Writing Feedback / IELTS_writing: should people exploit animals for human purposes? [3]

topic : some people think that it is acceptable to use animals for the benefit of humans. Others, however, think that it is wrong to exploit animals for human purposes. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

The issue of whether people should use animals for human purposes or not is certainly a contentious one. In the following essay, I intend to discuss both these aspects and give my own opinion.

First of all, using animals for benefits has been a long story in human history. In the dawn of human civilization, people hunted animals for fur and food. Not long before that, they began to rear livestock, which provided them extra benefits like eggs and milk. Since then, of course, starvation seemed to be not as huge as a problem compared with before. Now people are using animal experiments for finding vaccines which can help humans overcome epidemics. Clearly, there could be a lot more benefits we would gain from animals in the future. However, this is only one matter at hand.

However, today's people exploiting animals too excess has seriously undermines the biological diversity.One particularly good example of this is the hunt for shark fin, in some eastern countries, people's huge demand for shark fin soups has prompted fishermen to empty the oceans of sharks. Similarly, in Africa thousands and thousands of elephants have been killed for ivory, which has left some species of elephants extinct forever in this world. In order to get rid of these problems, therefore I believe greater regulations about exploiting animals are required.

In conclusion, although the benefits of using animals are significant, given the risks of the destruction of biological diversity. I believe the process of using animal resources must be carefully supervised.

Writing Feedback / IELTS:should students who majored in education or medicine work in rural areas first [2]

Topic: in many countries, good schools and medical facilities are available only in cities. Some people think that university graduates who become new teachers and doctors should work in rural areas for a few years. To what extend do you agree or disagree?

The issue of whether students who majored in education or medicine should work in rural areas first is certainly a contentious one. Despite there are valid arguments to the contrary. I personally believe it is better for them work in cities after graduation. While working in rural areas should just be one option among other options.

From my perspective, teachers and doctors should go where there is the greatest demand for them. With the current trend of rural depopulation and uncontrolled growth of cities, countryside is no longer the most urgent place that keen need teachers and doctors. Instead, some regions in cities such as suburban districts and slums (in less affluent countries particular) often have a huge demand for education sources and medical care. Rather than serving the minorities in remote areas, I feel that fresh graduates should devote themselves for the sake of the majority population in urban areas.

Yet, perhaps the strongest argument in favor of young teachers and doctors working in cities is that of human rights. Even if rural dwellers have the same right to obtain high quality education and medical care as some of their counterparts have in cities, new graduates also human beings, they also have the right to determine where to live and work. Given that most young people tend to find job in cities, dispatching new teachers and doctors to work in rural areas would be a violation to their civil liberty.

In conclusion, I once again reaffirm my position that fresh graduates should work in cities because they can help more people there. As choosing workplace is a human right, we should only encourage those people who willingly serve in rural areas.

Writing Feedback / IELTS:should we discourage non-essential flights to reduce environmental problems. [3]

Topic: A long-distance flight consumes the same amount of fuel and causes the same amount of pollution as a car does in several years' time. Some people think that to reduce environmental problems, we should discourage non-essential flights, such as tourist air travel, instead of limiting the use of cars. To what extend do you agree or disagree?

Environment problems have become increasingly popular in many parts of the word today. Hence some people take flights into blame. It is my personal belief that restricting the use of planes is barely scratching the surface. The reasons for this are as follows.

First of all, environmental problem is the issue of such complexity that no single solution is likely to have a phenomenal influence on it. Although long-distance flights could generate a considerable amount of greenhouse gases, compared with some factories, I believe this is just a dip in the ocean though. Rather than introducing legislations to limit using flights, I feel that people should move attention on more effective ways to reduce the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide such as planting more trees or exploiting clean energy sources.

Secondly, I would contend suggestions like encourage people to use more cars to alleviate hothouse gases emission is totally misleading. Even if cars consume less fossil fuel than flights, the uncontrolled numbers of vehicles will cause more problems (e.g. traffic congestion, road accidents etc.). Moreover, more cars mean more infrastructures need to be done by governments. Of course, this will add a huge financial burden on countries.

In addition, there is no proper definition to define non essential flights. Although I certainly agree that flights for politic reasons and businesses are crucial. It is by no means to deny the importance of tourist air travel. Despite the economic prosperity that brought to many countries by air travelers, people can emancipate pressure from travel through nations to nations. More importantly, people of different cultures could get more chances to know each other.

In conclusion, I reaffirm my position that travel by plane should not be constrained. Even though there are some negative impacts on the environment,I think they would be insignificant when compare with its role in promoting the world economy and cultural interaction.

