Weekly Competition #12
23 January 2019WINNERS ANNOUNCED:
powerful_robin and energetic_conversation
A whole host of entries could have been winners this week. It was excellent to see you sizing up each option and giving such sceptical, well thought out reasons for why you thought they were a bit dubious. The best ones didn't merely disagree with the headline but really chipped away at it, saying why it was so unlikely and supporting that with evidence. Well done to everyone who entered; our winning comments came from St Edward's and Ormiston Park. You can read them in the orange boxes below.
WEEKLY COMPETITION #12
This week our competition helps you to practice a tricky Burnet News Club skill: scepticism! We'd like you to choose the (made up) headline that you are most sceptical in the poll below. Then, in the comments section, explain which one you chose and why. Remember, to be sceptical about something means you want to challenge it because you don't necessarily think it's true.
For example: I am sceptical about headline D because I have never heard of this type of tree before and I'd like to see it with my own eyes before I believe it.
Comments (126)
I am sceptical about headline D because their are many questions to ask about it.One of them is, where would you get all this money from? There are millions of under eighteen year old people in the world. Another thing is that, is there any evidence and if there is any where is it? How do we know that this is going to happen.
I am sceptical about headline A because everyone with children would come to the place giving place giving the money and it would slowly but surely bankrupt and the crises would start again.
I am sceptical about headline A because children under age 18 might spend too much money on toys ,phones and things to play with and not care about their future ,when people over 18 can spend their money wisely like : Buy a house , make a buisness, make a charity and save money for the future. So this is why i'm scepticalfor why child and teens under 18 can have more money than adults.
I am sceptical about headline A because people mite spend all of there money on iphones and computors and all sorts of stuff and not care about there future or there family and friends. They probably wont spend the money wisely on like inportent stuff like food and a house if some of there family are poor and didn't have a home or aplace to live in
I am sceptical about headline d because it is unusual about a magic tree to actually be in realty and to randomly appear then just hand money out for free and for people to go up to a tree to pay for a certain object or house and bushiness . It is also a bit different for "magic trees " to appear out of nowhere. I am curious to learn more about this so called magic tree that will hand out people money however this could lead to every body being rich so it could turn out as a disaster for banks and other people may also be affected .
(A)
I nave heard that a free £1,000 is going to all people under 18 , and I don't think this is possible in our economy. There are approximately 14 million children and people are planning to give them £1,000. We are still recovering from the financial crisis and this could possibly start another! The only way I would believe this if a high member of our society claims that it is true.
Great, concise reasoning!
D because of where would the trees get the ink from and how would the trees get to print the coins with the Queens face on any way. Also how would the tree know what face to print on because there are lots of Kings andQueens in the worl and it would never ever be possible any way.
I totally agree with you.
I agree
Nothing is ever free. The £1000 has to come from somewhere so someone would be making a loss because of it. This would then result in repercussions and possibly a snowball effect. I would always be sceptical about a headline like this as there would be some kind of incentive for the people offering the money that would probably impact someone else in a negative way.
I don’t believe this because there’s no such thing as money growing on trees.Im spectical about this headline because money growing on trees is more or less supposed to be in a fantasy story but it happening in reality is hirly unlikely to happen!
I think D because it would be a Miracle and if they were planted any were people would be able to take money when ever they wont. People would also become billionaire really quickly not forgetting that no one will be homeless and sleep on horrible streets because they will have house that they have bought with the money they got from the tree...
I am sceptical about option A because if everyone in the UK who is under 18 get free 1000 pound is wrong. I think this because if they do receive this amount the financial crisis will start again because the ban one more time will run out of money. Meaning the government will have to increase the taxes and people will become bankrupt.
I am sceptical about headline D because it states that money can grow on trees. For a start, there are three types of money: coins, notes and digital currency.
Coins are made of metals, which can be found underground in rocks and solids, not on trees. There is also the question to ask about how the coin could have the face of the queen printed on it because last time I checked, trees couldn't press molds into metal.
Then there is notes which as of recent years, have been made of plastic. As we know plastic is a manmade material, known to harm nature, yet this suggests that nature is creating it. Also, how are the notes printed, where does the ink come from? because last time I checked, trees couldn't print ink on to plastic.
The final one is digital currency. This is just completely impossible because this defeats the idea of nature completely. We know that trees grow tangible items like fruits and leaves. This is redicolous because last time I checked, trees didn't have systems capable of creating digital money.
The point I am trying to explain is nature.
Nature is wonderful, powerful, beautiful.
Not man-made.
Great scepticism and reasoning!
I think D as money can't grow out of a free other wise the financial crisis would have not happened.also if money grew from trees house prices would go up because it would be so easy to get money.
The headline I am most sceptical about them.
For starters it could be headline A because you have not stated what country it is based on or if it is based on the world so if it was based on the world then that would be an unbelievable amount of money given out which might make all the governments bankrupt. So it is almost definitely never going to happen.
I am not sceptical about headline B because there is an alternative because we have debit and credit cards we really on them greatly and you would have until 2019 to trade in your cash. However if the headline was worldwide then certain places might not manage.
For headline C i am not a believer of that. I know that it is scientifically proven that when you are depressed or having a hard time then spending money will make you happier but I am not sure that just money makes you happy. If it was scientifically proven then I might.
Again I think that if I saw it in person or somebody I genuinely trusted said it was true like David Attenborough then I probably would believe it so It really depends on what the article said and who commented on it.
Overall I would be most sceptical about A but I would need more detail to give an accurate opinion. But I know that a headline should be short and snappy and that you would not get to much detail but a vague idea about what an article is about.
I am very sceptical about headline C. This is because it makes me question: "does it really?" You see, everyones biggest dream is "To win the lottery," or "To become the richest person in the world." I must admit, it sounds great. Drive a Ferrari, live in a mansion, rub shoulders with celebrities.
First I want to say that money can bring joy and happiness, but not always forever. I am sure the initial time of moving into your new mansion and picking up your new car is very awesome. That would make you feel happy. But after a while, if you really think about it, money can take the purpose out of life. You could buy whatever you wanted, have anything you would ever need. But would you not get bored eventually? You'd have nothing to spire to be, nothing to save up for, no "I wish." You would have everything. This may make people start to feel like they are losing a perpose in life. Like they have no missions or goals.
This can take you into a dark world that you would not want to be in.Here is my proof.
(Rich) people who have ended their lives:
- Robin Williams
- Marilyn Monroe
- Vincent Van Gogh
As I said, money can bring joy, but only if it is used wisely.
Hi benevolent_musician,
Your ideas around purpose of life are thoughtful!
I'd challenge your assumption that the people your list were unhappy because they were rich. Often there are lots of reasons which make people very unhappy and we shouldn't assume what they are. It's also important to make sure your facts are checked. I believe MM's death was a suspected, but not confirmed suicide. I also believe Robin Williams may not have been as rich as you think.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/robin-williams-money-and-financial-troubles-2014-8
Thank you for the reply,
I believe that Robin Williams' financial troubles were caused by money because if he never had all of his money, he never would have faced most of these problems such as trying to sell his $35 million house house or paying for to $30 million devorces.
I am sceptical about option D because it will be wrong to give people infinite money and if you think carefully you would wonder how it even grows. I say this because there are coins and notes.
The reason why coins cannot be grown on trees is because they are metallic. Metal cannot grow on trees. Metal is normally found in caves and rocks.
Now on to notes. Notes are now water proof. Buttttt there is one problem. Notes are made out of plastic which is not apart of nature. It is not natural. It would have to be produced in a factory which prints the queens face on. How would a tree do that.
There are many different reasons, but these are the ones that stand out for me personally.
