Writing Feedback / IELTS TASK 2: Only people with special abilities can make art. [3]

Is the art for everyone?

Topic: Some people say that art (e.g painting, music, poetry) can be made by everyone whereas others believe that it can only be made by those with special abilities.

Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Please check my essay. Much appreciated!
Summary:
1. Introduction
2. reason for limiting people to make art
3. reason for freely making art
4. my opinion
5. conclusion
Total words: 308

From the early years of humans being, there has been a big controversy over whether creative things of music, literature and painting should be created by only talented people, or by the whole world. To the best of my knowledge, although both viewpoints have positive and negative aspects, I am in great approval of freely allowing everybody to make art.

To begin with, the most supported idea of limiting people to make artistic productions is to respect true talents. Nowadays, when everyone can post everything they make on social network, art work of truely talented people can easily be blurred by other celebrities' creations, even it is just a normal thing. As a reasult of a long time recieving ignorance, they become discouraged and gradually give up making woth- appreciating creative productions. That's why some people claim that we should only let people with outsanding abilities make art.

On the contrary, the major of society encourages the show-off abilities of everyone, for either ourselves or people around us. Such artistic work like making poem or composing song can be made just for fun and relaxation. Many reaserch have suggested that humans have a tendency to create art when they are at comfort or in need of satisfying friends and in fact, a lot of masterpieces have come from these moments. Obviously, there are handful benefits of freely giving the right for all of us to make artistic creations.

In my opinion, I think that we all possess capcities to create great things because pratice make perfect. Not everyone is born with special abilities. Therefore, we have to allow the whole world to follow their dream in all fields, and art is not an exception.

In conclusion, while there are some negative effects of freely giving permission for everyone to make artistic work, its merits still overwhelming all downsides.

Writing Feedback / IELTS- Task 2: Selection of students based on their qualifications [4]

Topic: Some people think that schools should select students according to their academic abilities, while others believe that it is better to have students with different abilities studying together.

DISCUSS BOTH VIEWS AND STATE YOUR OWN OPINION.

Here is my essay. Feel free to give advice. Thanks a lot!

It is undeniable that students possess different levels of academic capacities. Therefore, some arguments stated that educational institutions need to classify students based on their qualifications. Others claim that students with various types of abilities had better study in the same class. In my opinion, we should categorize students only in high schools and universities.

The most supported reason for choosing students according to their academic abilities is to guarantee the general improvement of the class. Having the same qualification, students can be taught by the same teaching methods without fears of being left behind or underestimated by teachers or classmates. However, this class type may discourage students from striving to get outstanding academic results.

On the contrary, the main advantage of studying with students of different capacities is that strengths and weaknesses are shared with each other. While well-qualified students seem to be boring and lack of soft skills, the others with low study marks, who really need help from not only teachers but also their well-studied classmates, always bring entertainments to the class. Nevertheless, this kind of class may sparks conflicts between excellent students and the below-average ones due to some disagreement.

To the best of my knowledge, I believe that classifying students based on their academic abilities should only be done in high school and higher education. Due to the necessity of socialization in childhood, students in primary and secondary schools need to learn how to treat others of different qualifications properly. From the age of 16, they are able to realize their academic capacities and very sensitive when it comes to being compared to excellent students. Therefore, high schools need to select students according to their studious capacities.

In conclusion, studying with students of either different or the same academic abilities are essential for the overall development. However, categorization should only be done by high schools and universities.

Writing Feedback / The national news should be prioritized over international news as it may relate to our daily lives [2]

IELTS TASK 2: National news and international news

Topic: Some people focus on news in their country, while the others think it is more important to be aware of international news.
Discuss both views and give opinion.

Here is my essay, please help me improve my writing skills. Much appreciated!

It is undeniable that news keeps an important role in daily life. Whereas a handful of arguments state that national information should be paid attention to, others claim that it is essential to read worldwide news. In my opinion, I believe that it is better to prioritize national news over international ones.

The most supported idea for focusing on worldwide information is that people need to know what happened abroad in other to either protect their country or show sympathy to other nations. For example, by updating news about the Covid-19 epidemic originated in China, civilians in foreign countries are able to not only keep safe for both themselves and their nations by carefully doing the right things that can prevent the virus, but they can also give support to other countries being in danger, which really need to be empathized. However, rarely does the world have such a devastating event to care about.

On the contrary, the majority of society reckon that news in country is more necessary compared to international news. If residents focus on national information, they possess knowledge of things that need to be cared about such as finances, criminals and accidents. Therefore, they can keep up with the pace of life in their country and develop lives in appropriate ways.

From my perspective, news in country is much more important in comparison to worldwide information because national news is events which can have considerable effects on our daily lives. For instance, the economy of the country is unstable means financial accumulation is necessary for the worst situation. As long as we have proper awareness of things happen surrounding, we can have suitable preparations to protect us from dangerous states.

In conclusion, updating information is essential for everyone. However, national news absolutely should be prioritized over international news as it may relate to our daily lives.

