Writing Feedback / [IELTS] Money on protecting animals vs human well-being [3]

MEASURING WHAT MATTERS

Since human beings existed in the world, animals have always accompanied us. They are of great help to human in different aspects. However, in recent years, a growing number of people believe that instead of investing money in preserving wild animals, government should spend those money on improving human beings. In my opinion, I would not go along with them.

Firstly, money invested in animal protection to save wide animals, who are in danger of extinction also contributes to well-being of human. As wild animals continue to exist, human can have a great source of entertainment. For instance, government often build zoo to provide a safe living zone for wild animals. Not only beneficial to animal, zoo also provides a great source of entertainment to human. It is an ideal place for families with children to spend their weekends.

Secondly, because the existence of wide animals is essential to the progress of human beings, money on protecting animals is way to improve well-beings of human. As some wide animals has been used for animal testing, they allow scientists to test new drugs. With the help of animal testing, we found cures to many formerly fatal illnesses. Additionally, there are a considerable number of drugs that contain animal products. Hence, the existence of animals plays an importance role in human health care.

From the aforementioned reasons above, I believe that the money government spend on preserving wild animals greatly contribute to the human well-beings. Hence, government should take this idea into consideration to not only preserve the wildlife diversification but also improve human well-being

Writing Feedback / [IELTS task 2] Museums and the entrance fee - different viewpoints [3]

Many museums charge for admission while others are free

.
Do you think the advantages of charging people for admission to museums outweigh the disadvantages?

Towards the issue of whether museums should charge for entrance fee, people often develop different viewpoints. While there are good arguments in favour of letting visitors enter museums for free, I find myself more inclined to the idea that museums should collect entrance fee.

Firstly, there are good reasons why a sizeable number of people believe that entrance fee brings more harm than good to museums. As visitors are charged for admission to enter museums, the number of visitors will significantly decrease. As a result, entrance fee discourages people to visit museums to acquire useful knowledge and skill. From museum's perspective, it fails to achieve one of its objectives to educate people. Moreover, museums often receive funding from the government to operate. As selling tickets bring in money, museums may no longer receive this government funding.

Despite aforementioned disadvantageous, I am convinced that the entrance fee brings about a myriad of advantageous to museums. First, the amount of money collected from entrance fee will assist museums in acquiring exhibits. The updates of exhibits will attract visitors to return to the museums. Secondly, museums can have money to invest in operational activities including buying new equipment or cleaning services. Having visited many museums myself, I have learnt that museums which charge for admission are better than those that do not sell tickets in term of equipment and clean atmosphere.

In summary, although it is undeniable that entrance ticket potentially results in the decrease in number of visitors, I am of the opinion that museums should apply entrance fee to operate more effectively

Writing Feedback / [IELTS TASK 2] Should children read entertainment books only [3]

Some parents believe that children should not waste time by reading entertainment books, but instead they should spend time to read educational books only. What is your opinion about this?

children should read a wild range of books

People tend to develop different viewpoints toward to question on the type of books that children should read. Some people believe that children should spend their time reading educational books exclusively to acquire useful knowledge. Other, however, claim that children should also read books for entertainment purpose. Personally, I find myself in the same place as the latter one for the following reasons.

Firstly, reading books for entertainment brings children a myriad of advantageous in term of stress relief from school works. It is undeniable that children nowadays are lacks of entertainment options to relax after schools. Therefore, reading comics will assist children in relieving stress and achieving school-life balance. Moreover, reading books a more advantageous form of entertainment for children in compare to, for example, watching television. Reading book offers a great help in promoting children's imagination. Instead of having situation presented in pictures, children will imagine it themselves as they read book.

Secondly, reading books as an entertainment option paves the way for children to adopt positive personal traits. Given the fact that children can enjoy more happiness when reading books for amusement, they will grow into happy and fulfilled adults. In addition, children can learn a wide range of humorous stories from entertainments books. This allows children to engage other people in their conversation and therefore, improve their communication skills.

From all aforementioned advantageous, I am strongly convinced that children should be encouraged to read a wild range of books including entertainment ones. Not only help children to relax, reading books for entertainments is useful to develop children's imagination as well as soft skills.

Writing Feedback / Government invest in the arts vs public services [3]

which investments contribute to the well-being of a society more?

Government investment in the arts, such as music and theatre, is a waste of money. Governments must invest the money in public, services instead. To that extent do you agree with this statement?

There has been a growing debate on whether or not the government should spend money in the arts. Some people believe that art brings no value to the society; therefore, does not worth investment from the government. However, others, included myself agree that government should provide more fund to promote art.

First and foremost, art serves as an outlet for expression that allows artists to communicate with their feelings. It offers artists a way to deal with depression. For instances, dancers can express their sadness through movements. It allows them to be able confront their depression and feel much more relieved later on. Moreover, art works can also reflect individuals' desires for a better society. Through those artworks, government can collect information on expectations of citizens and take suitable initiatives to improve the society.

Secondly, the thrive of art brings a myriad of advantages to the society in term of finance. There are a considerable number of artworks that worth million US dollars. Take the artwork of Pablo Picasso for example. Some of his invaluable paintings have been sold for several million US dollar on charity purpose. This gives a cut on government's expense in helping under-privileged communities. Additionally, international art exhibitions pave a way for government to introduce their rich cultures and heritages to people all around the world. Therefore, it provides a great help in attracting more tourists coming to visit the country. As tourism is boosted, the government can enjoy the significant financial benefits.

From the aforementioned reasons, I am strongly convicted that art produces a remarkable contribution to the well-being of a society. Therefore, the government should take the idea of investing more money to support art activities into consideration.

I have the following question: Does my answer achieve the task assignment? Do I need to write about government invests money in public, services?