spending just a few dollars per person.

Reducing the number of people who contract malaria would also reduce poverty levels in Africa significantly, thus improving other aspects of society like education levels and the economic system. Vector command is more effective than treatment strategies considering information technology ways fewer people are getting sick. When fewer people go ill, the working population is stronger as a whole because people are non put out of work from malaria, nor are they caring for sick relatives. Malaria-afflicted families can typically but harvest 40% of the crops that good for you families can harvest. Additionally, a family unit with members who have malaria spends roughly a quarter of its income treatment, not including the loss of work they also must deal with due to the illness. It’south estimated that malaria costs Africa 12 billion USD in lost income every yr. A strong working population creates a stronger economy, which Sub-Saharan Africa is in drastic need of.

As higher sports go along to be hugely popular and the National Collegiate Athletic Clan (NCAA) brings in large amounts of acquirement, people accept revived the debate on whether college athletes should get paid.

In that location are many ways payments could work. They could be in the class of a gratuitous-market approach, where athletes are able to earn whatsoever the market is willing to pay them, it could be a set amount of money per athlete, or student athletes could earn income from endorsements, autographs, and control of their likeness, similar to the way top Olympians earn money.

Proponents of the thought believe that, because college athletes are the ones who are training, participating in games, and bringing in audiences, they should receive some sort of compensation for their piece of work. If there were no college athletes, the NCAA wouldn’t exist, higher coaches wouldn’t receive there (sometimes very loftier) salaries, and brands like Nike couldn’t profit from college sports. In fact, the NCAA brings in roughly $1 billion in acquirement a year, just higher athletes don’t receive whatsoever of that money in the form of a paycheck. Additionally, people who believe college athletes should exist paid state that paying higher athletes will actually encourage them to remain in college longer and not turn pro equally apace, either by giving them a way to begin earning money in college or requiring them to sign a contract stating they’ll stay at the academy for a sure number of years while making an agreed-upon salary.

Supporters of this idea bespeak to Zion Williamson, the Duke basketball superstar, who, during his freshman year, sustained a serious articulatio genus injury. Many argued that, fifty-fifty if he enjoyed playing for Duke, it wasn’t worth risking another injury and ending his professional career before it even began for a program that wasn’t paying him. Williamson seems to have agreed with them and declared his eligibility for the NCAA draft later that year. If he was existence paid, he may accept stayed at Knuckles longer. In fact, roughly a third of student athletes surveyed stated that receiving a salary while in higher would make them “strongly consider” remaining collegiate athletes longer earlier turning pro.

Paying athletes could also stop the recruitment scandals that take plagued the NCAA. In 2018, the NCAA stripped the Academy of Louisville’s men’s basketball team of its 2013 national championship title because it was discovered coaches were using sex workers to entice recruits to join the team. At that place take been dozens of other recruitment scandals where college athletes and recruits have been bribed with anything from having their grades changed, to getting free cars, to being direct out bribed. By paying college athletes and putting their salaries out in the open, the NCAA could terminate the illegal and underhanded means some schools and coaches try to entice athletes to bring together.

People who argue against the idea of paying college athletes believe the practise could be disastrous for college sports. By paying athletes, they fence, they’d turn college sports into a bidding war, where only the richest schools could afford top athletes, and the majority of schools would be shut out from developing a talented team (though some argue this already happens because the best players often go to the most established college sports programs, who typically pay their coaches millions of dollars per year). It could as well ruin the tight camaraderie of many college teams if players become jealous that sure teammates are making more money than they are.

They also argue that paying college athletes really means only a small fraction would make significant money. Out of the 350 Division I athletic departments, fewer than a dozen earn any money. Well-nigh all the money the NCAA makes comes from men’south football and basketball, and so paying college athletes would brand a small group of men–who probable will be signed to pro teams and brainstorm making millions immediately out of college–rich at the expense of other players.

Those against paying college athletes also believe that the athletes are receiving enough benefits already. The peak athletes already receive scholarships that are worth tens of thousands per year, they receive free food/housing/textbooks, have access to meridian medical care if they are injured, receive height coaching, get travel perks and gratis gear, and can use their time in college as a style to capture the attending of professional person recruiters. No other college students receive anywhere near as much from their schools.

People on this side besides point out that, while the NCAA brings in a massive corporeality of money each year, information technology is still a not-profit organization. How? Because over 95% of those profits are redistributed to its members’ institutions in the form of scholarships, grants, conferences, support for Division II and Division III teams, and educational programs. Taking away a significant part of that acquirement would hurt smaller programs that rely on that money to keep running.

While both sides accept skillful points, information technology’s articulate that the negatives of paying higher athletes far outweigh the positives. College athletes spend a significant amount of time and energy playing for their school, but they are compensated for it by the scholarships and perks they receive. Calculation a bacon to that would result in a higher athletic organization where merely a small handful of athletes (those probable to get millionaires in the professional person leagues) are paid past a handful of schools who enter behest wars to recruit them, while the majority of student athletics and college athletic programs suffer or even shut down for lack of money. Continuing to offer the current level of benefits to student athletes makes it possible for as many people to benefit from and savour college sports as possible.