I was more sceptical about Headline A because it says 'FREE £1000 for people under 18' I for starters don't think this is fair. They are children they will most likely spend all that money on stuff like sweets, make-up or video games while it could be used wisely by adults. It might also start another crisis. Imagine every child finding out they can get £1000 (that's a lot of children) how much money would they end up giving away. Millions maybe even billions. Some people are still recovering from the financial crisis, we really don't want or need another. Also when is anything ever free, even with a competition you need to pay to enter so people handing out free money might get people thinking it's fake.
So after all that I would only believe it if someone in the government confirmed it or higher up.
Personally, I’m most sceptical about C due to many questionable factors about it. Firstly it states that it’s proven. How can you prove that money makes you happy? How wide spread is it?
No one can really answer all of these and say it for everyone because everyone has a difference in opinion and they’re life situation. It can be argued that, the wealthier you were then the happier you are can be a created of happiness and it could mean stability, safety, security and feeling proud. But what are the consequences that come along with this? Depression could lead for lovers who mislead you for your money, feeling lonely and can even lead to financial struggles after doing to many businesses at the same time.
Back to the original statement, nothing can be proved even with plenty of evidence because no one can really know whether everyone is happy without knowing the thought process of people who are rich and poor.
In addition, people who are poorer often see the value of things a lot more and appreciate things more after having financial stuggle ; whereas, the richer never feel what it’s like to struggle and never truly see the meaning of life.
People may argue with this point but can anyone really generalise everyone and see an insight without really knowing the true feelings of everyone. How can you prove this point? Why is it not vice versa?
- A -
I am sceptical of this because there are exactly 13,111,023 under 18s in the UK, this meaning that overall £13,111,023,000 will be gone! Now, nothing is free in this world meaning that this money has to come from somewhere ( or someone ), we are still recovering from a recent financial crisis, do we really want to start another? I am also sceptical about a headline like this as there might be some kind of incentive for the people offering the money, this would then probably impact something or someone in a negative way. The only way I would be able to believe this is if society proves it.
The headline I'm most sceptical about is headline A). If all people under 18 did get £1,000 that would be a miracle ,But sadly that won't be possible. Even if that was the case where would they get the money from. They probably could have got it from the bank but how would they pay it back to the bank because under 18s are not allowed to have a full paying job. So that would probably result to another financial crisis. And debt. So I really am inquisitive and sceptical about that.
Who one this weeks number 11 competion the one for what is the valuable thing that could wash upon the shore.
Hi tidy_turtle, you can find the winners of the previous competition by looking at the orange box on the right of your screen. Where it says "Last week's winners", you can click on their names to see all the entries! The winning comments will be highlighted in orange. Or you can see all the previous competitions at this link: https://www.burnetnewsclub.com/competitions/
If you know then please answer thank you.
You can find last week's winners when you are logged in and on the home page. The orange box on the right hand side tells yous the winners from last week!
I am sceptical about headline D which says "Magic Money Tree Makes millions " because I would really like to know if it is true so I am also curious about it.
I was very sceptical about headline C because money does not make you very happy.
For example, if you win the lottery you get very excited because you have just gained wealth. However there are other things that you can gain including false friends. These friends are only with you because they want some of that money. They want you to buy them nice clothes and products.
Some people win the lottery when they are very young. Therefore they are not in the youth to manage it wisely. They spend all their money on their 'friends' and partying and things like that. Suddenly, the money vanishes and the 'friends' go with it. Now the person that one that lottery has nothing. Did that make them very happy?
Another reason why loads of money isn't such a good thing is that money doesn't give you contentment.
If you had all the money that you could wish for but there was no love or peace or family around you, you might feel like you have an empty hole inside of you waiting to be filled. Money isn't everything, other things are essential to your life like: family, friends, and love. If you don't have these things in your life you could sink into depression and anxiety even though you had bucket loads of money.
In conclusion, money does not make you happy.
I am sceptical about headline D because 100% impossible to get a magic tree that makes millions as if that was true everyone would have this "spectacular" tree and would be rich.
Also the financial crisis would not have been made because the government would plant lots of these tree and would able to find millions to businesses, banks and local projects. My last reason is headline a is possible to do, headline B is possible for no more notes and coins after 2019,and headline c says money makes you happy yes but no always.
I am sceptical about C because money does not make you happy its life that makes you happy. My question for C is: Does money really make you happy? I'm not really saying that you shouldn't be happy with the money you get i'm trying to say that you should be proud by the money you earn but use it wisely and don't get fully filled with excitement.😊
I chose B because first of all it is a really interesting topic to be spectism about
I would think about savings of many less fortunate others
They would deffinately save a lot of money wether it is coins or notes and at last the use of this would not be a thing.Imagine the use of that money, what will they do with the no longer valid notes and coins.
This does not only go for the poors but also others in general who saved those money.
Then I thought about the use of cards that are currently taking over the places by people mostly using them.So of cource money could be replaced with cards but will it be that safe with everyone using ?
.There will have to be so many pin numbers which you can use with no danger
.Will childrens have one too? will THAT be safe? Will they be covering whilst typing pin numbers?
.Does banks actually have enough storage fo that many people?
But I also thought about other options:
D=for this lets think scientifically, trees grow by viens and they produce only leaves branches and food (depends on the tree)
but if it is even a magic tree ,magic,from what I know,is a trick but even if it's proper magical tree then why produce money?wouldn't everyone fight over it?
A=If they give money to everyone under 18 they wouldn't know much and so they'll spent it widely and who would create that much notes
C=In what way is it proven that money makes you more happy , scientifacally? that wouldn't be possible even if it is possible you need to ask for each person's thoughts on this but to everyone in the worls.
I personally find option D most concerning because of the theme of supernatural, magic and the creation of money. It states that a "magic money tree" is generating money. I am sceptical about this because it gives the impression that anyone has the power to create money whenever and however they want. I believe that this could give a false sense of how money is gained to the younger generation. Also, the use of the word magic makes they reader of the statement believe that they must do nothing to earn money. From an early age, and continuing on throughout our lives we must be educated and supported in how to make money, not just hope that one of these guileful statements will generate the rewards it cunningly states.
I am sceptical about a) because there is such thing as poor 18year olds. Some might live on the streets, some might live under bridges or live next to shops. I would be very delighted to stop seeing young homeless people on the streets and I am very curious about it
I am sceptical about b) because trees come from nature but money is man made. These too things can't blend. How would it know which country to make money and who is the king or queen. Also how would it put the ink on the money, get see through and water proof material. Adding on to that how would the tree make a mark on the coin. Finally, how does the tree have plastic money as leaves and wouldn't the coins be heavy
i am sceptical about about headline C because it has not actually been said that money makes you happy. In my perspective, there are homeless people that are poor and cannot afford much things. Of course if you were to give a homeless person they would be happy.On the other hand,if you were to give a homeless person food and a home that would make them happier and not even care about the money that they got given time ago. So in my conclusion i would like to point out the fact that happiness can come in lots of different ways not just when you have money. For example the people that celebrate Christmas on Christmas day, most people get toys or something that they really really wanted and they get it so it's not just money that makes people happy.
C
Because when you have everyone you love money is only for education , medicine and healthy food and for a 🏠 or flat.What is the point of money apart from buying anything but homeless people do need it but other than that money is not there to make you happy .
thank you very much claire .
who are they Claire thank you very much you are amazing .
