Writing Feedback / The foundation for sportsmen's success. PHYSICAL STRENGTH AND MENTAL STRENGTH IN SPORT [3]

IELTS WRITING TASK 2:
Some people think that physical strength is important for success in sport, while other people think that mental strength is more important.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

In order to accomplish in sport, while many people claim that one must be physically strong, others believe that the focus should be on mental agility. In my opinion, I consider that physical strength lays the foundation for sportsmen's success on their fields.

On the one hand, it is sometimes thought that being physically agile is the basis of success and I agree. In order to reach the aspired level of physical fitness, sportsmen often subject themselves to a balanced, well-developed diet and exercise regimen. This is essential when it comes to physically demanding sports such as football, basketball, boat sailing, weight lifting which require a high level of stamina and endurance to perform well. Some sport stars, however, have even chosen to take shortcuts by using illegal substances such as doping to sustain physical condition and reach top performance which pays the heavy price for their career.

On the other hand, it is common belief that mental agility plays the prime role sportsmen's accomplishment. Failures and disappointment are common in sports, so it is vital that one be mentally strong to overcome these and achieve the best. If sportspeople can not foster a good spirit, they are more susceptible to successive failures and low morale. Another reason why mental strength is of great importance is that athletes can sometimes find workout tedious and repetitive. Therefore, they must be trained mentally to stay focused and sustain their motivation which will, consequently, produce better sport performance and output.

In conclusion, despite people having different perspectives, I believe that sportsmen stand a better chance to succeed if they are physically fit.

(269 words)

Writing Feedback / Should countries be given a right to interfere in other countries' internal affairs? [2]

WRITING TASK 2 (A country's internal affair)

Topic:

Should countries be given a right to interfere in other countries' internal affairs?

Whether "to intervene" or "not to intervene" remains a nagging question when considering a nation's long-term political blueprint. Intervention in other nation's internal issues has always been practiced ever since time immemorial, either directly or indirectly, to a good cause or for a bad end. In my opinion, whether or not a nation is entitled the right to execute external forces upon a nation's domestic affairs hinges on the multilateral viewpoints about the nature of such interference.

It stands to reason that a nation in the throes of multiple matters that are against its prosperity and its citizen's welfare could consider foreign intervention as a means of financial or humanitarian aid. In this respect, such an act clearly is not against the law from a global perspective and should be given ample support to make itself come to fruition. The Thailand cave rescue in 2018 is a case in point. Without extensive foreign support of rescue personnel and financial funding for needed evacuation equipment, perhaps we would not ever see all the ill-fated boys again. Such an act of external support could also come in the manner of treaty or memorandum, which requires mutual reciprocity between "the givers" and "the receivers", thus stands no ground for hostility and fresh ground for sustainability.

However, not all affairs could be subject to foreign external forces. Some matters, such as a nation's long-term development blueprint, are often classified and sidelined from public attention, let alone from foreign observation. There are some acts of intervention violating the international laws that entitles a nation to their utmost right of independence, self-regulation and sovereignty. Any attempts to intrude in these matters would bring a breach of such rights, and are riven with opposition. The recent invasion of the US into Afghanistan, even though labeled by the US itself as a crusade to spread democracy and take it to extreme, is explicitly a violation of universal law. Since then, Afghanistan has come under war cripples and bloodshed conflicts, which plunge itself further into the abyss.

In short, whether a nation should be entitled the right to intervene in other countries' domestics depends on the moral aspect of the intervening acts. At one end of the spectrum any attempts to improve a country's welfare and promote its prosperity should be welcomed and sufficiently supported, while against-the-morality undertakings must be totally banned from fruition. (388 words)