Writing Feedback / More funds to science education rather than other disciplines for the country's development [3]

Government should invest more money in science education rather than other subjects to develop the country.

Do you agree or disagree?

These days, a large number of people are in favour of the idea that goverment should allocate more of its funding to science education rather than other disciplines for the country's development. From my point of view, I strongly disagree with this opinion because all subjects are equally essential in developing the country.

To start with, it is argued that science education could make a greater contribution to society than other subjects as it has transformed several aspects of human's life with the invention of car, light bulb and the like. However, science is not the only subject that aids the society's advancement greatly.

Throughout the history, other disciplines have also proved their enormous help in developing the country. Take literature for example, teaching people how to read and write is the key step to eliminating illiteracy. What's more. foreign language is also an integral subject that enables global communication among several countries.

In conclusion, I would like to reaffirm that every subject has equal importance in advancing the society so goverment should spend money on them equally.

Writing Feedback / University places for a large number of youngsters [2]

IELTS TASK 2: It is neither possible nor useful for a country to provide university places for a high proportion of young people.

To what extend do you agree or disagree.

KEY:
It is said that enabling a large number of youngsters to receive tertiary education is not only unrealistic but also does no good to a country. From my point of view, I completely disagree with this idea.

To begin with, granting numerous young people higher education is feasible for various reasons. First of all, nowadays students only need a laptop and stable internet connection to get access to higher education thanks to great advances in technology. Therefore, the university cost will be reduced considerably, which makes it more approachable to most young people. And with the help of technology, higher education can be easily given to people living in far-off land. Second, the high demand for tertiary education also encourages new private institutions to be set up to accomodate the large number of students. For that reason, there will be numerous places available for youngsters in university.

In addition, a country can benefit from a considerable number of university students in myriads ways. As more people go to colleges, a country's workforce could be bettered enormously, especially in the academic field. This is mainly because tertiary education equips young people with advanced knowledge and proper social skills needed to function efficiently in different working environments. An increase in university students may cause economic imbalance as fewer people will be willing to do blue-collar jobs. However, with a highly-educated workforce, new ideas and innovations will constantly appear to solve those kinds of problems.

In conclusion, I believe that providing access to university education for almost all young people is both practical and beneficial for a country.

Writing Feedback / Car-free day is an effective way of reducing air pollution, others think there are some other ways [4]

Some people think an international car-free day is an effective way of reducing air pollution, others think there are some other ways.

Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

KEY
It is suggested that global car-free days play a fundamental role in cutting down on air pollution. I do go along with this notion; however, I do believe there are other equally or more efficient methods.

To begin with, international car-free days do help reduce air pollution to a great extent. It is obvious that a decrease in car usage leads to lower level of exhaust fumes which are one of the main causes of air pollution. Take the covid-19 shutdown for example, during this time cars were rarely used, and the surprising result was that air quality in some major cities showed great improvements.

Global car-free days are undoubtedly effective in reducing air pollution but there are other helpful ways as well. In order to mitigate harmful air in the long run, it is advisable to invest in carbon-free vehicles. The daily need to travel long distances makes it impossible to get rid of vehicles permanently;therefor, renovating them to be environment-friendly is of great importance. Another way to deal with air pollution is to raise people awareness of its severity by setting up campaigns or advertisements relating to air problems. As individuals acknowledge air pollution, they would probably try to limit their usage of private vehicles.

In conclusion, I do believe in the effectiveness of global car-free days but still insist that there are other measure to battle air pollution

Writing Feedback / Developing countries need financial help or practical aid and advice [5]

Some people think that developing countries need financial help from international organizations.
Others think that it is practical aid and advice that is needed.

Discuss these views and give your own opinion

:

Key:
There has been a long-standing debate about whether donation of money or practical help is more beneficial to developing nations. From my point of view, I believe practical aid and consultancy play a more important role than financial assistance.

To begin with, donating money to developing countries may be ineffective for the following reasons. Firstly, in case of corruption, the money could end up not being able to reach the people in need. Secondly, there is a high chance that governments or non-governmental organizations receiving financial help make wrong decisions in dispensing the money. This is mainly because some developing nations still lack a number of well-qualified and efficient staffs in fields like finance or infrastructure.

Comparing to financial assistance, practical helps appear to be more superior when it comes to bettering third world countries. It is obvious that essentials like food or water stand a lower chance of being misappropriated. In addition, people in flooded or far-flung regions would appreciate practical help more as in those places there are few shops to spend money on. Another point deserves considering is that giving advice to developing countries and let them figure out the solutions to their problems on their own helps those countries to flourish in the long run. Since it is impossible for poor countries to receive foreign aid all the time, it is advisable that international organizations help them to be self-sufficient.

In conclusion, I insist that practical help and advice is more crucial to poor nations than financial assistance.

Writing Feedback / A ban on dangerous sports or freedom to do any sports or activity [3]

Some people think that governments should ban dangerous sports, while others think people should have freedom to do any sports or activity.

Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Key
It is usually suggested that risky sports be banned by governments . From my point of view, I completely oppose to this notion and believe that people should be free ti enjoy any sports or activities under safety condition.

To begin with, a ban on extreme sports may do more harm than good for the following reasons. Firstly, if a sport was banned, it would probably become more fascinating to adventurous people or curious teenagers. As the ban is likely to act as an official confirmation that the sport is risky, which would probably trigger people's desire to conquer it. Moreover, a rise in the number of dangerous sports enthusiasts would create a high demand for the required equipment. However, a ban on those sports means that people have to purchase them from the black markets, where sellers usually sell low-quality products, enhancing the risk of the sports.

Based on the aforementioned argument, it is advisable for governments to let people go in for any sports or activities. Provided that safety is guaranteed, taking part in extreme sports could even make people happier thanks to the adrenaline released during the process.In addition, those activities even help people to challenge themselves and boost their confidence. For these reasons, instead of banning risky sports or activities, government should enforce policies to protect people's safety during the activities.

In conclusion, I completely disagree with governments banning extreme sports and insist that everyone has the right to participate in any sports or activities under safety condition.