But most importantly money is a little thing in life and a bad thing it can cause so many problems and one of them is you can't get any medicine and when you don't have enough money to pay for it or there is a homeless person you want to give money to them but then don't have any and feel guilty for it but it is the money because money is very unjust because if you are homeless you can not get any medicine because you have money even though we have charity and refugees money will still be the same and be very unjust if there was just like a hotel homeless people can stay in and even get a job for free and earn money then money will only be a little bit more useful. And a little bit only a little bit fair but it will never ever be fully fair and in that hotel for homeless people is only for them no one else except for the manager and head of that hotel which will not be homeless because they are the people who give the money but the money comes from both refugees and charities because it will be the head-quarters of all of them and all merge and help they are still refugees and charities but work altogether with the head,-quarters but in different countries and that is also another reason why I am sceptical about pole C.
I am most sceptical about number B because if there was to be no coins from 2019 so many problems would occur - oil company’s would soon crash besause of all the electricity used banks could crash and even a financial crisis could happen because all the phone company’s in the world would get a lot of money and there would be so much money in the world that a financial crisis would happen. Lastly no bank manager or president would make such a silly decision for there to be no coins or notes by 2019 saying that normally people look ahead to the future and think what would happen and in this situation nothing good would happen in the future of this problem.
I am most sceptical about headline C. How can you prove that money makes you happy? Even if you ‘think’ it does, how can you be sure that it is not something else that is making you happy? I believe that money can bring happiness, but only if you use it in the right way.
This is because, for example: if you are very poor and you decide to enter the lottery; even though it is your first time entering and you are very unlikely to win anything, but you still want to enter just to see what it is like, ignoring the fact that it will cost you your days savings. If you then win £1,000,000, you are going to be seeing people that completely ignored you when you were poor and now that you are rich they are constantly knocking on your door, wanting to become your friend.
My point is that you make a lot of 'false friends' with people just because they want some of your money. This shows that you are not always going to be happy with loads of money (even though you can buy anything that you want). Many people that you thought were your friends turn their backs away from you when you say no to them, this can cause sadness and feeling isolated, just through winning a lot of money.
Evidence to back up my point is: 'I wish that we had torn the ticket up' -a quote from Jack Whittaker who won $315 million, through the lottery in 2002.
Even though headline D says ''Magic Money Tree Makes millions'' is making me feel very intrigued and curious to know more, despite knowing that it is all made up. I would want to see it in front of me, before I changed my opinions and views about it.
The point I am trying to make is that money does not always bring happiness, in fact that millions of people that have it, wish they had never got it.
I am skeptical about C because if you have loads of money then you just buy everything you have got nothing else to buy and you just get bored and bored and bored of playing with everything .
well I am sceptical of the headline £1.000 should be provided to all children under the age of 18 because money is precious and as you get older you will earn it. Anyway you have no idea how the would treat it because some can be spends some can be savers and not many children have heard about interest and saving after a while they will receive more
B) No more notes or coins from 2019
I am septic about this headline because, ever since 5000 B.C humans have been using money. So why would the government just suddenly decide to stop using it? Also if notes and coins suddenly just go away, people who worked in banks would lose their jobs. But it's not just people who work in banks, it would be people with businesses because they wouldn't be making enough money to keep it open. Ever since money was first introduced, it had become a very effective way of living. So if money was just not there any more, a lot of us humans would have to find a totally different way to live. The biggest reason on why I'm septic about this headline is that, the government are doing everything they can to prevent another financial crisis, so if there was no more money left, there would be another crisis!
I am sceptical about headline B (there will be no more coins or notes from 2019).
The reason that I am sceptical about this headline is since our paper and metal money (that has a history of 324 years), has been used as a tradition since 1964. After 324 years of paper money, it would seem unlikely that there would be no coins or paper notes from 2019 because it is very soon to change completely to coin-less and paper-less money. Maybe, it will happen in another 50 years’ time such as virtual money.
I am sceptical about Headline A
The government would not give out FREE £1,000 to every under 18 as the government itself doesn't have enough money to fund them so they don't have £1,000 to spare on every under 18. There are approximately 14 million children and it is not possible to give them all £1,000 in this economy. We are still suffering from the financial crisis in 2008 and this may cause another. The only way I would believe this, would be if a high-ranking official confirmed it.
Please make sure your entries are your own and you haven't copied anyone else!
I am most sceptical about the idea of a magic money tree because it is literally impossible as well as being a bad idea. Even if it was true, it would mess up the economy so much that the government would destroy it. You have to put hard work and time into achieving the goal of getting money and keeping it. You shouldn't just get given money. Once in a while someone can help you out by lending you money, but you then would work to pay it back.
I am most sceptical about D because there is no such thing as money growing on trees. Also, coins are made of metal or copper. You may think that money COULD grow on trees because they are made of paper and paper is made of trees, however that paper goes through a lot before it is considered money. Another reason I am sceptical about this statement is because money is being made of plastic and I think soon it all might be made from plastic (except from coins).
This is a good idea and to add it is not the actual paper considered as money it is what it represents so how can a tree grow something no one can see?
I am not convinced of b because if there are no coins and notes you can not buy stuff. You could use your device to transfer money and buy stuff but if you do not have a device to do that you will not be able to buy stuff. And if you can’t use money, how will you buy a device to buy thing? Therefore poverty will increase and more people will become homeless and the financial crisis will get worse.
I am also sceptical about A because if under 18s get 1000 pounds free, one day the Bank OF England will run out of money and therefore the crisis would get worse: bussinesses would go down and as we are leaving the EU, the EU wouldn’t be able to trade money with us.
I am most sceptical about B beacause if you are too young to have a phone (to use your credit card on a phone ) you couldn’t spend pocket money on things you want. Also this means if you didn’t have a credit card, and didn’t have coins you wouldn’t be able to get a house. This means more people will be homeless.
If you are self-employed you wouldn’t get paid anything and if you had to pay your mortgage and didn’t have any money your house would be re-possessed. This means most of England would be homeless; this would be bad as the bank couldn’t provide benefits for people.
D
I am sceptical about this because money does not grow on trees and there is even an own saying ''Money doesn't grow on trees!'' which is used commonly in day to day lives. Plus this 'money tree' could cause dangerous situations - since it grows money - like people fighting over it, and getting seriously hurt. Scientically, it is naturally impossible for money to grow on trees based on it's lifestyle. By contrast, the 'money tree' may be refering to something that is something of value, for example, a tree that has rare oak and can be sold for a lot of money. In this instance the headline would be telling the truth but just not literally.
I agree to your comment that ‘headline D’ could be questionable because money doesn’t grow on trees as it is made out of metal or paper, however, in my opinion, I have another perspective of how you could look at that particular headline. The way in which I interpret this headline could make headline D the least sceptical headline out of all of the others.
I strongly believe, it means that when you have many trees that grow fruit, after a few years you harvest the crops and annually harvest the crops (for example apples). If you have many trees that make fruits, you can use them to sell in the market and you can earn an extra profit. You can earn a lot of money by selling many fruit and because the trees are growing fruits, so in a way, the trees are the ones that are making money for you by the fruits that are growing on the trees. This is why I believe that there is a magic money tree.
I also believe this expression is an IDIOM, which represents that you make a money-making path and without any effort, that continuously gives wealth (for example, business people, the banks and financial institutes, which create businesses that spins repeatedly giving continuous income).
I am most sceptical of headline A because if everyone who was under 18 got £1000 most children would go and buy toys and sweets and waste their money irresponsibly where as it would be more useful to give it to doctors and adults. There are too many children in the uk to give that amount of money to.
I am sceptical about headline B because if there is no money people don't have to worry about having no dinner on that day because all they need to do is go into a shop and grab some thing they would like to eat and go home and cook it also if there is no money you would not need to pay the bills every single day. This would make people happier
I`m sceptical about A because I do not think that the bank will just give you £1000 out of nowhere for no reason,like you could be 12 years old and you have £1000,you will just spend it on items you do not even need. You will just be spoilt and also you will just start arguments because your members of your family might need some money but you refuse and then an argument starts between your family, guardians and friends maybe even your cousin. Giving children that amount of money is irresponsible because many children will not spend it wisely. In addition the government do not have enough money for schools and hospitals and so there wouldn't be enough money to give every child £1000.
