Writing Feedback / A woman's place should be in home? [8]

I am practicing writing skills to prepare for my coming IELTS exam next month. Please help to give comments on my essay. Thank you very much for your supports.

" Some people believe in the traditional idea that the woman's place is in the home, while others say that idea is outdated that women should play an increasingly important role in the workplace of the future. What is your opinion?"

It is quite common these days for women in some countries to stay home after getting married. This trend is not only restricted to the rich family where the women do not need to work cause they already have too much money to cover for their family everyday needs, but is also among the middle class families where the husbands take the major roles of getting money for their families.

The reasons for this trend may involve the recognition that there are so many things for women to do after they get married, particularly for those who decide to have babies, e.g. raising children, taking care of her family and keeping house all is very tired and time consuming. Therefore, if the women can stay home, it will be easier for them and even for their husbands cause they can concentrate completely on their job and their career, which is very important for every men, without worrying about who will cook for his children today, who will take care of them, who will do the housework, etc. The roles of the women will even be more evident when their husbands working as contractors who always have to travel a lot to get jobs.

There are, however, certainly dangers of women only staying home. Women may find it boring and tired with every day tasks, but they have no other choices and cannot adapt to the situation. If this lasts long, it will be very dangerous for them because it can lead them to affection of depressed. The things are worse in some very rich families where women do not need to do anything at all, even at home. They may have the immoderate of spending money or having an adulterous relationship with somebody. But overall, I think it will be less likely, if the husbands respect their wives' decisions whether staying home or getting a job.

My position is men should encourage their wives to stay home if their children are small and need a lot of cares and they can take care of getting money duty for the family. And men should respect their wives' decisions whether to work or not.

Writing Feedback / Natural energy sources are limited, and cannot be replenished - alternative sources are important [2]

I am practicing to write IELTS essay. Please help me to correct my below essay. Thank you very much for your helps.

Government should make more effort to promote alternative sources of energy. To what extent do you agree with this opinion?

Answer:

It has been known for some time that the move towards alternative sources of energy is urgently required to stop effects of global warming, polluting environment and exhausting our natural resources. In my opinion, government should have more practical actions to promote the use of other types of energy such as solar, nuclear and wind.

To begin with, there is an alarming issue that governments, at present, are too reliant on gas, oil, coal. The burning of these carbon-based fuels is causing high-scale greenhouse gas emission which, in fact, is the main reason of global warming effects. In addition, accidents in efforts of transporting these sources may lead to serious pollution to environment. For instance, Oil spill has caused thousands of death in marine fauna, upsetting the marine food change. While sun or wind is clean and everlasting source of energy and it does not pollute the environment. Nuclear power is also clean, although it is not totally unproblematic, it would provide a large amount of energy and considerably improve the environment.

It is worth pointing out that natural energy sources are limited, and cannot be replenished. We cannot exploit them forever. Although they are sold at affordable price at presents, there is consistent climb. It is widely known that extensive economy crises happening in the world now, more or less, is stemming from fluctuation in price of oil. How would Eastern European countries be if Russia stopped supplying natural gas? How would the world economy be if the price of oil keep increasing? Therefore, escaping from dependency on fossil source of energy is not only important, but vital mission for every government.

In conclusion, I believe governments should make every effort to promote alternative sources of energy. And investing more on infrastructure, such as fields of wind turbines or solar panels to exploit energy from wind and sun or building nuclear power plant, is one of the possible solutions.

Writing Feedback / International tourism: 'foreigners should study local cultures before traveling' [6]

Please help to review my essay below. Thank you so much...

Nowadays, international tourism is the biggest industry in the world. Unfortunately, international tourism creates tension rather than understanding between people from different cultures.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

It has been known for some time that the international tourism industry is playing more and more important role in every single country's as well as the world's economy. Some people argue that it brings more troubles than helps such as tension rather than understanding between tourists and local people. In my point of view, I tend to disagree with this opinion.

On one hand, international tourism is undoubtedly good. First of all, it helps people to relax and get away from their world of work. By seeing natural landscape beauties, lying on beautiful sunny beaches or taking part in exciting wilderness adventures in remote countries, people can easily recharge and go back to their daily life with full of energy. Another second point is that while heavy industries are contributing majority of many countries' GDP, tourism is doing no less. However, tourism is totally a green industry with minimum initial investment and doing almost no harm to environment. Therefore, promoting international tourism is not only important but vital mission of every government.

