Students should always question what they are taught instead of accepting it passively.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing a

It is the questions we ask that shape who we are. Whether in an educational environment or in our everyday interactions, our instinctive curiosity encourages us to ask questions and challenge what we really know. In fact, human progress has been marked by the ubiquitous desire to expand knowledge, such as the relentless endeavours of discovery in the natural sciences over the past 200 years, starting with Charles Darwin and his tremendous advances in the biological sciences. While a significant amount of the knowledge we possess today is inherited, its value depends on our ability to question what we are taught. Only by challenging the findings of our predecessors can we both gain insightful, profound understanding and expand on the existing knowledge base. Therefore, I contend that student should challenge what they are taught instead of accepting it passively.

When students question what they are taught, they understand the content better. By challenging the material, we engage more deeply with the subject matter. For example, a chemical reaction between carbon and oxygen may yield carbon dioxide, but it is only once we understand the chemical process underlying the reaction that we truly master the subject. Only when questioning the reasons why Hitler initiated world conflict do we comprehensively understand the World War, rather than simply knowing about its existence. This is not only vital for understanding the subject, but also foment our capacity for further understanding of the subject. In other words, if students challenge what they are taught, they acquire the tools necessary to independently master new questions brought upon them in the relevant subject.

Most academic subjects are in fact marked by an expansive array of existing knowledge which is impossible to be taught completely. There are thousands of academic working on developing new medical treatments, and one can simply not be taught each single one. If one is to understand these medical treatments independently, we need to rely on the aforementioned tools to master the subject. If we are to learn independently, it is a prerequisite that we challenge what we are taught.

This is also the very process which generates new knowledge for society. In academic fields which have not yet been explored, the tools of active understanding are central. Given that there is no previous knowledge to rely on, one must be able to question the findings to assess their validity. For example, an economist attempting to understand an unusual fluctuation in economic growth must be able to challenge existing knowledge to shed light on the novel phenomenon. Unless society is at a point where no new knowledge can be availed (which is certainly not the case), we will find the active learners to be at the forefront of generating new knowledge.

Moreover, students need to challenge concepts which are taught to them to identify inconsistencies and rectify existing knowledge. It would be fallacious to assume that all current so-called knowledge is true, given that some concepts are even opposing and can therefore not logically both be true! To update what we understand, we must rely on challenging concepts.

Now, a counter argument might be that banal concepts must not be challenged. Take for example the simple addition 1+1, where it would be a pointless endeavour to discern whether any solution other than 2 might have credibility. I admit this to be true, yet maintain that this process of inquiry - regardless of how purposeless it may seem - creates masters of the field and creates independent learners. In other words, individuals should not dedicate excessive time to assess the truthfulness of banal concepts, but still have a confident understanding of the mechanisms behind that knowledge creation.

Consequentially, if students challenge what they are taught they will be able to improve on the knowledge that we currently have.

Lastly, we want our society to consist of individuals that can question what they are told. This transcends the limits of educational institutions: in other situations of everyday life the future generations must be remain inquisitive to be successful in life and to bring our society further in both academic and non-academic realms.

In conclusion, when students challenge what they are taught, they understand the content better. By mastering the topics which they are taught, they acquire the skills for independent learning and future mastery. Only with this independent and active approach can society generate new knowledge and advance our understanding of the world. Moreover, only with the tools acquired by challenging what one is taught can we rectify and update existing knowledge, while ensuring that the individuals in our society are inquisitive in academic and non-academic spheres. Hence, it is the questions we ask that shape the future of our society.