Recently, the phenomenon of " young people should be restricted on certain things that they can do such as driving or smoking until they reach the age of 25" and its corresponding impact has sparked a long-running dispute. Whereas many people are debating the proposition that watching teenagers might be remarkably fruitful, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a remarkable number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that restricting young people to do some activities can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From the society standpoint, restricting young people on certain things such as driving can provide the society with profound effects, which might stem from the fact that learning a proper lifestyle and avoiding some activities are inextricably bound up. Regarding my personal experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment that discovered the effects of smoking on youngsters. Thus, invaluable ramifications of both being mature and reaching legal age distinctly can be observed.
Within the realm of psychology, without the slightest doubt, restricting adolescence on certain activities might exacerbate the already catastrophic consequences of self-esteem. Moreover, fundamental aspects of the teenager's characters can relate to the reality that the demerits of not controlling them can pertain to parents' deficiency. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that if the downsides of adolescence activities were correlated positively with good relationships with parents, the local authorities would ultimately address mental issues. Hence, it is reasonable to infer the preconceived notion of teenagers' desires.
To conclude, despite several compelling arguments on both sides, I opt to support the idea that the merits of restricting young people on certain things until they reach the age of 25 far outweigh its downsides.
Recently, the phenomenon of
"
;
young
people
should
be restricted
on
certain
things that they can do such as driving or smoking until they reach the age of 25" and its corresponding impact has sparked a long-running dispute. Whereas
many
people
are debating the proposition that watching
teenagers
might be
remarkably
fruitful, such issue
is regarded
thoroughly
both constructive and
positive
by a remarkable number of individuals. I
am inclined
to believe that
restricting
young
people
to do
some
activities
can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From the society standpoint,
restricting
young
people
on
certain
things such as driving can provide the society with profound effects, which might stem from the fact that learning a proper lifestyle and avoiding
some
activities
are
inextricably
bound up. Regarding my personal experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment that discovered the effects of smoking on youngsters.
Thus
, invaluable ramifications of both being mature and reaching legal age
distinctly
can
be observed
.
Within the realm of psychology, without the slightest doubt,
restricting
adolescence on
certain
activities
might exacerbate the already catastrophic consequences of self-esteem.
Moreover
, fundamental aspects of the
teenager
's characters can relate to the reality that the demerits of not controlling them can pertain to parents' deficiency. As a tangible example,
some
scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that if the downsides of adolescence
activities
were correlated
positively
with
good
relationships with parents, the local authorities would
ultimately
address mental issues.
Hence
, it is reasonable to infer the preconceived notion of
teenagers
' desires.
To conclude
, despite several compelling arguments on both sides, I opt to support the
idea
that the merits of
restricting
young
people
on
certain
things until they reach the age of 25 far outweigh its downsides.