On the other hand, being a tourist in foreign countries may bring with it problems that can lead to dislike of local people. There are plenty of reasons for this such as misunderstandings between locals and foreigners due to language barrier, tourist are often hassled to buy goods or being cheated. Yet, these situations can be improved with interventions and better management of local authorities. In contrast, native people may also end up disliking foreigners. Visitors may mistakenly act contrary or show their disrespectful behaviors to local norms. However, by reading and studying about the local cultures and customs of a country or city before coming, these unexpected tourists' behaviors can be eliminated without any difficulty.

In conclusion, my view is governments should do every effort to promote international tourism, have more practical interventions to keep security for tourist areas, and foreigners should actively study local cultures before traveling. By doing so, there will be no tensions but delight and benefits for both tourists and locals.

Writing Feedback / Changing jobs frequently or loyal to the same jobs? [3]

Please have a look on my essay below and comments. Thank you guys so much in advance...

People have different job expectations for jobs. Some people prefer to do the same job for the same company, whereas others prefer to change jobs frequently.

Write about the advantages and disadvantages of each viewpoint?

In the world of work, there is no doubt that everyone has different expectations and ways to develop his/her own career. Some people claim that frequently changing their job is good; some believe it is totally not. My essay will discuss both the pros and the cons of these views.

There are several reasons for people who choose to be loyal to their company. First of all, working for the same company for a long time might help people to establish a solid position in that company. This is very important since our world is experiencing difficult periods with serial of crises and labor market is getting harder than ever before. Another second point is that it brings stability to their lives, people don't need to be worry about moving their houses, changing their children's school or losing their source of income in a period of time. However, staying in one company too long may lead to the de-motivation, boring or even laziness. These issues affect seriously to employees' work quality which, in the end, the company will suffer.

There are also, however, strong arguments in favor of changing jobs frequently. To begin with, those who have spent some time working in different companies in different positions often have broader view of work and personal resources as well as skills to draw on. They tend to be dynamic and versatile, which are important factors in coping with the challenges of the company business. Yet, those who change jobs too frequent would be seen as unreliable, lacking in experience and loyalty. This causes employers might be reluctant to hire or invest training on them.

In conclusion, loyal to one particular job or changing jobs frequently resemble a double-edged sword. My point of view is that, people should stay in one company for a certain period of time, for example 3 to 5 years, to get expertise as well as significant experiences in that job, then they can change jobs to have new motivations and, which is not less important, new salaries.

Writing Feedback / Globalization leads to cultures identity loss? [5]

Please help to review my essay. Thank you guys so much in advance...

As mass communication and transport continue to grow, societies are becoming more and more alike leading to a phenomenon known as globalization. Some people fear that globalization will inevitably lead to the total loss of cultural identity.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

There is no doubt that globalization is an issue which frequently generates a great deal of heated debate, with opponents claim that globalization can lead to total loss of cultural identity, whilst supporters remaining that it is not true. The arguments surrounding such issue will hence be discussed in this essay.

Upon initial examinations, it cannot be denied that globalization is making countries in the world we live in closer than ever before. As a general rule, people around the world, in some ways, are becoming more and more similar. For example, we often eat the same food, watch the same TV shows, listen to the same types of music and we wear the same clothes. Beside, it is not difficult to find that many cities in Western countries are decorated during Lunar New Year as well as people in Asian countries are celebrating on Halloween or Thanksgiving days. As a consequence, it seems that societies are becoming alike and the uniqueness of every culture is dying.

On the other hand, advocators of globalization generally base their arguments on the essence of culture identity. The foundation of culture identity is shared values. For instance, in Eastern countries, living close to your parents and taking care of them when they turning old are considered very important, even when you are mature enough and have your own family. In contrast, in Western societies, people after the age of 18 are encouraged to move out by their own parents. Being independent is considered a great value. Another example is that, regardless of how well the world be globalized; most of Asian people still prefer chopsticks and spoons to forks and knives.

In conclusion, I totally disagree with the argument that cultures identity can be inevitably lost due to globalization. In my opinion, the identity of every culture is immortal and exists independently with globalization

Writing Feedback / Children with different levels of intelligence should be taught separately??? [11]

Here is my new essay. Please help to comment. Thank you guys in advance :)

It is widely believed that children of different levels of intelligence should be taught together, while others think that more intelligent children should be taught separately.

