Some people think that studying literature from the past is a waste of time for high school students. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

There are individuals who argue, that studying historic

literature

is not productive for secondary students or even more,

that is

a waste of time. Personally, I strongly disagree with

this

statement on account ,

firstly

, it gives a noteworthy opportunity to enhance some particular skills and,

secondly

, it may promote general intelligence.

To begin

with, there is no denying the conviction that reading

literature

of all kinds markedly supports reading and writing abilities. Linked to

this

, those students who read

literature

on a daily basis, have fewer issues with,

for instance

, writing essays in high school as they have a better vocabulary.

Moreover

, they may have better abilities to complete reading comprehension tasks because of properly developed and faster reading skills. To support these examples with evidence-based arguments, recently the University of Cambridge published an article, which argues that children who read books regularly

instead

of spending time

for instance

on social media platforms, reach better results in schools.

Secondly

, there is a defensible basis for the argument that reading

literature

improves creativity, imagination and critical thinking, which in the other words might be described as a part of the general intelligence of the population. In connection with

this

, not long ago non-scientific review about reading

literature

states that proportionally a decreasing amount of students who read different kinds of books is decreasing the IQ level of their generation. To conclude, from the aforementioned examples, I strongly believe that reading historic

literature

may promote certain skills useful,

for instance

, for other subjects and

moreover

it is necessary for the sustainability of general intelligence.