I am most sceptical about every one under 18 years old getting £1000 for no reason out of no where and they can buy any thing. This is because the goverment does not give out money and to children. There are too many children in the uk for every child to get £1000 each and the goverment does not have alot of money.
I am sceptical about A, because I personally think that under 18s don’t have the responsibility to use as much money as £1,000, because they might spend it on things they shouldn’t be spending it on; they might spend it on things like Cigarettes, illegal drugs, and/or buying unnecessary things.
On the other hand, they might be able to be responsible and buy things like food and water etc - things they actually need and may be used for paying for other things.
Imagine you were poor, yet you had a house. You might need to buy water and food for your family (or yourself).
But, if you were poor and didn’t have enough money for anything, they might decide to buy alcohol.
I am most sceptical about headline A because if every person (under 18) had £1,000 it would just go to waste. They wouldn't spend it on things they really need E.G: Food. If I had £1,000 I would spend it on the things I badly need. like food, a house and clothes. I would not spend the whole amount off money at once I would save it and spend the rest off the money when it's an emergency.
Ok let me just start with this: they all look wrong to me. A: the world would be the same because every child would have £1000 and they will probably spend it on something that will break or eat anyway. B: they cant ban coins because of children cant make an account until 18. C:money doesnt make you happy,it will run out soon enough.D: you cant plant money and money is MADE from trees. thank you for listening to me rant.
I am mostly sceptical about Headline B because although our country is in an unavoidable crisis, it is highly unlikely that we would completely run out of coins and notes. 2019 is a short amount of time to clear all the notes and coins. This means there will no longer be a value for the newly produced money.Including the hard work to create the new piece and the faces on the note who demonstrated higher inspiration.
I think i am most skeptical about the money tree (Choice d). If, depending on the price, everyone had a money tree, money would lose its value, there would be no point in having money if everyone had millions and millions and etc. Also, it would be pointless if you only had to buy one money tree and then you would be rich. However, all of the homeless and less fortunate would benefit as they would only have to buy a tree and they wouldn't be in poverty. In addition, relating to what we have learnt recently, the banks would not be needed as people would not need to borrow money. It wouldn't really benefit people either. In addition, I do not think it would be remotely true as unless you were very intelligent and knew how to make a money tree then it would not be possible. It also sounds like something everyone dreams about, but it will never be true. I also believe if you saw this in the news, you would be suspicious of the truth. Also, people wouldn't bother making things because there would be no point of trying to earn money if you already have millions of pounds.
Idea A is also not skeptical because in this century we have a savings account anyway and also most under 18's would not use it for their future. Idea B is not skeptical as they have introduced credit and debit cards which are used substituted for notes. Idea C is not skeptical as people may have wanted something for ages and then they can finally get it, or it might make them miserable. Overall, i believe idea D is the one i am most skeptical about as it doesn't seem like it could be reality.
Sorry that was completely accidental! I believe that headline see is the least believable one and the one I am most skeptical about. This is because recently I have been reading A Christmas Carol and Ebenezer Scrooge ( the main character) was rich yet was unhappy whereas Fred ( Scrooge's nephew) was poor yet happy. In addition does not choose it's victims based on how much money they have. Also, many people who were rich and famous are/ were not happy. Amy Winehouse is a prime example of this. She constantly drank as of her unhappy life and subsequently died because she was five times over the legal drink-driving limit. Also, my family is not the richest in the world but we still have fun and laugh.
Another point is that it says proven before it. If it said: Scientists have proven... I would be more convinced as it includes a person who supposedly discovered this. Proven just says it has been proven by someone and it cannot even tell you the source. This is therefore unreliable.
Subsequently, I believe C is the headline we should be most skeptical of.
Information on Amy Winehouse found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Winehouse
* C not see
I am the most sceptical about statement A.
This is because in the UK, their are approximately 14 million people who are under the age of eighteen. If someone was to give 1,000 pounds to all of them, it would be impossible because no one has that much money. Furthermore, if someone had billions of pounds, they probably wouldn’t give it all away to everyone who is under eighteen because they might spend it randomly.
I am sceptical about statement A because if every child under 18 would get 1,000 pounds that would make the financial crisis happen all over again. I also think that if every single child in the world would get 1,000 pounds or dollars (any currency) countries will get poorer and governments will not be able to provide shelter, food and homes for the people in that state or country. Furthermore, the people under 18 could be selfish and could spend the money to buy phones (things to do with screens), sweets, junk food and toys. Another reason is that people over 18 would most likely spend the money on houses, food and essential life resources. Most people under 18 live with their parents so they don't need to worry about food or houses, but if I were given £1000 I would use some of it to help my family and then I might spend a little bit on my self,(only a tiny part). 26% of the world population are people under 18 that is approximately 74.2 million people!! Imagine giving 1000 pounds to that many people and in the UK there are approximately 14 million. I think the government should give the money to people that need more help in life such as if you are homeless or if you can't afford to buy food, then the government should help you, but if the government gives it to every child in their country people will become richer and the children could spend it on things that they want. Like I said before, it would be like the financial crisis all over again ( the banks will run out of money and the government will become poorer, also the banks would be giving money to everyone because the government said that they were aloud to loan money to anyone) and people will become rich but then with all the money that borrowed from the banks they would not be able to pay it back and banks, shops and businesses will be closed and people won't be able to get paid from their work.
I am sceptical about the headlines A and B!
I thought A was very confusing and I wanted to read more about it because if that happens then after 800 children get there money that already equals up to 800,00 and that is a lot of money and there is more then only 800 kids in the UK .that is already 800,000 and that is a lot of money. So how are the banks going to be able to give all the children under 18 £1,000 each it doesn't make any sense.
I am also very curious about B because that is the money that we have . We have had paper money of quite a long time and we are just starting to introduce plastic money.
But what if you buy£ 6.99 worth of something with a £ 10 note what change are you going to get ?
What money wold you get given as your change.
They've all shown scepticism in all sentences. Are they true? Do you want see it in real life? Well statement A shows that people under 18 will have £1,000 each. In my research there is more than 2.2 billion children. How would the government give that money to them?
Statement B says they'll be no notes and coins next year. Then how would we be buying stuff? Are we going to trade?
Statement C says that money is proven to make you happy. Well, it can, BUT love&care will make you happier.
Statement D says that you can grow a money tree which grows millions. Is it true? Do you want to see it with your own eyes?
After thinking, i decided what is the most sceptical, what i think is the most i want to see. I believe D because it grows millions of pounds. I want to see this. Who agrees with me?
I am most sceptical about option A.
I think this because the budget is too small for every under 18 and the money should rather be spent on things like the NHS and schools because that will help out more people rather than just people spending it on themselves. Under 18 also includes babies and what would they do with that money? Some people could just be filthy rich but that's around 5% of the children under 18 but even that could have a small impact on other people that need that money. And anyway why would the government give out money like that, because they would probably spend it on bad stuff when that money could be spent on the environment.
how do you know this is the best desision to make
I was most sceptical about money makes you more happy well it does make you happy if you are greedy but i hope most people do better things with there money like give it to homeless people or to charity or maybe just give to your family.
In my personal opinion i think headline D is the sceptical. This is the headline which states that a 'magic money makes millions'. This implies that there is a concept of magic and money isn't something that you have to work for. Magic although a cool idea to think about is something that has not been scientifically proven. Showing people in our generation that money isn't something we have to work for defeats the purpose of going to work and wanting to work hard. Young people will start to think they don't have to try because at the end of the day the magic tree will just hand them money. The statement also implies that money grows on trees which defiantly isn't the case. Our currency as of right now is coins and notes. This is why I believe that statement D is the most concerning or sceptical.