Discuss and present your own opinion.

It goes without saying that children education is an issue of much controversial. Some people think that children should be taught equally together regardless of their different intelligence levels. While some others claim that it is not appropriate. I am of the opinion that children with differences in intelligent levels should be educated separately. My view is based on the following reasons

While it is true that studying together may help young learners to develop their sense of harmony. However, this also has a lot of serious defects such as de-motivation, demoralization and weariness. For example, young people who study together with those of higher level intelligence often have the sense of inferiority. There are always questions in the minds such as "How come my friends can answer such difficult questions but they cannot?" "Why other people can resolve the exercises but I cannot?", "The teacher is teaching to fast, I cannot understand what he is talking about", "Am I really a loser?" If this situation last long, it will lead to demoralization and weariness in these children. In contrast, those who are more intelligent feel restricted in term of intellectual freedom. They deserve more difficult assignments or broader and deeper knowledge but cannot, and this will cause them de-motivated later on.

Another advantage of teaching children separately is that teachers can take care of their students better and give them more appropriate education. For instance, if good students are put into a more open education, where creative ideas are encouraged, with a lot of academic challenges, they are more likely to become excellent students. On the hand, children at lower level of intelligence with closer attention of teachers and families as well as given relevant teaching methods they will become better students. Besides, teaching separately also help to develop the sense of competition in children which is crucial for society development. Is Havard still the number one University in the world if one day it opens for every student?

In conclusion, my opinion is that although the sense of harmony can be generated by teaching children together, the pros of teaching children separately base on differences in level of their intelligence far outweigh those of teaching together. It is not only good for the development of children in individual but also for society in general.

Writing Feedback / Encourage to take private health care insurance or maintain free health care systems? [4]

The costs of medical health care are increasing all the time. Governments are finding it difficult to balance the health care budget.
Should citizens be totally responsible for their own health costs and take out private health insurance, or is it better to have a comprehensive health care system which provides free health services for all? Discuss.

There is no doubt that taking out private health insurance or maintaining the free health care system with free health care services, during the period that the price of health care services and variety of medicine keeps increasing and there is no sign of falling down, is an issue of much controversy. The arguments surrounding this issue will hence be discussed in the essay.

There are strong reasons that someone should be encouraged to buy private health care insurance. To begin with, giving free health care services to wealthy people who can afford or even they are willing to pay for good services is a waste of tax payers' money. Secondly, people who pay for insurance premiums have better services which free health care services cannot offer; such as they can select the best hospitals, choose the favored doctors or can stay in convenient patience rooms, .etc. Thirdly, paying insurance fees is one of the practical actions to help to lighten the government's financial burden.

On the other hand, there are also important reasons for remaining free health care systems with free health services; these systems still play an important role in society. For example, it enables people living in poverty or unemployed who cannot afford for dear insurance fees and expensive medical bills to have a way to take care of their health. No matter how poor they are, their rights to access health care system cannot be rejected. However, for those who are working, they should pay a percentage (1% or 2%) of their, even little, income as a tax which pays for the cost of providing "free" health care services. It is also another effective way to help the government.

In conclusion, my point of view is that governments should maintain both private health insurance systems and free medical care systems. The former ones are for people who are willing to pay and the other ones are for people who cannot pay or cannot afford to expensive health care services.

Writing Feedback / A college or university should be open for every student or only for good ones? [2]

Some people believe that a college or university education should be available to all students.
Others believe that higher education should be available only to good students.
Discuss these views. Which view do you agree with? Explain why.

There is no doubt that university education is an issue which generally a great deal of heated debate. Some people think that universities should be open for everyone, while others think that it should not. My opinion is everyone has equal rights to study at university or pursue higher education as long as they qualify the requirements of that university. My view is based on following reasons.

Firstly, pursuing a career and getting successes is a human right secured by every government; and studying in a university is seen as one of the most effective ways to achieve that purpose. Therefore, everyone must have equal chance to study in a university. However, this will lead to several serious drawbacks to people who do not qualify the university's requirements. For example, if someone who is not good at math, physics or chemistry but were allowed to study in technical university, he/she would find it very difficult to understand. If this lasted long, he/she would feel demoralized and would be very likely to drop-out.