Writing Feedback / IELTS- Task 2: permanent job is more important than job satisfaction. [3]

Topic:
Some people argue that job satisfaction is more important than job security, while others believe that they cannot always expect job satisfaction, and a permanent job is more important.

Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Please help me check my essay. Thanks a lot!

There are several arguments stating that the essential of being satisfied with occupation overwhelmings the eternal career. However, in my opinion, I am in great disapproval of this contention.

Admittedly, job satisfaction has a necessary role in the career as it enhances the effectiveness of the way of working. For example, if the worker is pleased with his job, then he will definitely complete tasks with the highest level of efficiency. In this sense, occupation contentment acts as working stimulation, which results in many chances of promotion later.

Despite the argument above, I believe a permanent job is more important in comparison to career pleasure. As for bosses, the sustain of working is prioritized over anything. To be more specific, a staff with a stable state of working is absolutely better than the one who will drop off job whenever having dissatisfaction. Under this circumstance, the more sustainable the way of working, the more favored the worker become.

On top of this, when impoverishment is spreading all over the world, the guarantee of a career should be considered as the most essential factor for everyone. Having a persistent job means possessing a stable income. Therefore, we can not only afford the cost of daily lives but also guarantee the life after retirement by financially accumulating. Besides, if there are unsatisfaction in our occupation, as long as having passion, we could try to improve the working condition or fix problems in order to be in long attachment with our career. In this way, I have a great belief that we should give priority to a permanent job over the gratification of work.

In the final analysis, from my perspective, whereas occupation satisfaction obviously has outstanding effects on the way we work, the advantages of having job guarantee still outweigh job contentment.

Writing Feedback / IELTS- Task 2: Children should be taught musical instrument [3]

Hi, I'm aiming to get a 7+ band in IELTS. Please help me to check my essay. Much appreciate!

Some educationalists say that every child should be taught how to play a musical instrument.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Total words: 283
Since musical instruments such as piano, trumpet and violin... have been demonstrated to have numerous merits for humane, many specialists in education claim that it is essential for children to learn to play an instrument. From my perspective, I am in definite support of this contention.

To begin with, teaching children how to play an instrument has some certain disadvantages. First, it can be time-consuming if children don't like the instrument that they learn. Without patient and passion, a child can easily drop out of the process when being an amateur. Second, it costs parents a great deal of money if they want their children can play a musical instrument smoothly. Since learning to play an instrument is a long term investment, the expense is absolutely not small at all.

However, despite some minor downsides, I believe that learning how to play an instrument owns many more benefits in comparison. The most obvious one is that it helps children gain more confidence towards their friends. If a child is not good at studying, then knowing how to play an instrument can make her or him have aspect to proud of. Therefore, having the ability to play an instrument is a great tool for children to be self-confident.

In addition, playing an instrument is proved to have positive mental effects on individuals. Not only does it increase ones' intelligence, but it also prevents handful of mental illnesses such as sleeplessness, stress,... These are really necessary for each person in this innovative era.

In conclusion, although teaching children how to play a musical instrument has some risks, I have a great belief that every child should be given opportunity to learn an instrument as its merits outweigh all downsides.

Writing Feedback / IELTS- Task 2: Building higher houses or lower but wider ones, which one is the better solution? [3]

Some cities create housing areas by providing taller buildings. Others create housing by building houses on a wider area of land.

Which solution is better?

This is my essay, please help me to improve it. Much appreciated!
Total words: 323 words.

In the modern day, a minority of metropolises build houses on a larger scale of land, whereas the rest choose to provide more skyscrapers in order to meet the need of the residents. To the best of my knowledge, I am in total approval of creating higher buildings due to its numerous merits. Both sides will be considered carefully before drawing to a conclusion.

To begin with, building houses on a wider area of land does have some valid reasons. One of them is for the safety of individuals. Taking having earthquakes for example, the residential evacuation wil be conducted more quickly in low construction compared to in skyscrapers. Therefore, some cities prefer shorter but wider houses than taller ones.

On the contrary, despite having a small number of downsides, building taller structure is believed to bring more benefits to both human beings and the environment. First of all, creating skyscrapers can save the budget of land for descendants. In the era of dramatic population increase, humans need more and more land for accommodation. Therefore, forests will be cut down for more room and following is a significant rise of global warming, which can have devastating impacts on humanity. To avoid this terrible issue is the second reason why cities should build skyscrapers rather than lower and wider houses.

In my opinion, not only creating higher construction can save the environment, but it also save sthe humankind thanks to its eco-friendly benefits. Our descendants in the future will have to suffer climate change desperately if the rise of deforestation keeps accelerating because of the need of more land. That's why we should save the budget of land by building more skyscrapers.

Having analysed all things above, I have a great belief that cities should provide higher edifices rather than lower but wider ones in order to preserve either nature or humanity. The more land we save, the better our offsprings' lives in the future.