Writing Feedback / IELTS 2: Food travels thousands of miles from the farm to the consumer. Good or Bad [3]

In contemporary society, food can be transferred across the globe in order to meet its demand. Since this tendency plays a pivotal role in humanity, a great deal of discord has arisen in the society over its upsides and downsides. In this regard, distinct views will be discussed in many facets.

It is universally acknowledged that food supply is of necessity to mankind. To begin with, a wide range of food affords consumers more options to suit their preference. In other words, a society is deemed to be relatively more livable with enriched food diversity. More importantly, for the sake of allocating food and farm products, more labours and specialists are required. This, undeniably, boosts employment opportunity as well as stimulates economic growth of a nation. Thus, seen from this perspective, the trend of food transfer is not something necessarily detrimental.

In spite of this, some claim that food products may get contaminated easily when they are moved from one region to another. Furthermore, numerous rare diseases are determined to be contacted via food transit. As a result, it is disturbing that food from overseas could erode the local environment and public health.

Notwithstanding the disease transmission, the pros of food logistics are more palpable and profound. With the cutting-edge technology, customs could eliminate threats from foreign farm items by legislation. For instance, Australia strictly prohibits raw food imported by individuals and this policy is effective and efficient as far as I am concerned. Apart from this, the development of food transfer could decelerate food shortage, and perhaps hunger in particular areas. Accordingly, a vast number of people are the beneficiaries.

In conclusion, the advantage of long distance food travel for different purposes prevail over it advantages. I am convinced that as long as this development is under the scrutiny of countries themselves, the negative implication is minimal while it saves people lives.

(313 words)

Writing Feedback / IELTS 2: Should governemts spend money on art? [2]

Hi folks, I have taken IELTs for more than 10 times. Unfortunately, I only got 7 for writing for 3 times. I really need to consolidate my writing skill and ensure to get at least 7 in all bands. My weaknesses are coherence and cohesion, please check for me.

Q. Should governments spend money on art, when they have so many other important issues and concerns.

Art, a form of imagination to express ideas or feelings, is the pivot in some nations, e.g., Greece and Italy. While certain countries tend to allocate their budgets on art, some politicians assert that it is a waste of taxpayers' money to spend on this unnecessary thing. In this regard, both views will be discussed and compared. Personally, it seems that art contributes more positive effects than negative ones in many facets.

Throughout many centuries, art, particularly in painting, drawing and sculpture, affords a great deal of fulfilment to the creators and its audience. To begin with, art events and activities, which are promoted by council, provide great opportunities to artists and sculpture makers for displaying their artwork. Likewise, art-lovers can appreciate and purchase art products in more different ways. Consequently, funding on art is of great importance to the development of art industry.

In spite of this, some claim that governments should pay more attention to economic and educational aspects rather than art one. Undeniably, spending more on economy-related policies, such as constructing infrastructure and enhancing monetary system, can stimulate the economic growth of the nation. Furthermore, sponsoring and supporting educational institutions, like universities, can foster more aptitudes to work for the country, which augments the competitiveness as a nation. Thus, seen from this perspective, these two categories should be more concerned than art development.

However, art is beneficial to the economy and education in indirect ways. More specifically, some art represent history and messages in which the ancestors deliver to their posterity. This cultivates people interest in learning art as well as history. More importantly, numerous art galleries and well-known statues, such as the Statue of Liberty, attract a vast number of tourists from different countries to visit. Obviously, this would enhance the tourism and economy of the region. Hence, art can indirectly positively impact the country as a whole.

In conclusion, budgeting on art is not necessarily bad and should be encouraged. It generates many advantages, including economic and educational benefits, while its downsides are minimal.

(339 words)