Another important reason is that if anyone who didn't meet minimum requirements of a university but allowed to study there, would lead to deterioration of that university' education quality. Bad inputs lead to bad outputs which, in the end, the society will be suffered from. This is inevitable and has no exceptions. For instance, when I was in South Africa, in one discussion with a local friend, he sadly told me that the quality of South African Education has been decreased seriously. The reason was that because many local students cannot pass the normal exams but the universities are not allowed to fail them according to the government's rule; then they decided to lower the exam standards for all the local students to pass the exams. Consequently, many graduated students are not hired as they cannot qualify companies' requirements, the unemployment rate soars while the competent labor is turning old.

In conclusion, my opinion is that everyone should have equally chances to study a university or pursue higher education. However, to do this he/she needs to meet the minimum requirements of that university.

Writing Feedback / Contribution of artists and scientists are both important to society. [4]

Please help...

It is generally agreed that society benefits from the work of its members.
Compare the contributions of artists to society with the contributions of scientists to society.
Which type of contribution do you think is valued more by your society? Give specific reasons to support your answer.

It goes without saying the contribution of artists and scientists are both important to society. Some people claim that scientists make way more contribution than artists do, while others argue that it is not true. In my point of view, both artists and scientists are playing equal, valuable and irreplaceable roles in terms of contributing to our society. My view is based on the following arguments.

From the one hand, it is undoubtedly that art nourishes our souls, makes our mental lives diversified and healthier. Literature, for example, is a refuge of fantasy. It is a way of becoming someone you have always wanted to be, living in the world that you want to live - for both writer and reader. Lying on a beautiful sunny beach, reading a favorite book is an excellent way of relaxing. Movie, another the form of art, helps people to read a whole novel or a fiction in a lively way. Having a romantic dinner following by a good movie in a favorite cinema is a typical way of enjoying life. Music and dancing also make our life better. Listening to profound melodies or burning oneself in emotional movements is another great way of wiping out our stress. Therefore, without these art forms I believe that our world would become boring than ever before.

From the other hand, scientists play no less important role. I can hazard to say that every single one in the world is indebted to the scientists. We have cars and airplane to travel from one place to another place fast and safely. We have mobile phone so that we can talk to our friend who is thousands of kilometers far away. We have internet where we can access to the immense source of knowledge, etc. Finally, variety of medicines helps to cure many types of disease and prolong our lives. Those convenient facilities were all invented by nobody but scientists. The contribution of scientists, thus, is invaluable to the society.

In conclusion, someone cannot say that artists' contribution to society is greater than those of scientists or vice verse. My opinion is that both types play equal roles to the development of our society. Artists feed our mental lives, while scientists make our world a better and more convenient place to live.

Writing Feedback / Complain about a bad product or service in writing or in person??? [4]

Please help...

When people need to complain about a product or poor service, some prefer to complain in writing and others prefer to complain in person.
Which way do you prefer?
Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

Nowadays, it is common for people to complain about bad products or services. Some people are in favor of complaining in writing, while others prefer face-to-face complaining. My opinion is that it is hard to say which method is better, because it very much depends on what situation complainer is in and that each method has its own pros and cons.

There are good reasons for someone to complain in writing. For example, by writing a letter to complain about a bad product or service, one does not need to waste valuable time on driving a long way from home to the product center, waiting for his turn and talking to the representatives. It also enables them to avoid unpleasant conversation. Moreover, this method is especially effective in the case that someone does not have a chance to have a face-to-face discussion. For instance, a man is on a business trip in a foreign country; his mobile phone cannot use roaming services; then writing a letter is an excellent way to complain and ask the Mobile operator in his country to enable that service for him.

There are, however, strong arguments in favor of complaining in person. First, this method allows people to have immediate feedbacks. If one has complains about a company's product, he/she will receive answer and explanations right away. He/she doesn't need to wait for the company's response which often takes several days or even a month by sending a company a letter. Secondly, by seeing each other's facial gesture, or body movements, it can tell more about a person. In the case that one cannot receive a creditable answer from one representative, he can always require to talk to another person.

In conclusion, my point of view is that both complaining in writing or in person has its own advantages and disadvantages. Choosing which method to complain is very much dependant on the situations in which one is and depends on how he/she wants to do it.