I am most sceptical about headline B, this is because 2019 is only one month and four days away (from the time that I am writing this- and by the time you are reading this it is probably less) and it is highly unlikely that the government and the bank of England will make a new rule of ‘no more notes and coins from 2019.’
As well as that, they have recently put out new £5’s, £10’s and £1’s. The bank of England has said: ‘Our next £20 note, to be issued in 2020, will be made from polymer. We announced in October 2018 that we plan to issue a polymer £50 note, following the polymer £20 note.’ This quote is stating that they are also currently planning to make new £20 and £50 notes. If they were deciding to change that idea and make a new one saying that there will be ‘No more notes and coins from 2019’, surely they will have to tell the public that, so that they have time to spend all of the coins and notes that they have. A good way of spreading this, would be to put it on the news, and if that was the case, surely everyone would have heard of it and there would be a lot of talk about it.
Furthermore, they would definitely save a lot of money, if they do intend to make that a new rule, however:
What will they do with the invalid notes and coins? Where would they put it?
What would happen to poorer people? How would they be able to cope with it?
What would happen to people who have saved a lot of money? What would they do?
Headline B has made me very interested, curious and I have been thinking a lot about it. But if they did make it a new rule, what would they do about the questions I have put above?
Great research!
Thanks!
In my personal opinion i think headline D is the most sceptical. This is the headline which states that a 'magic money tree makes millions'. This implies that there is a concept of magic and money isn't something that you have to work for. Magic although a cool idea to think about is something that has not been scientifically proven. Showing people in our generation that money isn't something we have to work for defeats the purpose of going to work and wanting to work hard. Young people will start to think they don't have to try because at the end of the day this magic tree will just hand them money. The statement also implies that money grows on trees which definitely isn't the case. Our currency as of right now is coins and notes. This is why I believe that statement D is the most concerning or sceptical.
I chose B because first of all it is a really interesting topic to be spectism about
I would think about savings of many less fortunate others
They would deffinately save a lot of money wether it is coins or notes and at last the use of this would not be a thing.Imagine the use of that money, what will they do with the no longer valid notes and coins.
This does not only go for the poors but also others in general who saved those money.
Then I thought about the use of cards that are currently taking over the places by people mostly using them.So of cource money could be replaced with cards but will it be that safe with everyone using ?
.There will have to be so many pin numbers which you can use with no danger
.Will childrens have one too? will THAT be safe? Will they be covering whilst typing pin numbers?
.Does banks actually have enough storage fo that many people?
But I also thought about other options:
D=for this lets think scientifically, trees grow by viens and they produce only leaves branches and food (depends on the tree)
but if it is even a magic tree ,magic,from what I know,is a trick but even if it's proper magical tree then why produce money?wouldn't everyone fight over it?
A=If they give money to everyone under 18 they wouldn't know much and so they'll spent it widely and who would create that much notes
C=In what way is it proven that money makes you more happy , scientifacally? that wouldn't be possible even if it is possible you need to ask for each person's thoughts on this but to everyone in the worls.
I`m sceptical about headline A because everyone who has children would go there to claim their money and having into account that thousands of people are born each day it would make the economy crash inmediately.
I think my opinion I choose number C because the yhingis tat our institution of network is created for us and aur laif
i chose A its very hard to decide which one is the best
i am sceptical about headline A because if children under 18 got £1,000 they might spend it on toys or video game and stuff they want but they do not need instead of things they need. e.g: pens for school, a house if needed, if they have bills then they can pay off bills, or clothing that they need.
i picked idea because you could have millions £ and not work but then what would be the point of life because your not doing nothing and if you live on you own and have no friends and family you will be lonely and isolated
I'm sceptical about A because if you give every under 18 £1,000 they could do all sorts of things with it. Eg Drugs,Alcohol,cigarettes(Smoking),ect. And some of the under 18's are single parents/parents and they might need the money.
But on the bright side, there are children who would like to buy toys,electronics,ect. But babies (Under 3's) they wont recieve the money until they are 18 anyways.
I am sceptical about headline A, because why would the banks give £1,000 to every non working person in Britain?
i would chose a because A some children in the UK their parents are going through financial problems and their parents might not work and cant afford uniform,food and bills so they could help their parent because when a child turns 16 child benefits will stop.Therefore that would help
I think that C is not true because money does not make you happier . Your family makes you happier nor that sometimes you fight with your family and get really angry but if you spend more time with your family outside it makes you happier. (Tip)- spend more time with your family.
I'm most sceptical about the headline about that it's proven that money makes you happy because money is not the cause of happiness, more the cause of greed and laziness. This title makes it hard to believe, and unlike the others, this makes the least sense. i am not saying that if you have lots of money you are narcissistic and overpowering, many are kind and donate lots to charity, therefore getting rid of lots of their money, and they are happy. This title also makes me incredibly sceptical because how is a simple piece of currency supposed to provide us with happiness and joy. It makes no sense. I rest my case.
I think the most skeptical one is D because it says it is magical but magic isn't proven to be scientifically real so the magic money tree probably isn't either. Trees can only produce fruit and leaves and why would this tree only sprout now? Right now pollution and global warming are at one of their highest points so the fact that a magical tree that produces millions of pounds would just sprout out is highly unbelievable. In addition to the where would it sprout as most money, especially in america is made from trees so why would it sprout.
I think that option A is the one that I feel the most sceptical about. I know this because it doesn’t give any evidence from who said this. Even if they gave their name, it might be an imposter because they didn’t give any evidence that they are the person. The next thing is , it might have been a spam by someone who would want to cause a virus into a system. If you would wonder why I didn’t pick D , it’s because for example , the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) called his uncle Hamza God's lion. So my point is that maybe it could have been used as an example to describe a person. However, there are also other point that are non-religious. For example, you could use up leveled noun phrases. Such as........
The money thirsty beast.
I think that £ 1000 should not be accessed to people younger than 18 because they will have the idea to get bad thing eg drugs \ciggerates\bombs\guns and alcohol. They will have enough money to buy these things . Also some one might hack the bank and is able to take the money . Also the children under 18 won’t be responsible they might spend it on clothes and other stuff. But if it was someone older over 18 they will save for college and university.
I think that it is the banks fault as they listened to the government
I chose D because it is not physically or scientifically possible to grow banknotes or coins on a tree or plant. Also if somebody did create a tree that grew money they wouldn't let the press know as people may try to steal it and the people who created it would take the necessary precautions of not publicly announcing it.
I feel skeptical about all of them, However i feel most skeptical about B. This is because, say if your own granddad, grandma or any other elderly person would be able to access money easily in an bad day. As for us, (children,teens and young adults) we can deal will the fact of living with no coins or notes from 2019. However, can elderly people just go to the bank and check how much money is in their account. Secondly, the idea of an elderly person paying with an contract less card in shops. It is a bit like them being dragged from the 1960 and being transported to 2019 modern. Britain. For example, an elderly may react differently to online banking compared to an young person now a days. They might not feel as confident as an young person on the computers; meaning they could be paying banks money for no reason. Additionally, people will have to have a pin. This could leave an negative impact on poor or homeless people who beg for money. My final reason is because some young people including even babies and kids from birth have an account meaning children can be robbed easily and take out money for bad things such as Drugs,Cigarettes or alcohol and will the banks have that much storage for everyone.Will more new banks have to be built and the people in the banks already have to leave; meaning they could not get money as cash and coins are gone but can't get it too any bank, this could result in them being homeless until they find an bank that will accept them or until they bring back notes and coins back to Britain.
Hope you like it.