Writing Feedback / IELTS_ Why little has been done to prevent animals and plants from dying out? [2]

Topic: Little has been done to prevent animals and plants from dying out, although people have been aware of this problem for a long time. why have people done so little about it? how can we solve this peoblem.

There is a widely held perception in many parts of the world today that biological diversity is in decline. Oddly, though, very few actions have been taken by people to stem this tide. In this essay, I intend to explore the sources of this vicious circle along with some viable solutions to it.

Clearly, the most serious problem problems of endangered species extinction are often felt in rural areas. As a result of over cultivation & deforestation, natural habitats for plants and animals are increasingly axed. Little wonder, they become dying out. Moreover, some famer still hunt endangered animals for money (e.g. selling their fur, organs, bones etc.). Ironically, on one hand, people criticize poor farmers' illicit behaviors. On the other hand, they aspire things like shark fins, ivories. In addition, many endangered species seriously serve no useful purpose to human beings, thus some people simply do not believe we need to protect them.

In order to save endangered species from extinction, I believe we must first address its root causes. Perhaps the most effective method of doing this would be for government to provide financial incentives to rural dwellers, who willingly sacrifice certain farmlands and converting them to suitable habitats for plants and animals. Admittedly, such incentives would probably not fully compensate farmers for the lose income. However, this would at least soften the hardship of living in a shrunken land resources. One further measure would to promote educational campaigns warning people about the seriousness of the reducing biological diversity.

In reality, of course, the challenges that presented in saving endangered species are numerous and complex. Although they are by no means insurmountable, it is highly unlikely that they will be reserved in the foreseeable future.

Writing Feedback / IELTS_should government pay for people's education and health care? [2]

Topic：the government should pay for people's education and health care. to waht extent do you agree or disagree?

Healthy and well educated citizens are the backbone of a strong society. I strongly agree that governments should take the responsibility of providing free education and health care to people. However, private education and medical service, to some extent, can be provided as a supplementary.

First of all, education and medical treatment are largely considered as a basic right, without them a country will face severe social problems. Imaging the chaos that would be ensue if people do not understand how to read, write, and calculate; imaging what will happen if patients can not afford medical fee. Further, education infulence public's awareness of health care. It is interesting to note that bad habits such as prostitution, substance abuse, alcoholism, smoking etc are often find in those individuals who were inadequately educated.

Yet, perhaps the strongest argument in favor of governments providing free education and health care is that of taxes. Remembering, it is the entire nation that paying taxes. Therefore, it is by no means for education and medical care exclude form any other services. Admittedly, public service cannot meet all the demands. E.g. some students wish to attend private schools or some patients want to purchase high level medical service. Then, I think private profit-making companies should be encouraged to private these services to public. On one hand, private education and medical treatment reduce the strain on public service. On the other hand, they provide a source of tax revenue for the government.

To conclude, I reaffirm my potion that government should face up the responsibility of providing free education and health care, because they people's fundamental needs and crucial in maintaining social stability. Nevertheless, if individuals require more than standard level they should be prepared to pay it.

Writing Feedback / IELTS_cultural traditions will be destroyed by developing tourism. right/wrong? [3]

topic :Some people think that cultural traditions will be destroyed if they are used as money-making attractions aimed at tourists. others, however, believe that is the only way to asve these traditions. Discuss both these views and give your opinion.

How to preserve cultural traditions has become a heated topic throughout the world. Some people believe we should boost tourism, while others against it. It is my personal belief that utilizing the specialty of a country's culture to develop its tourism meanwhile helping saving the country's old traditions is a good approach. However, it is not the only method.

Some people tend to think that using cultural traditions for tourism purpose would destroy their cultural identity. The main reason might be that they are worrying about the culture assimilation from other cultures that bring by tourists. Specifically, local people will tend to change their traditions to cater the majority tourists' expectation. For example, it is common to see branches of KFC, McDonald, Starbucks in any tourist attractions around the world.

On the other side of the debate, many argue that tourism is the only way in which help to save cultural traditions. That is because the current trend of globalization that has prompted culture assimilation becoming transnational. Therefore, in order to be sustainable, countries must learn to propagate their culture to the world. Perhaps, one of the most effective ways of doing this would be to promote tourism. Taking Thailand for example, since this country embraced a tourist industry revolution, I have witnessed a phenomenal amount of Thailand restaurants in my hometown, which I never heard of just 5 years ago. Clearly, tourism does have the potential to thriving a country's traditions.

As far as I am concerned, cultural assimilation is inevitable. The only way to reduce the likelihood of being assimilated is to propagate a country's own culture instead of hiding it. In addition to developing tourism, solutions such as giving financial incentives to local film industry, organizing cultural activities in communities can also give saving cultural traditions a helping hand.