Writing Feedback / IELTS practice----Long distance flight should be banned or not? [15]

Long distance flight consumes natural resources and pollutes the air. Some people think it should be banned. To what extent do you agree or disagree.

While an increasing number people are having access to air travel, the detrimental effect flight has on the natural environment is drawing some individuals' attention. Because of this, they argue that air trips should be prohibited. However, I believe flight is still an integral part of people's life.

Admittedly, air travel is, to some extent, damaging to the environment. As a modern means of transportation, airplane has adequate space to hold up to 50 passengers, which requires a vast amount of fuel to operate. As a result, it may cause pollution to the air after taking off. Besides, creating the source of energy for planes to work is at the expense of depleting natural resources, which is harmful to the ecological balance.

Even so, the unique benefits air travel holds, I believe, outweigh its drawbacks. Flight is, doubtless, the most efficient way for people to transfer from one place to another, especially for long distance. For instance, it takes only 2 hours or so from Guangzhou to Beijing while people have to spend 20 hours by train for the same distance, which is more time-consuming. In fact, as the pace of life is accelerating, time is increasingly precious for people in modern society, which means flight is a necessity when people opt for their means of transportation.

Additionally, air travel provides a comfortable and enjoyable trip for passengers. As people are available to exquisite snacks and drinks, stimulating films and beautiful stewardess's service during flight, they regard air travel as an enjoyment and relaxation. As a result, air trips enrich people's life. Without flight, individuals would find the long distance trip monotonous and even miserable.

Therefore, I would conclude that we should, by no means, put ban on the air travel only due to the fact that it may damage the environment. In fact, people benefit a great deal from flight in terms of efficiency and enjoyment. But I would suggest the public raise awareness of flight's negative environmental influence and promote new technological development to relieve this bad consequence.

Writing Feedback / Technology keeps traditional skills and ways of life alive or not?--IELTS Practice [5]

Hi! everyone. How do you understand this writing task? Do you think I have fully answered the questions in my writing? Thank you so much.

When a country develops its technology, the traditional skills and ways of life die out. It's pointless to try and keep them alive.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Living in the 21st century, people are firmly convinced that technology is the main driving force behind productivity. Thus, every country has been promoting technological advances in the recent years, regardless of any potential problems it may bring about. Some people are worried modern technological technology is probably a hurdle to the preservation of traditional techniques and lifestyles. However, I believe their concern is groundless. Instead, technology plays a key role in promoting traditional techniques and lifestyles.

In terms of time and space, technology makes it more efficient and effective to promote the traditional skills and ways of life. In the past, only when people went to the local place could they experience the specific traditional lifestyles. This means individuals who were engaged in work and therefore could not spare time to travel or restricted by traffic conditions had to miss the chance to appreciate the traditional skills. However, with the access to the Internet, one of the greatest innovations in modern society, humankind can acquire the traditional techniques displayed online anytime, anywhere.

Additionally, technology enriches the way of displaying traditional cultural heritage, making it more vivid and appealing. For example, China has successfully promoted traditional techniques in the Shanghai World Expo, using a variety of state-of -the-art technological methods, such as robots and LED screens. In fact, many tourists around the world marveled at the perfect synthesis of the modern technology and the traditional culture.

On the other hand, some people are concerned that technology may have a detrimental effect on the traditional lifestyles. They argue that people, especially youngsters, are crazier about fresh and advanced things, such as digital products, thus becoming indifferent to traditional techniques. But I believe this is not the issue because people tend to follow the trend back to the tradition in the recent years.

Therefore, I will conclude that technology indeed supports the preservation and promotion of traditional techniques and lifestyles. Only when traditional culture is integrated with the modern technology can it be developed in the long run.

Writing Feedback / Traditional games or modern games in developing children's skills?--IELTS [3]

Traditional games are more useful than modern games in developing children's skills. To what extent do you agree?

Games have played a key role in children's growth, especially in terms of their abilities. With technological advances, children have more access to modern games currently. In such case, the relative importance of traditional games and modern games in children's developments of skills has become a frequent topic of discussion. For me, I believe parents and educators should attach more importance to traditional games.

It is true that modern games may be, to some extent, beneficial for children to foster some skills, such as computer skills or the capacity to keep up with the latest trend. This is because children have to be proficient at computers and the Internet if they want to join online games, which, in fact, helps children acquire a particularly powerful skill at work in future. At the same time, children have the chance to experience the state-of-the-art technology, raising their awareness of innovation rather than stay conservative.

However, I think traditional games are still indispensible in children's learning process, even much more essential than modern games, especially in modern society. One primary merit of traditional games is that they foster children's communication skills. Unlike most modern games which focus on the interactions between children and machines, traditional games provide a relaxing and enjoyable atmosphere where children can chat, laugh and cooperate face to face. As a result, communicating with a variety of people will not be an issue for these children any more.

Furthermore, it is the educational functions traditional games hold that keep them alive today. In fact, these traditional games were elaborately devised by educators and have been proven effective in improving children's skills on different aspects in previous teaching practices. By contrast, modern games are developed by game companies for the purpose of profits. Therefore, there is a risk that children may be exposed to unhealthy contents, such as violence or pornography, arranged in the games by such companies to secure financial survival.