A
i a most sceptic about question A because if there is 1000 pounds going out to every single child who is under 18 where are we going to get this money from ? We are still recovering from the financial crisis and we are not able to cope with that much money being given out for free . But i think 1000 pounds should be given to under 18 id they deserve it . Still everyone would work hard and be good so there is really solution . There are about 1 billion under 18 in the world and we would rather spend it on something else liking the plastic pollution, global warning or NHS
So i am most sceptic about headline A
Let me just start with:
Headline a: do you think the government would accept to give under 18s a £1000 they would use the money on rubbish stuff like toys, shoes and things for only they use and things that will break or they won't use it.
Headline b: no bank notes and no coins that would be very unlikely as the houses of parliament will have discuss and plan also debate but no-one has mentioned it. One more thing everybody would know.
Headline c: money does make you happy only when you have it but it will end one day that will not make you happy when you lose it.
Headline d: this one i am most sceptical about because if someone made a magic money tree we would not know because somebody would take it and will not dare to tell anyone about it.
I am sceptical that money makes you happy because if you are homeless you might still have a friend although if you are rich but have nobody to talk to you won't be happy.
In conclusion you can have lots of money and expensive items but still be sad and lonely wheras if you have a friend to talk to and have very little money you can still be happy.
That is why I am sceptical.
I am sceptical about headline A because there is way too many children in the uk.If the government gave all the money to children they would run out of money and there will be another financial crisis.What if they ran out of money and just at that moment another child is born,what would happen then?If they were going to give 1,000 pounds out to the public I would give it to people who really need it,like someone who is poor;sick;in an unlucky situation.Or I would give it to a charity for example:Cancer Research to help people that really need it or I would give it to a refugee camp to help refugees escape war/death.
Therefore I am most sceptical about headline A
I am sceptic about line C
Money only gives you wealth. THINK.....
Does wealth give you friends?
Does wealth give others happiness?
Wealth just gives you all the high quality things that doesn't change the world. Just you. We are a community and we should share what we have from the money and give it to others.
Money shouldn't just help you, it should help others so peace will be everywhere all around the world.
Others don't have the amount as money as you.
I'm most sceptical about C....
Because money is cursed with greed and manipulation so it doesn't make your life happier. There are more people you need to spend your life with such as - your family they shold be most important to you.
I am sceptical of Wikipedia and the Urban dictionary. This is because people can add to them and write false infomation on their websites. This is very sceptical because lots of people can access these not so amazing websites. There is a lot of people who write on the websites to mess the information up. Therefore I am very sceptical of these websites.
I'm most skeptical about headline B as it directly implies there there will be no currency in the from of coins and notes which would form a world wide crisis this is due to the fact currency is a pillar of business and trade world wide. If money in the form coins and notes dispersed then the world will be fighting to set a new universal item of trade and it would be very difficult for everyone in a country to agree a shell of example will have value. Also the headline doesn't specify how will the notes and coins disappear will they lose all value? Will the notes and coins just be banned from manufacture and use? The headline is just illogical and there is no logical reason to remove currency as it is the answer to the problem If I want an crate of apples and person A has apples and I have an axe but person A doesn't want an axe then how can I get it with a clear agreement reached?
I am skeptical of line 'c' the most, because if ever single person when they reach the age of 18 -in England- got £1000 that would be a lot of money given away for free. It isn't even a lone, which means they wouldn't make any money back at all. With this it would probably start another financial crisis which wont help the country at all. So nobody would benefit from this. In the end with this idea the whole country would end up a disaster.
We would be better off with not having it since there is around 14 million children in England so that would cost around £14,000,000,000 - 14 billion ponds-. This would ruin the country because we wouldn't have enough money left to fund schools or hospitals, meaning that medicine for illnesses would be limited and school supplies would also be limited. No school could go on trips since they cost a lot, with no trips this is also stopping their learning reaching outside of the classrooms.
I am most sceptical about statement C. This is because some people have a lot of money and wealth, however they aren't the happiest people in the world. Recently, a major artist called Tim Bergling (aka Avicii) committed suicide due to being severely unhappy and depressed. He net worth was $85 million dollars at the time of his death earlier this year, which shows that money can't guarantee you happiness.
The headline i am most sceptical about is headline B. This is because I personally feel that the U.K can't possibly continue it's
All the ideas are to be skeptical about if interpreted wrong as they are unusual and could be dangerous or fake but headline D could be a news header for a tree that has been selling well in the market and option B could be a claim from a politician that believes there will be a new currency. Despite others having a possibility of being an opinion option C could be a social study performed on the upper, lower and middle class. Despite being skeptical about others I option A is the headline to be the most skeptical about because of the questions I can ask about it but can not get answers for: why is it for children under 18, who is running it and what is the one thousand pounds for and wit a rising rate of child abductions and abuse it would not be safe to look into the header therefore I am skeptical most about this headline.
I am most sceptical about Headline A because it is not likely that any sane person would trust under 18 year olds with that amount of money, seeing as it would cause havoc across the world. Since young people tend to throw away their money without giving a thought about it.
The goverment would also very quickly run out of money which would cause a massisve financial crisis, and every time a child was born they would acquire money so after only a few months the UK would be hugely in debt.
Also would it not be more philanthropic to spend that money on helping the disadvantaged?
I am skeptical about D because of the lack of information it has. There could be irresponsible people using that money on anything they wish.
I’m scepticle about Headline D as they’ve provided no evidence that proves of its existence. The fact that they’ve mentioned that a magic money tree exists is rather peculiar. If money grew on trees then it would devalue money,as everyone would be able to grow it. What would happen if you chopped the tree down? Would the money dissapear or something? Is it bad for the environment as Also, doesn’t money grow on trees already? Like paper money. Has it got a certain species of animal that lives in it? Those are only a few of the questions that could be asked. There would be people who would be greedy, and keep the money for themselves. I’m sure it would soon become illegal as it would start wars throughout the country. They’d fight for it, and people would be forced to flee the citys.
I am sceptical about a magic money tree because if this actually happened then money (and the economy) would be devalued. As a consequence property prices will go down and people would stop working and the country would suffer. Also, notes are made out of paper and paper is made out of trees so money actually does grow on trees.
i chose the money tree because why would that ever be real i mean there is a quote called 'money doesn't come from trees' so of course i would be skeptical about that
I am most sceptical about headline a. I think this because if you were to give £1000 to under 18s who knows what they would spend it on? I am certain that if every under 18 year old were given £1000, they would probably spend it on electronics, toys ect. As well as this, where would all the money be coming from? I'm sure that all of the money would be money that adults had taxed since money doesn't grow on trees. Also, parents probably wouldn't agree to this unless all they seeked was money. If this headline were true, I would be sceptical about it because what if some children/teenagers were only given £999? Would this not be a rip off? Thinking outside of the box, what about the babies?? They can't spend money if they're 1-3 years of age. In fact, neither can anyone that doesn't know the value of money. Even if I were given £1000 I wouldn't spend it because you wouldn't know if it was fake or not. So those are my reasons for headline A.
I have chosen head line A as the one that I am most sceptical about because there are approximately 7,000,000,000 people in the world. In the 2010 Census, the number of people under the age of 18 was 74.2 million (24% of the total population). 74.2 million is the same amount as 74,200,000. If you multiply that by one thousand, you get £74,200,000,000. There are 195 countries so you will do 74,000,000,000 divided by 195 and the answer is £379,487,179 or whatever currency the country uses. Each country will lose that much cash which some countries do not even have! That is the reason that I have chosen headline A.
I chose the headline claiming that there was a "Magic Money Tree Making Millions".
I have absolutely no belief in this supposed tree.
Money has two forms, Notes, Coins and Cards (Gift Cards, Credit Cards, Debit Cards, etc).
