For many years there
is
a debate about what is essential to be successful in art or sports, if it is an inborn Suggestion
has been
talent
or long hours of tedious training. Use synonyms
Although
the opinions are divided, I would argue that both factors are crucial to become a successful musician, painter or athlete.
Without a doubt, a natural predisposition is needed to career in sport or art. If a person cannot sing a note Linking Words
at
required pitch, it is very unlikely they will become the famous singer. Regarding athletes, scientists proved that people lacking some particular genes will never outperform those who have genes coding for physical endurance, independently Suggestion
on
in
on
the amount of time they spend training.
Suggestion
of
On the other hand
, others highlight that every skill can be Linking Words
tought
. They cite a famous research study, which gave evidence that after 10,000 hours of practice any skill can be mastered, be it running, writing poems or playing a musical instrument. impart skills or knowledge to
taught
Although
the results of Linking Words
this
research seem plausible, the baseline level of the study participants was not assessed. Linking Words
Therefore
, it is not known if those who participated in Linking Words
this
research had a natural Linking Words
talent
or not and if the training was the only factor essential for their success.
Personally, I believe that being a successful athlete or artist requires both the Use synonyms
talent
and regular training. Use synonyms
This
is because every person achieving success in any of those fields, whom I heard of, always mentioned those two factors as a backbone for their achievement.
To conclude, not only is the Linking Words
talent
Use synonyms
vital but
Accept comma addition
vital, but
also
many hours of training Linking Words
are
crucial for a rewarding career in Suggestion
is
arts
and sport.Suggestion
the arts
With the recent increase in migration, the believe that the countries hosting mixed nationality populations are not only more intriguing but also develop faster is gaining support. Although I firmly agree with the latter, in my opinion the opposite is true about the former. In multinational countries the diversity of cultures is disappearing. In other words, when moving to live in a foreing country, many adapt to the way of living in their new country while not cultivating their own traditions anymore. For instance, the majority of migrants from Africa changed the way they dress when they had arrived in Italy. Furthermore, some native residents take foreign traditions as their own, such as celebrating Diwali (a Hindu holiday) in some part of the UK. Therefore, despite the popural believe, multinational society does not make the country more interesting as the cultural diversity dies out in the long term. Concerning the pace of development of those countries, on the other hand, this type of the society increases it significantly. This is due to the fact that concentrating experts in a particular topic, who are coming from a plethora of different nations, allows to share their various experiences and knowledge to achieve the common goal much faster. Taking the United States as an example, in every public institution, including universities, it is possible to meet individuals from every country in the world, which resulted in the fact that the US became the fastest developing country in terms of technology. To conclude, countries which are home to the variety of nationalities are not necessary more interesting than those inhabited by a single nation. However, certainly, a wide range of experiences brought by members of various cultures might contribute to faster developments of those countries.