Thus, I would conclude that traditional games should be, by no means, ignored by parents and teachers with the advent of modern games. Only through traditional games can children be ensured a positive and healthy skills learning process.

Writing Feedback / Government should be responsible for education and health care or not?--IELTS [NEW]

Some people say the government should pay for the health care and education, but others say that it is not the government's responsibility. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Despite the development of modern society, the health care and education still remain the basic rights of citizens. And a much debated issue these days is whether or not the government should be responsible for citizens' health care and education.

Some people argue that it is the government that should be obligated to fund the health care and education for citizens. This is because citizens enjoy the right to live in a harmonious and stable environment, which should be enabled by the government, the leader of the society. If citizens had no access to health care and education, their physical health and psychological soundness would be at risk. As a result, such people might fail to get cured in time, thus influencing their working efficiency, which would destabilize the production of the industry. Also, without sufficient guidance of teachers, these citizens might misbehave or even commit crimes, posing a threat to other citizens' security. Therefore, the government should be accountable for citizens' health care and education to keep society safe and stable.

On the other hand, some people oppose the argument, saying it is a waste of public money for the government to subsidize health care and education of each citizen in society, since a great number of people, in fact, have had the capacity to pay for the both privately. Instead, the government should give priority to more pressing problems related to social members' wellbeing, such as soaring crime rate, AIDS epidemic or the shortage of infrastructure, which are requiring financial resources from the government to address.

Personally, I think the government should fund the deprived for their health care and education, who are the group in real need for the authority's help. At the same time, citizens available for the both should encourage the government to allocate money to more urgent areas. After all, the harmonious society calls for the joint efforts of the government and citizens.

Writing Feedback / What are the purposes of places such as museums and how should they be funded?--IELTS [4]

What are the purposes of places such as museums and how should they be funded?

It is not uncommon to find a variety of museums, such as history museums, science museums, art galleries or even some private museums whenever an individual goes to visit a city. In fact, museums have become an integral part of a local place's cultural development.

Museums serve proposes in terms of education, entertainment as well as cultural and historical heritage preservation. From the perspective of education, museums provide visitors with first-hand experience of antiques or artworks, from which they can connect what they have learnt via books, the Internet or schooling to what they see in museums. Thus, museums can stimulate people's interests and enthusiasm in new areas, inspiring them to explore knowledge more deeply. Also, museums afford visitors a sense of entertainment and amusement. With technological advances, visitors have more access to exhibitions in diverse forms, which means people are more available to a multi-sensory journey in museums. When it comes to the preservation of local historical and cultural heritage, museums also play a pivotal role. In fact, some well-known museums are regarded as indispensible scenic spots by travelers, promoting the reputation of local culture.

However, many museums are still lack of adequate funding to operate today, especially for some newly-built ones. Personally, I suggest that the government should allocate appropriate proportion of its expenditure to local museums, improving their infrastructure to serve the public better. Besides, museums are supposed to depend on their own strengths, exploiting potential market by selling souvenirs, such as booklets of exhibits or specific handicrafts. In this way, museums would fund for themselves and, at the same time, meet their visitors' demand.

Writing Feedback / Optimistic about 21st century?positive change or not?--IELTS [8]

People are optimistic about 21st century. Many people think it is a good opportunity to find positive change in future. How do you think of the optimism? What changes would you like to be made in the new century?

The first decade of the 21st century has witnessed a series of great changes made by human races. Thus, a great number of people firmly believe that we will keep up this upward trend, achieving incredible goals in the next 90 years.

This is not groundless when we consider the fact that technology, the main driving force behind productivity, has been developing in a variety of fields, from medical care meeting people's basic demand to space exploration closely related to the achievement of human being's initial dream. This means people's potentials in different areas can be exploited to a larger extent. Therefore, it is not unrealistic to expect more powerful and productive innovations to be developed in future, tackling problems people are confronted with today.

Also, people in the new era have opened up their minds to new things, instead of staying conservative and resisting changes. In fact, people focus more on how to follow the new trend and benefit from the changes eventually. In other words, they attempt to keep positive to changes, regarding them as valuable chances to succeed.

On the other hand, some people may hold a pessimistic attitude to the emergence of positive changes. They argue that people in the modern society tend to seek fame and wealth, becoming increasingly cold and selfish, which would drive up a series of social problems, such as crime or loneliness. In such cases, it would be tough to achieve positive changes.

Personally, I am still looking forward to positive changes in future when people can care more others and the whole society. To be more precise, I suppose the environmental problems would be eventually addressed with technological advances and more importance people have attached to the earth. Also, I expect scientists would explore more space on another planet for human beings to live in.

Writing Feedback / IELTS; Government should spend money on ARTs, not only on public services [7]

Some people argue that the government should spend money on public services and facilities , but not on the arts. Do you agree or disagree?

