Writing Feedback / People buy a range of household goods ( positive or negative development? ) [3]

In many countries today, people buy a range of household goods (television, microwave, oven and rice cookers).

Is it positive or negative development?

It is a norm for families these days to equip their houses with a variety of household electrical appliances. In my opinion, both merits and downsides can be seen in such a tendency, however, I would argue that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits significantly.

The fact that people direct their concerns towards household products is emblematic of a rise in living standard. Those appliances are virtually indispensable to families as it not only saves a great amount of time regarding domestic work but also plays a wider role in the mental life as well. For example, the Vietnamese traditional Tet holiday has food as the fundamental part and during this Lunar New Year celebration, people, especially women used to be in the tremendous and time-consuming business of preparing dishes peculiar to the festival. With the help of kitchen appliances, however, this work no longer occupies so much time as it took. Seen from the psychological perspective, this increases the time for other activities, such as a leisurely meal, which make life seem much easier. Furthermore, digital household goods like a television also contribute significantly as entertainers after a heavy day at work. In effect, turning on the set has been an easy option on rainy days and a decent way to bring the family together with a good show.

Despite the positives mentioned above, there are a couple of reasons that turn the activity of purchasing a wide range of household appliances into an overall negative one. Firstly, the usage of those devices certainly increases the electric demand around the world and in order to meet this surge in need, power plants will be erected more and more. This results in the exploitation of land resources as well as others like coal to operate and generate the gargantuan amount of electricity consumed in each household. Secondly, electrical machines and devices usually go unfashionable very soon as new versions come out. As a result, a throw-away society is formed with many adverse consequences to the environment, including the increasingly growing mountain of electronic waste. This type of waste is linked to serious health problems due to toxic chemicals released into the land and water or the air when exposed to heat.

In conclusion, while I agree with the sort of entertainment and convenience electrical appliances bring about, I strongly believe that it is a detrimental trend considering the environmental impacts.

Writing Feedback / Share as much information as possible or limit them ? (discuss both views) [2]

Some people believe that it is good to share as much information as possible in scientific research, business and the academic world.
Others believe that some information is too important or too valuable to share freely.

Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Any latest pieces of information discovered in the scientific, business and academic world is considered better to be widespread to the public while others hold the opinion that they should be kept in confidence or shared only with a price because of their value and importance. In my opinion, any discoveries in each field should be made known to the masses.

On the one hand, it goes without saying that the benefits of sharing will be enjoyed by the whole society, regardless of gender, race, religion and social status. If information is kept from being widespread, then the possible case is that only the elite and high profile people have the access to such precious and revolutionary breakthroughs. This may hold society back from making impressive strides towards the future as several pressing matters such as the ongoing plague, poor crop yields will not be timely tackled. For example, if the knowledge of the COVID-19 vaccine production had been maintained as a secret for profit-making, the mortality rate amongst those who unfortunately contracted this lethal virus would be much higher now.

On the other hand, however, the disclosure of invaluable news discovered to the masses in a country or even all around the world would be of a great sacrifice to the company, organization or individual who poured a lot of their efforts, money time to bring it into the light. We humans all have to accept that in order to research or invent something, to crystallize a business theory or to try a new pedagogical method can cost an astronomical price tag, a huge amount of time spent in researching, analysing, going through trials and errors, not to mention the mental fatigue caused by long hours of working as well as unwanted failures. Moreover, the huge profit they can amass through their work is so enticing and can assure them a better life as well as the resources to satisfy their passion for further creations.

Having said that, I believe there would be no big difference once their work is shared freely. Firstly, as long as it does good to society's well-being, there is no reason for the government to deny any petition for resources to conduct a new project. Secondly, the biggest happiness of an inventor who is really passionate about the job he is doing may not be derived from the money they will earn but how it can change the world for the better. Being recognized by a lot of people would be better than keep it to yourself and sell your work as a product. In this case, it means no more than a merchandise while if it can help people, it is invaluable and many people will remember you as, say, a hero.

In conclusion, the merits brought about by keeping new information confidentially are all eclipsed by those of sharing because of all the humanitarian reasons behind this act.

