Premium Essay

Citylife

In:

Submitted By dirtyrabbit
Words 440
Pages 2
Advantages and disadvantages of city life.
Life in the city is not so easy as one can imagine. However, some people say that modern cities are the best thing civilization has produced. Others claim that cities are not fit for living. There are a lot of pluses and minuses of living in a city. But what are they?
Firstly, in big cities there are a lot of different entertainments such as cinemas, theaters, clubs, and exhibitions. Countrymen cannot go to the museums or theaters, because many villages are situated far from cities .A further advantage of cities is a wide variety of public transport and it is very easy to get anywhere. Practically in every city there is a metro, the fastest mean of public transport, and people do not spend a lot of their time in traffic jams. As for a village there is no public transport at all and it is very difficult to get anywhere. One more advantage of city life is modern conveniences. In modern cities people have no problems with water .But in villages people face with a problem of lack of water, they cannot use running water all day long. In big cities it is very easy to take care of health, a lot of medical centers and hospitals are situated in every city, and high-qualified specialists will help people even in the most awful situation . As a rule there are no good hospitals in villages and medical services in the countries leave much to be desired.
Of course, every big city has disadvantages. For example, air pollution. Every day numerous enterprises emit tones of harmful substances and to breath is often a real threat to people’s health. There is no greenery in big cities. In villages people very close to the nature, they can spent a lot of time at the street and enjoy picturesque landscapes. The cost of living in big cities is very high, most goods are very expensive. However, in villages people have their own fresh products.

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Alexander the Great Historiography

...Alexander the Civilizer or Alexander the Tyrant? THESIS: Alexander the Great was only 20 years old when he became king in 336, BC and, thanks to his father Philip II and to his education under Aristotle, he was a very competent and able commander. He learned early how to ride a horse, use weapons and command troops. He conquered the Greeks and then led them into battle against the Persians. He liberated Egypt. He then defeated Persia and marched his troops across Iran and Afghanistan, and could go no further because he got sick and died. According to most accounts, he was intelligent, handsome, and a successful military leader, one who cared about his men and paid attention to even the lowest soldier. He respected his enemies by giving them glorious funerals (Darius of Persia) and/or awarding them large expanses of territory after defeating them (King Porus of Paurava). He is credited with playing a huge part in the spread of Greek culture into all the regions he conquered, leading to a flourishing of trade, cultural diversity, art and architecture, education, philosophy, math and science up until the rise of the Roman Empire. By some accounts his quests reached as far north as the Arctic Ocean and as far east as China and he died at the age of 33. Despite all of his accomplishments, both contemporary historians and historians through the ages have seen Alexander in a different light. In this light, Alexander's military prowess were only possible due to the actions...

Words: 2436 - Pages: 10