Writing Feedback / The governance and big companies may be permitted to upgrade the environment - not the individuals? [3]

Individuals can do nothing to improve the environment

;
only governments and large companies can make a difference. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is argued that governance and big companies may be permitted to upgrade the environment, manufacturing some differences for better living, while people are not allowed. From my perspective, I disagree with this statement because human can attempt several activities to protect the atmosphere correspondingly, such as planting the greenery crops, reducing the consuming of plastic, and diminishing the electricity consumption.

These days, the earth where is inhabited by humans become super heated rather than yesterday. Following this, cropping plants may offer benefits for human and nature. Beside producing clear air for human respiration, planting activity supports in declining the atmosphere's temperature, therefore, it will come lower.

Indonesian media has reported that lots of plastic found in the bodies of dead marine. It can be concluded, the plastic consuming is constantly high, as equal as the bad behavior of littering in individuals life. In consequence, people mus try to avoid using plastics, replacing with materials which are reusable and easy to degradable.

In addition, nowadays, people cannot life without without electricity. However, the utilization of electricity must be concerned because it excessive because the energy requirements from the earth will increase, and the effect of global warming is accurately felt.

In conclusion, I believe that many works can be applicated by people in order to prevent the environment, namely planting green plants that produce oxygen for human breathing and decrease ambient temperature, deciding to use another materials which is environment friendly, and limiting the electricity use to stop the bad impact of global warming.

Writing Feedback / IELTS TASK 2 - Today, humans who are staying in big towns must be confronted with lots of challenge. [3]

People living in large cities have to face many problems in everyday life.

What are those problems? Should the government encourage people to move regional towns?

Today, humans who are staying in big towns must be confronted with lots of challenge. The major cause is pollution that produce from air, noise, and water. Consequently, people must be faced the congestion on the highway in every single day. Therefore, the governance should be considered about displacing the residents to regional areas, however, it will not always be a great solution to solve this matter.

First of all, the increasing of total number in vehicles and the air and noise pollution are interrelated and inseparable problems. The low price and the necessity of private transport growth significantly every year. Following this, the government should be deliberated an attempt to diminishing the individual's vehicles. Adding more public transports with adequate facilities is one of the best solution for this issue. The human can breath more fresh air and avoid the noise because the pollution become lower. Besides, the jamming that usually occur on the road can be evaded.

Generally, the water pollution is delivered from the household and the factory which is exist in big cities. People throw the household waste to the river that outraging the water. If individuals consume the polluted water, they will be poisoned. Besides, several companies also dispose the garbage to the stream without processing. Regarding to this, the governance should arrange the regulation of garbage disposing with some penalties that will punish the offenders.

In conclusion, an individual who living in huge towns have to through a lot of problems, namely the pollution (air, water, and noise) and the road stagnation. Hence, the government should create some plans to break the problem, except transfer the citizen to the regional city.

Writing Feedback / IELTS TASK 2 - Nowadays people concentrated on their job decide to delay owning a child [3]

late parents

More people decided to have children in their later age than in the past. Why? Do advantages of this outweigh disadvantages?

It is argued that a decision to put off the eagerness of having children is extremly common today. Although humans can be focused on career and found the ease of organizing the time, non-productive age for women (approximately over 40) will be affected the female's reproduction later outweigh any drawbacks.

It is true that people will be more concerned in working if they decide to delay owning a child. Moreover, they will obtain a convenience in arrange the time schedule, plan the quality time for themselves, and come together with friends or family. To illustrate, individuals have to prepare much money to take care of their kids. Therefore, they must be deliberated how to set aside some money for children's school and health. Besides, parents should be considered about the time sharing as long as kids need more attention and affection from them.

On the other hand, researchers have reported that the ideal age to gain a baby is between 20 and 30 years old because the women's reproduction can be worked optimally. Consequently, some research said that many people have to encounter the reproduction problems at the age above 40. According to this, the opportunity to continuing the descent more available from 20 to 30 years old compared to the age over 30. In consequence, people should be contemplated to not postponing having a child in order to avoid the reproduction matter.

To conclude, despite humans can be concentrated on their job, the issue of health reproduction should be esteemed.

Writing Feedback / The world has become more advanced than in the past. The family structure and capacity has altered. [3]

In recent years, the family structure has changed, as well as family roles. What are the changes occuring? Do you think these changes are positive or negative?

the change in family roles and structure

Today, the world has become more advanced rather than in the past. Regarding to this, the family structure and capacity has altered in order to take part with the times. In my opinion, this is a negative changes which can inflict matters in the housewifery and affect the child's development. Furthermore, it will be discuss below.

One serious problem that can be arise from the changing in family structure and role is that it can provoke the housewifery problem. For instance, many mothers decide to be a career woman, leave the house, and hand the house affairs over to the assistant. Moreover, some women also require their husbands to handle duties at home and take care of their child. This will be triggered a dispute even to divorce in the household relations.