Writing Feedback / Both parents work, bad or good?? [8]

Please help...

In today's competitive world, many families find it necessary for both parents to go out to work. While some say the children in these families benefit from the additional income, others feel they lack support because of their parents' absence. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Nowadays, it is very common that both parents in a family go to work. This trend is not restricted in families with difficult economic situations but also in wealthier ones. Some people believe that their children will have more benefits as both parents work, while others claim that this has negative effects on children. My opinion is that both parents working are an inevitable trend, it has its own advantages as well as disadvantages and that parents must find a means to keep balance between it pros and cons

It is undoubted that both parents working bring with it a lot of benefits not only to their children but also the whole family in general. First, with extra salary from both parents, children can be sent to a better school which requires more school fee, they can be given a better health care service from more expensive but better hospitals, in case they need closer supports with their studying their parents can afford to hire tutors without any difficulties, etc. Secondly, when a mother works, it means that she is helping to ease off her husband's financial burden and stress. A stable source of finance is always a foundation of every family's happiness. One obvious example is that traveling for a whole family annually, an excellent way of making families more close-knit, is only feasible if the financial source of that family is strong and steady.

On the other hand, this trend, however, has significant drawbacks. To begin with, in a family where both parents are too busy and concentrate too much on making money, their children are often lacked of necessary supports and supervision. For example, without parent's supports it is very likely for children to find their studying tedious and difficult. Overtime, it will make them demoralized, and affect seriously to their education's performance. Without parent's supervision, children will also be very likely to take on bad habits due to peer pressure such as game addicted, smoking, or even taking drugs. Moreover, there is an alarming issue that less and less close conversation have been made between children and the other family's members, many children feel lonely even in their own home. A parent should be aware that, not only the children's materialistic live need to be taken care of, but also their metal one.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that we cannot change the fact that both parents have to work nowadays. However, parents must find a happy medium to keep balance between their work life and the family life so that their children will be given benefits in both material and mental lives

Writing Feedback / A person should never make an important decision alone? I dont agree [3]

Please help to review my essay. Thank you very much in advance

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
A person should never make an important decision alone.
Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

It goes without saying that how to make a decision is always an issue of much controversy. Some people claim that one should never make an important decision alone, while others believe that it is not true. My opinion is that it is always beneficial to consult other people such as family, relatives, friends or colleagues before making any decision. My view is based on the following reasons.

First, from personal point of view, if one makes important personal decisions himself/herself without consulting with other people, especially with his/her parents, it may bring a lot of disadvantages to his/her life later on. For example, if one student studying in a high school, for some reasons he need to find a part-time job to have some extra money and he gets it. With his extra money he can buy things he likes which his friends who still studying cannot such as mobile phone, Ipod or even cigarettes. One day, he might come up with an idea to drop out from school as he might feel comfortable with that small amount of money, happy with his job. At that time if he just decided himself without discussing with his parents about his idea to get their advice, it would be a big regret for him later on as after years he might still be a worker with low income while his friends as engineers or doctors have more prospective careers.

Secondly, from the reality of the world point of view, a true leader is always the one who seeks for proper advice before making any important decisions. This is because he knows that his decisions do not only affect to himself but to other people around. For example, in the case of North Korea, the leader of the country instead of following policies to foster their own country's economy, improve their citizens' lives, and listen to their people's desires, they follow nuclear programs and always put other countries in fearing of a nuclear war. The consequences are the country's economy is surrounded; their people have to live in poverty, every year so many people have died of famine. It is all because of the proprietary in making decisions of the leader.

In conclusion, my opinion is that we each have to make our own important decision our self alone after all; no one can help us to do that. Therefore, learning to listen to others' advice and always seek for good ones before making any important decision is a crucial skill which is not only good for oneself but other people around.

Writing Feedback / Is saving endangered species worth? 'maintain the balance of ecological systems' [3]

Trying to save endangered animal species from extinction is a waste of valuable resources. Do you agree or disagree?