It is Scientifically impossible for any of these forms of money to grow on trees.
Coins
Coins are made from metal which, while it is not man-made, is not found on trees but, underground. The hypothetical money tree would also need to find some way of molding metal so that the Queen's face (or any face for that matter) could continue being placed upon our coins.
Notes
Notes have recently started being made of plastic, which most of us know is harmful to the environment. This means that the chances of notes growing on trees are next nothing. The trees would also need ink otherwise the notes would not look like the notes we use, they would simply be bits of paper.
Cards
Cards are digital and, obviously, man-made. Putting circuits inside trees would destroy the concept of trees being natural. It is also possible that putting machinery inside a tree would cause them to stop taking in our carbon dioxide and giving us oxygen. It could seriously harm us.
Other reasons for the impossibility of this "Magic Money Tree" are that if we were to put machinery inside a tree we would need very advanced systems to make it small enough to fit.
Money would also be devalued because, soon enough, everyone would have one of these trees and could get money whenever they wanted. Also, chances are, it would be a very slow process meaning that it would be a very long time before this tree made millions so, unless some greedy Scrooge was hiding it away from the media, it would not have already made millions.
All in all, I believe in this ridiculous tree a total of 0% because of the reasons i stated and because it is one of the stupidest things i have ever heard.
I think all the headlines are there to grab your attention and I think I would be skeptical with all of them and I would read all the details to see whether they have any truth into what they say.
Headline D is the one I am most skeptical about because I have never heard of a tree that makes money, let alone millions! This headline wants you to believe that literally a magic tree can produce millions of pounds but it will most likely to be a business called Magic Money Tree and it made millions of profit for that year.
And the reason why i didn’t choose the others is that (A) is possible because when my sister and I were born the government gave every newborn £200 to go into a savings account but we cant spend it until we are 18. And now that I know more on how banks work, its more likely the government will benefit the banks so they would have more money to invest. So its possible that a person under 18 could get £1000 but they just can’t touch it for another decade.
B is possible; maybe it means not printing any more new notes or it means using different kinds of materials for our currency instead of what we used before. But, if we didn’t have notes and coins anymore because banks prefer us to go digital, it would be so sad!
C is also possible because although it may not be true for everybody they may have done a study that says ‘6 out 10 people were proven to be happy with money’ even though 4 out of 10 wasn’t.
I am sceptical on headline B because no one knows what will happen in 2019. It may be that in 2019 we will still have coins and notes because that's money and we own that to our selves to buy food clothes and shelter, but also we don't always use it wisely. Which is the point that the government will not allow us coins and notes because we don't use it properly. which also links in to expenditure and you will go on a dept. in the sentence it says "coins and notes in 2019" i don't think that is true because if we didn't have any coins or notes then that means we won't have money. money won't be anything. it will be a blank thing., money won't exist. i though also about debating this. i think money should be lend to everyone they should have a budget of money. what i mean is that if you want to buy a tin of Heinz Baked Beans it will only cost you a £1, but if you get a packet of 4 tins that means it will probably cost you £2.50 which isn't a lot when you think about money, it is a lot when you think you have enough money and going over the budget. (this was and example). i think that money should stay over the years and never change because if we didn't have money we don't get to buy food, clothes, anything really that we need in our every day life .
I also thought that we should have a vote if we want to keep coins and notes or live them and have a free world to our selves, get every thing that we want without paying. My pinion would be keeping notes and coins because it is not fair on the country. I am really curious on what happens next year 2019 because if we don't have coins and notes. What will we have???? This is the big question. this is what i think about scepticalism.
I want to challenge the governments thoughts about keeping coins and notes or extinguish the coins and notes in 2019.
I am sceptical about number c ;money makes you more happy.This isn't true as, some people can be very rich but not have any freinds and are all alone making them sad but rich.Without money though, people end up homeless making them miserable and wishing they could be in others people places, only to realize that money isn't everything but is only a necessity that everyone has to bear with. The thing that matters more than money is: your happines.This can never be taken away from anyone as it is something we all carry around with us. Rich or poor it doesn't matter, nor should money.
I am sceptical about headline C because money can't buy you happiness. Some people win the lottery and then don't know what to do with the money. Some people end up even being taken advantage of because of the money. Money is very attractive, but does it make us happy? For example, according to theguardian.com, "Actually, I don't know any of these people, or at least I didn't. They are just a few of the names that have grabbed the headlines in the past 10 years. They are not presented as happy-ever-after stories; they are dwelt on as lottery louses and losers. Well, what does a huge windfall do to you?". This shows that money does not have the capacity make you happier. Also, some people can get a huge amount of money, and easily lose it. According to brandongaille.com "about 70% of all lottery winners end up going broke and filing for a bankruptcy.". On the contrary, money can change some people's lives in an excellent way. Many people all over the world are living in poverty, getting the money they need can make them happier, because being in desperate need of money is not a good situation to be in. Not having enough money can lead to serious health issues, and many other worst-case scenarios. In conclusion, there is still a huge debate on weather money can make people happy or not, and I am still sceptical about headline C.
I am sceptical about headline A-everyone under 18 gets ONE THOUSAND POUNDS- this is because, to me, the idea is crazy. Full Stop. And I’ll prove that with a few points:
Point 1. It’s not in the news! Something on a scale like this would cause pandemonium throughout THE WHOLE WORLD! People would fight AGAINST it and people would fight FOR it (people can have VERY different decisions than the rest of the world). Everyone would be fighting and things like the Government being attacked would happen. Yet it ISN’T in the news! How CRAZY is that. This point proves that it is completely bonkers for this law to be given by the simple fact that IT ISN’T ON THE NEWS! Especially as something like this could cause a civil war for the whole world, in other words WW3!
Point 2. This is the would be probably one of the most obvious points. The fact there is OVER A BILLION under 18s in the world right now which means billions and billions of pounds would be wasted on children. There almost definitely would be another Financial Crisis and it would be only a matter of decades before the whole world would become bankrupt. They’d never be able to stop giving out money as a child is born almost every second!! You have to understand that with the number of children in the world the money paid could reach over the amounts of: £100,000,000,000 (100 billion pounds)!
Point 3. Tons of money would be WASTED. If the world was to give away billions of pounds in total, you’d only really expect it to be given for a good cause! Under 18s literally means ZERO TO EIGHTEEN. If you’re a toddler or younger you’d most definitely LOSE the money or even DESTROY the money. That’s money wasted with ZERO to SIX! If you’re in KS1 or maybe even Year 3 & 4 as well, you’d probably just spend your money on food or toys but in other words NOTHING whatsoever that would help the world in ANY way. That’s money wasted with ZERO to NINE! With 10 to 18 some would waste and some wouldn’t as they’d be a lot smarter. They’d do things like put it in a savings account, give to charities etc. Let’s say 50% of them WOULDN’T waste. That’s still 20% of the world’s money in what was given wasted!
I am eleven years old, I haven’t even reached secondary school yet! If an eleven-year-old can realise this then the majority of adults in the world should, ESPECIALLY the Government who give out the rules. I hope this shows how sceptical I am towards headline A.
im not trying to be mean but you should respect others opinions
That is extremely a thing to be sceptical about because that shouldn't happen seen as there are a lot of homeless people out there that would love to gane some of that and all of your point are exactly true
I picked that there would be no more notes and coins in 2019 because in am extremely skeptical about that seen as there is going to be noted in 2019 it is only a couple of days away and no one knows what the future holds
I really don't understand what you mean.
What i mean is they are adamin that there will be no more notes in 2019 when if there isn't we have no money they might stop some notes but they won't stop them all but we don't know what the future holds only the future knows
i picked everyone under 18 gets 1000 pounds so not as many people are homeless and i think it shoud happen every year
I picked money tree because then you just pick the money off the tree and it grows again and again and you can get rich before you know it.