Writing Feedback / Education is the key to reduce consumption of junk food [3]

Scientists agree that people are damaging their health by eating too much junk food.

Some people think that the answer to this problem is to educate people. Others think education will not work.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.

It is a fact that people are doing great harm to their bodies by consuming processed food with a high frequency. To many people, the best method to preclude this growing pressing matter is education while others disagree and claim that educating people of the dire effects of unhealthy food will be of no avail. I personally agree with those who believe that education is the key to this problem.

There are several ways in which educating might be ineffective in the fight against the consumption of processed food. The first reason is simply because it saves a lot of time in the current fast-paced lifestyle. In the hustle and bustle of the city rat race, people often crave time, always prioritise productivity and that's why handy food like that gain such popularity. In this case, the situation basically leaves them with little choice. The second rationale to ignore the role of education is that the price of this food is most of the time affordable. The fact why junk food is favour by most people, especially children and teenagers comes from its modest price for a nice treat. It can satisfy people of all socioeconomic statuses, from the people of low-income families to the affluent entrepreneurs who are always on business and lack time.

However, I'm still on the side that without education, the problem will never be eradicated comprehensively in the future. All problems in society seem to stem from people's mindset and behaviour that is inherited in the environment they live in. For example, if a child lives in a house where his parents consume fast food on a daily basis, he may have the tendency to do so. The only way to break this convention is certainly a change in awareness that can only be brought about by education. With the equipment of knowledge, people may steer clear of this kind of food in aware of how detrimental it is or at least try to reduce how much they consume ready-made food. The educational programs and campaigns designed to raise people's awareness are in effect prove fruitful. For example, people gradually shift to a more healthy diet of vegetable-based meals made from home thanks to the growing amount of tutor videos about eating clean. Had it not been for education, people would never experience such a change now.

In conclusion, while I agree that there are a couple of reasons why people can ignore what they know about the adverse impacts of overconsuming junk food, education still plays a vital role in the elimination of this issue.

P/s: I know that I overwrite a lot, and I am desperate to know is there any way to make it more concise while at the same time remaining well-presented. Thanks a lot!!!

Writing Feedback / Problems living in big cities and whether the government should encourage more people to relocate [2]

issues pertaining to a city life

People living in big cities face problems; governments should encourage people to move to small towns. What are these problems? Do you agree the government should encourage people to move to small towns?

There is a suggestion that there are more incentives from the authority for people to migrate and settle down in less crowded towns due to the number of problems people face living in metropolises. In my opinion, the two central problems that city dweller encounter is poor air quality and inadequate housing and I totally agree that any governmental encouragement can contribute to mitigate these current problems.

The perennial problem in big cities all over the world is bad air quality. Due to the high volume of traffic, the exhaust fumes released are enormous. For example, most people in Vietnam favour private vehicles over mass transit basically because of their flexibility. This takes a toll on the air people breathe every day and as a consequence, residents, especially those from the youth and elderly population suffer severe respiratory conditions like lung cancer. The second pressing matter is the dearth of housing areas. More and more people move to bigger cities in the search for career prospects and better living standards, inevitably leading to increasing demand for dwellings. The implications of which are skyrocketing prices of properties and those who can not afford will be pushed to run-down places, resulting in the formation of slums. For example, a square meter of land in big cities in Vietnam can inflict cost 30 times larger than that of rural areas and many young people end up living in dilapidated buildings if they want to anchor to the city.

If people are motivated by the government to move to less popular towns, I believe pronounced changes are expected. Firstly, the reduction of traffic volume means a fall in the amount of toxic gases poisoning the air. This will leads to the situation in which everyone enjoys a better atmosphere. Secondly, if more people relocate to the smaller towns, the drain on city dwellers' mind concerning the property will be eliminated as there is more space now and the price will go down. There will be no concern about where to find a decent place without an astronomical price tag.

In conclusion, air pollution and housing shortage are the main issues pertaining to a city life and I completely agree that government should stimulate more people's migration to less crowded cities.