It has been known for some time that the issue of whether we should attempt to protect endangered species from extinction or not is always a contentious one. Some people believe that such animals serve no useful purposes and should be allowed to die out just as many others (including dinosaurs), while others think that it is not true. It is my belief that endangered animals species in fact should be preserved. The principal reasons for my view are as follows

First, it is vital to appreciate the importance of endangered animals in maintaining the balance of nature. Although there is much we do not know how ecosystems or biological communities function, we do know that no creature exists in isolation and that ecosystems are delicate arrangements where plants and animals all depends each other for survival. The removal of a single species can disrupt the balance, conceivably set off chain reaction affecting others by breaking the food chain and altering the habitat where they live. The impacts of these imbalances, though, are difficult to predict and frequently haunt us unexpected ways. Just as dingoes, Australia's top predators, they are classified as vermin as their appearance cause the loss of sheep. Dingoes even carry a bounty of AUD 20$ a head. It is because of this policy that the amount of dingoes decreased significantly over the time. Where dingoes had been exterminated, though, scientists found increased abundances of introduced red foxes and herbivores, while small native mammals and grasses were lost. Without a native predator, the kangaroo population exploded. They have become rivals of sheep, competing for water and grass. Consequently, kangaroos are now cursed more than dingoes. The extinction of a predator can cause plagues by allowing its prey multiply unchecked. Therefore, since ecological change constitutes potential risks to us and our environment, it is clearly our own interests to protect endangered species.

Despite the fact that extinction is part of natural order and that it does occur naturally, the accelerating decline of wild animals is less and less a result of natural events. Most dangers to wildlife are from habitat loss and degradation, environmental pollution, the introduction of exotic organisms, etc; all generally a direct result of human activities. One important example is that during the 3000 years of Ice Age period, all North America lost only about three species every 100 years while since the Pilgrims landed in 1620, more than 500 plants and animals have become extinct in North America alone. Aside from these, perhaps the strongest argument in favor of saving endangered species is that every creature has intrinsic value and a right to exist, even if they are not useful to us in any practical ways, they are needed to be preserved nevertheless.

In conclusion, I once again reaffirm my position that preserving endangered species is our vital mission and worthwhile. Not only, do they help to maintain the balance of our ecological systems, but they have value in and of themselves; and given that the human activities cause damages to them, we need to make every possible effort to save them. Endangered means there is still time, but extinction is forever.

Writing Feedback / Impacts of and solutions for rural depopulation??? [6]

These days, it seems that an increasing number of people are leaving rural areas to live in the city.
Discuss some of the effect of rural depopulation and suggest some ways in which this trend could be reversed.

It goes without saying that nowadays there are more and more people moving from rural areas to the city in search of work and excitement. This trend evidently brings with it a lot of complicated issues. In this essay, I tend to discuss the impact of the rural depopulation and suggest some solutions to encourage people to live in rural areas.

Overcrowding in the city is undoubtedly not good. There is a rising number of cities throughout the world are suffering environmental problems such as air, noise and water pollution. As a result, the living standards are deteriorated while the price of houses is pushed to excessively high just because the supplies do not satisfy the demands. My city, Hanoi with more than 8 million people, is a particular good example of this. It is not so difficult to find a typical household in the centre of Hanoi with more than ten people living together in an extremely small area from 15 to 20 square meters. Needless to say, it is imaginable how well they live. To buy those houses, surprisingly, people need to spend million dollars for each. Aside from this, the uncontrolled growth of cities also leads to series of social problems such as, traffic jam, high unemployment rate, poverty, crime or even the creation of slums. If this situation lasts too long, it will affect seriously to the stability and prosperity of a society.

In order to stem the tide of rural depopulation, I believe we must address its root causes. To begin with, one of the important reasons why people keep moving to the city to live is that because the services and facilities there are much better than those in their hometown. Therefore, I firmly believe that urban and rural dwellers alike find the idea of country life far more appealing if high quality shopping centers, restaurants, cinemas, schools, libraries and hospitals were more readily available in the areas outside the city. Another important solution is that government should plan and make effective public transport systems that are convenient for every commuter to go to the city and everywhere. Obviously, there is no reason for you to stick to the city if it takes only 30 to 40 minutes to get there from your house by train or tram. Relocating large companies, factories and universities to the countryside is also a valid solution as they are the primary causes pushing people to leave rural areas.

In conclusion, it is my belief that although this problem is unlikely to be resolved in the short term, it is by no means insurmountable. I am convinced that more and more people, like me, will choose the country life as city life becomes less comfortable and more expensive.