I am sceptical about the magic money tree because if there was such a thing like that in the world then why are people homeless and living on the street
I totally agree with what you are saying but in my opinion i wouldn't be that sceptical about that because everyone say a that money grows in trees and some people believe it so we shouldn't go against others belief but I totally get you
I am sceptical about headline D because I know that money doesn't grow on trees. If money grew on trees then everyone else would have millions of pounds
I'm most sceptical about the money tree because WHAT, have you ever neared of a magic money tree, I'll have to see it to believe it.
I feel most sceptical about Proven Money Makes You Happy (Option c) because some people have lots of money, however sometimes the money makes them feel depressed also the money can't buy everything. Just like the saying "You can't buy happiness." As well as this, you can't buy friends in my opinion.
I am most sceptical about headline C because if money makes people happy, then why are some people sad even though they have money. Also homeless people have some money that strangers give them and there still not happy they are kind of depressed because they have no home.
I am sceptical about headline A because there are over 14 million children in the world and if all of them were given £1000 this would have a huge impact on the money in the world and could possibly create another financial crisis.Also,someone in a higher command would have to agree with this.
I'm sceptical about headline d because I know that they are not real because otherwise people would know about it and have a lot of money
I am quite sceptical about all of them so here are my thoughts.
The most sceptical in my opinion would be option D because there aren't many realistic reasons for why there would be a tree they grows money.
Option A is also very unlikely because if people were giving children under 18,lots of money,then why has no one heard of it?
I chose C because firstly,have they met everyone in the world?No! And is everyone happy with money?No!
i am most sceptical about c
Because money does not make you happy. Family and others make you happy because without friends or family you are a nobody. Yes money help you buy houses and furniture but one thing it does not give is family and friends which is why I think its c
I am sceptical about both A and D, my reasons being:
~ A ~
Where would you get all this money from? We already have suffered a financial crisis, and if you do this, another will happen within minutes. Also, it didn't state whether it was all the Under 18s in the world, or only the Under 18s in the UK or another specific country. There are around 3 billion or so children that are under 18, and so this will just be unrealistic. Plus, I thought we were wanting to MOVE AWAY from another financial crisis, if we do this however, we will be moving TOWARDS another.
~ D ~
I am also sceptical with this headline, as it is totally unrealistic for money to grow on TREES. Whoever wrote this obviously was never told of the saying that goes "Money doesn't grow on trees". Furthermore, if money grew on trees, well, there are billions of trees around the world, so why all this homelessness? Why are there poor people?
However, it is possible that they didn't actually mean PAPER MONEY, maybe it meant that it was growing produce at rapid pace, causing the people picking the FOOD off to make millions. You cannot exactly tell from the headline, I think, as you need to read more; just like here in BNC, where there are headlines, but we (I certainly can't) can never tell EVERYTHING just by reading the headline.
The headline I am most skeptical about is the one where it states that all under 18s get a free 1000 pounds. I don't feel that this decision has been thought through properly and would cause reek and havoc for the UK's smoking epidemic in young people and problems for the government and law concerning the illegal use of drug and alcohol consumption. In this day and age, kids of secondary school can't be trusted to not squander money let alone spend it responsibly. With all the news we are hearing about young people involving themselves with illegal activity; it's quite hard to believe that all under 18s in the U.K will just pop to the shops to by some new clothes and sweet instead of squandering it on illegal drugs that are being supplied to them. I personally feel that under 18s shouldn't be trusted with such a large sum of money without the supervision and control of a RESPONSIBLE adult. Because let's not forget, adults can be very irresponsible too. Every school in the U.K will have at least quite a few people smoking with their friends or consuming alcohol. Although it is illegal, it is not uncommon or unheard of. Kids are getting themselves involved with gangs and drugs and all sorts of illegal activity including gambling without realising the true consequences of their actions and foolishness. We can’t be trusted with 1000 pounds when we will probably spend it on clothes, sweets, illegal items etc. because at the end of the day, we all know that our brains are contaminated by social media and being controlled by social norms and “fitting in with the crowd”. For the benefit of the United Kingdom and for us young people, we should be trusted with the money when the time is right and not when we our still so naive and foolish.
The money tree sounds least believable because it isn’t scientifically possible
The headline I'm most inquisitive about is headline C and this is my reason why.
Money is, for most people, an emotive, complicated subject. We all have different beliefs, motivations, emotions and preferences, which can make our relationship with it difficult. Money also influences how we view ourselves and can affect our feelings of self-esteem, control and security.
Sometimes, people feel “trapped” by money, particularly when lifestyle costs have crept up over time and they are forced to do a job they don’t enjoy purely for the financial rewards. A few years ago, City & Guilds did a jobs survey and found that the highest level of job satisfaction was experienced by florists and gardeners (87 per cent) and the lowest satisfaction was experienced by technology workers (48 per cent) and bankers (44 per cent). It seems that having a high degree of control over one’s working activity and seeing the results of those efforts have a big impact on happiness. Research suggests that having a higher income does affect happiness, but only up to a point. Whatever that point is for you will depend on your own situation, but beyond it you won’t be significantly happier. Maximum happiness comes from continual and meaningful rises in income throughout a person's life. Your happiness is also likely to be higher if you spend your money on other people in a way that strengthens personal relationships, or you give money to causes which are aligned with your values.
I think that true happiness comes from having a strong sense of purpose, being clear on your ideal lifestyle, and making work and spending decisions aligned with that vision. Life is far too short to waste time doing things you don’t enjoy. People that do drugs or other violent harms to there body show that money does not make them happy as they are damaging there body's brutally. Further more people shouldn't rely on money. Money can never make you happy because at some point you would have to be at some point of your life where you can't always look up to money.
Please make sure all entries are written in your own words!
The heading that most makes me skeptical, is heading A. This shocked me as that amount money is a lot, and should not be given carelessly to kids.
This heading specially concerned me because kids under 18 are very irresponsible and have little common sense. If they are given 1.000 euros, what's most likely is that they'll spend it on useless toys and objects that aren't beneficial for anyone, as the kids will probably get bored of what they bought in minutes. Furthermore, giving teens that money can be REALLY risky, as they can spend it on dangerous and unsafe things like drugs, alchohol, or other hazardous things. I know you are thinking it's equally as probable for an adult to spend the money on these things, but it's not. Adults have major common sense, maturity, and have learnt to be responsible.
Another thing that disturbed me about this issue is where this money is coming from. If we waste so many money on kids's whims, what is most probable is that ANOTHER financial crisis will kickoff. Maybe people will need to pay a tax for those kids to get their 1.ooo euros, and that wouldn't be fair AT ALL. If that happened a lot of valuable money would be thrown away and stolen from innocent people just so some kid got her doll or iphone or costume. If we want to improve this world we shouldn't be giving kids prizes for no reason, but using that money wisely, which brings me to my next point.
Last, but certainly not least, I can't believe that the government would even CONSIDER wasting that many money on kids. That much money could solve LOADS of problems. Instead of it being given to kids, it could be donated to homeless, poor, or anyone who needs any help. This money could also be used to improve the environment. For example, one quarter of that money could be given to homeless. Another quarter of it could be donated towards the environment. The third quarter could be given to cancer research or medical treatments. And lastly, I think the rest should be saved in case of any financial crisis.
In conclusion, I think heading A is really wrong for many reasons, and that the money could be successfully used for a thousand other usefull-er things. Please reply if you have a different point of view or want to add something! Thank you very much for reading!
-neat_kiwifruit :D
I am most sceptical about D because I am not sure about a magical tree not to talk of one that will make millions of pounds.