Writing Feedback / Computer technology. Work and study from home. Positive or negative? [2]

the number of home-workers or learners is rising

Thanks to the easily accessible and inexpensive connection of computer, there is an acceleration in the number of home-worker and home-learner nowadays. From my perspective, despite numerous benefits which stem from this convenience, i hold a belief that it is a negative development.

To begin with, the high-speed and time-saving are two most striking advantages of computer technology. With the available of Internet connection, a meeting or discussion can be held just by a click. Students can expand their studying sources apart from lecturers at school. In addition, it is also an useful way for people to save their time. The interval for transporting from home to work place or school can be eradicated while people can take advantages of using computer. Working or studying seems to be at people's fingertips with the support of computer technology.

Although people can be beneficial due to this development, I believe that its disadvantages significantly outstrip. The lack of interpersonal communication is an inevitable problem. There would be no face-to-face conversations if people became sedentary and glue their eyes to computer screen. What is more, the effectiveness of work or studying is in a scarce secure. Take manual work as an example. Blue-collar workers should be trained by practical training sessions rather than online training courses. The similar pattern may be true with students. If it were not for teacher's support at class, they can not only rely on the Internet source for studying because of its unreliable information.

In conclusion, it is positive for the general population to make use of technology for their own benefits. However, I think this development exert more negative impacts on society.

Writing Feedback / IELTS - public transport, money on faster or other priorities [2]

investment on public transport

Some people think governments should spend money on faster means of public transport. However, others think money should be spent on other priorities (e.g cost, environment...) Discuss both views and give your opinion.

It is thought that governmental budget should be allocated on faster means of public transport, while others advocate to different priorities such as its price and environmental effects deserve to be financed rather than its speed. From my perspective, there are other elements should be concerned rather than the fastening the speed of public vehicles.

On the one hand, quicken the speed of public transport supports the general population to save their commuting time. In fact, most people now tend to opt for subway train and bus services to go to work. They will be in an adequate health status to start working if it were not for struggling on road with congestion. However, the high speed is not in accordance with some people whose physical health can not adapt to it. For example, the local community sometimes may find taking metro dizzy or sick due to its speed at great height.

On the other hand, a great number of opponents of fastening the transportation argue that other urgent problems, namely, cost and environment, should be financially invested. If public transports achieve widespread acceptance, the price is believed to decrease to facilitate all people to utilize. In addition, the cut down on petrol and parking expenses will save not only a large amount of money for users but also preserve environment. Thanks to the usage of communal vehicles, there will be a significantly drop in the emission of carbon footprint.

In conclusion, people are overall beneficial from the governmental investment on public transport. Nevertheless, I believe that money spent on other priorities such as cost and environment is better than fastening its speed.