Another issue is that it will be interfered the children development. Some studies have reported that many cases of juvenile delinquency caused by the lack of parental function which affects children's development. To illustrate, the modification of roles and structure can be deflected the real function of parents in the family. As a result, the children will endure lack of attention and affection because the parental role is weak. According to this, the transformation in family capacity should be considered in order to avoid several matters in relatives.

To conclude, although it has common to change family roles and structure, it has brought several problems in the relationship between husband and wife and also impact the children progression.

Writing Feedback / Taxes that support universal education taken in the case of attending to government-financed schools [4]

Hi, I'm Annantha Ayu. I come from Indonesia. I need your help to give some feedback on my writing.

Governance-financed schools - IELTS TASK 2

Families who do not send their children to government-financed schools should not be required to pay taxes that support universal education.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is true that the governance-financed schools should be not demanded the tax payment to parents who do not entrust their children to their schools. To some extent, I agree that people must be freed from the tax, however, I would also argue that they should extent some money for the tax payment.

There are several reasons why I believe that people who do not put their children to learning in the state education must be not obligated to pay taxes. Firstly, the government has a special budget for schooling such as purchasing the student textbooks, establishing the school facilities, and paying the teacher's salaries. Secondly, the government-owned company and the state-owned enterprises have sponsored the government-owned school in the provision of school improvements and necessity. In consequence,people who prefer sending their children in the other schools rather than in the state school could be not supposed to pay taxes.

By contrast, every citizen has the responsibility to pay out the tax fees for the country development. The obligation of paying tax provides the benefits for all society although some individuals decide to place their children to learn in the private school instead of the government-financed school. Moreover, the taxes helps the poor people to going to school without having to pay the tuition fees. Because the poor are exempt from the school's payment, the equal distribution of education will soon be realized for all people.

In conclusion, while parents should be freed from the tax charges because they do not put their children to study there, I agree that they must be paid the taxes as well.

Writing Feedback / Punishing murderers with death penalty vs life in prison - IELTS Task 2 [4]

Hi everyone! I need all of you to give me some advice on my writing. Thank you in advance!

death penalty for the killers

By punishing murderers with the death penalty, society is also guilty of committing murder. Therefore, life in prison is a better punishment for murderers.
To what extent do yo agree or disagree with this statement?

Some people said that it is great to throw the killers into the jail than give the death law. Personally, I support the idea that the killers must spend their life in prison, however, I would also argue that death penalty is the best punishment for the killers.

There are several reasons why I believe that murderers must life in jail. Firstly, some murderers are still in underage between 13 and 17 years old. Lots of consideration is conducted by the legal institution to get the fair punishment for them. In this case, sending into the prison with predetermined time will be more suitable for underage murderers rather than death penalty. This will be more acceptable for the murder's relatives as well.

In addition, the killers still have hopes and dreams which can be realized after the prison penalty is ended. They can arrange their future plans and pursue their dreams for the next chapter of life. Therefore, the death penalty will destroy their future goals at the same time.

By contrast, it is true that let the killers still alive will be a threat for society. To illustrate, some news reported that the former killers commit a murder case after they are released from prison. It will be endangered for the human's life if the death punishment is not applied. Besides, the death penalty will eliminate the individual's desire to become a criminal. The number of crimes can be increased as long as the death law still be implemented for the murderers.

To conclude, while send to the jail is a good decision, I agree that death penalty can be considered as the punishment for the killers.

Writing Feedback / The problems people overreliance on cars and suggest the solution - IELTS Task 2 [NEW]

More and more people are relying on the private car as their major means of transportation.
Describe some of the problems overreliance on cars can cause, and suggest at least one possible solution.

Auto addiction is detrimental to society

It is true that the private vehicle is the main method of transport by citizen. Living in the suburbs outside city center is the major problem why people prefer to choose a private car as their primary transport. Following this, the unreliable and inefficient of the public transport also support the decision to using the private car.

Most people who work in the central city are live in the outside of the town. Taking a private car to reach the workplace easily is chosen because this is one of the great options which appropriate to solve this matter. However, during the rush hour, it can lead traffic jams, so that the town will not pleasant to live in. Moreover, cars will increase the pollution which harm for individual's respiratory. The government who has responsibility towards this cases, has successfully created modern public transportation which is faster and cheaper as the means of transportation.

Some of the public vehicles are not reliable and efficient so the private transport still be the major choice. Furthermore, some people say that they feel like "sardines in a can" when they ride in a public transportation. According to this issue, the possible solution that can be implemented is modify the transport system to become well-designed in order to make people feel more comfortable and convenient.

To conclude, staying out from the city is one of the causes in overreliance on cars. Besides, the public transportation which is not reliable and efficient for people also cause this problem.