As people have raised their democratic awareness in recent years, they are caring more about how the tax expenditure is distributed by the government. As a result, some people suggest that the tax money should be allocated to publically beneficial services instead of arts. However, from my perspective, I think arts are supposed to be included in the government's investment as well.

Admittedly, the government should give priority to public services and facilities. This is because the government plays the role of a leader among citizens, which should discharge the responsibility of making optimal use of the tax money to keep society safe and stable. Simultaneously, public services such as education system or medical care can meet people's basic demand of survival, security and knowledge, thus making them feel comfortable, which can lower the crime rate. Therefore, public services and facilities should be given adequate attention by the authorities to maintain social stability.

On the other hand, I believe arts should by no means been disregarded by the government. Individually, arts can enrich people's cultural lives. Currently, people are increasingly occupied with their work and studies due to the stiff competition. Consequently, they require various entertainment such as music, movies or books to them ease their minds and release pressure. Without arts, people would be at risk of suffering psychological problems.

From the point of the local community, funding arts is beneficial to the local cultural and economic development. Cultural heritage constitutes an essential part of arts. This means preserving local arts may promote the preservation of the local cultural heritage, which not only helps the local people have a sense of belonging but also contributes to the booming local tourism industry. In this view, arts serve cultural and economic purposes .

With those arguments in mind, I would conclude that public services and facilities are an integral part of the government expenditure. At the same time, the authorities should also respect the value of arts which are individually and socially advantageous.

Writing Feedback / economic development vs environment ---IELTS [8]

Some industrialized countries have serious environmental problems. The damage to the environment is an inevitable result when a country tends to improve the standard of living. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Currently, a great number of countries have pushed forward their economies by developing national industries. However, some people are worried that the economic targets in industrialized countries may be attained at the expense of the ecosystems. From my perspective, I think flourishing economies can go hand in hand with environmental preservation.

Admittedly, some countries may place economic developments ahead of environmental protection, thus ruining the local environments. As these needy countries lack adequate financial and human resources, advanced technologies and experience, they have to rely on natural resources to maintain their living standards. Besides, people in the poverty-stricken areas are not likely to be equipped with knowledge to preserve the ecosystems. As a result, unchecked and reckless uses of the local raw materials may happen, which can put a strain on the natural resources. In this view, the economic development and environmental protection can be conflicting.

However, I believe the booming economy can be closely linked to the preservation of the environment. With people raising their awareness of the green economy, the products free of pollutants are increasingly prevalent among clients, which means eco-friendly businesses can make a favourable impression on customers today, triggering sales. For example, electronic bicycles powered by clean energy resources have been well received among people in recent years.

Furthermore, taking environmental consequences seriously can enhance working efficiencies. If a firm is environmentally conscious, it may have to make optimal use of its resources to improve its production lines and equipment, which can boost productivity. Therefore, it may spur its economic development. On the other hand, without the requirement of environmental preservation, the firm would still consume a vast amount of energy which constitutes a large part of its operational costs, being a hurdle to the economic develpment.

Therefore, I would conclude that thriving economies and the preservation of ecosystems can be promoted simultaneously. On the other hand, I suppose the developed countries should support the underdeveloped areas by providing financial resources, technologies and experience so that the environmental problems can be effectively alleviated in these areas.

Grammar, Usage / Question on describing statistics in charts [2]

Hi, everyone, please help me with some questions on describing statistics in charts, thanks so much!!! (the words in bold style is what i'm confused about)

1、The largest size of internet users belonged to Germany, witnessinga dramatic rise from 5 million in 1995 to 14 million in 2000

"witnessing" is used like this, is it right? I just want to explain like this" the largest size of internet users witness a dramatic rise...", is this sentence natural？

2、Internet was the most popular among UK residents, with the number of internet users increasing from 16 million in 1995 to 41million in 2004.
Internet was the most popular among UK residents,increasing from 16 million in 1995 to 41million in 2004.

here, the second sentence is wrong? I guess that's because we can't say" internet increase from..." is it right?

3、The same trend was also seen in talking with friends, increasingto 8%. (here are 2 pie charts about leisure activities of european adults, describing the proportion of adults doing different activities in 2001 and 2005, talking with friend is one activity).

here, "The same trend was also seen in talking with friends" OR "The same trend was also seen in the proportion of talking with friends"?

, increasingto 8% OR with the proportion increasing to 8%?---i'm not sure if i could say" the same trend increased from...to..." or i should change the subject to "the proportion increased from to"

4、Talking with friends was more popular in 1995, with the figure rising to 26% compared with 21% a decade ago.
Talking with friends was more popular in 1995,rising to 26% compared with 21% a decade ago.

which one is right？ " talking with friends rose from...to" OR " the proportion of people talking with friends rose from to"?( here, talking with friends is the leisure activity i mentioned in the last question，in the same essay)

5、speed limit offences was the second main type of motor vehicle offences,rising from 602 thousand in 1995 to 2076 thousand in 2005.
OR speed limit offences was the second main type of motor vehicle offences,with the number rising from 602 thousand in 1995 to 2076 thousand in
2005.

which one is right? " speed limit offences" or "the number of speed limit offences" rose from... to...?

Thank you :)