Essays / The Diary of Anne Frank Dramatic License Info [3]

By the word choice it sounds too me that Ellen Feldman means to say that the attitude of the writing in the diary has changes. By extension this would be the attitude of the author, or Anne Frank. This could also be the tone of the diary and the message that it sends. You should consider how the changes made in the play affect the message and the story. Are some characters portrayed differently? Are the essential messages the same? How does your vision of Anne and her story change between reading the book and reading or viewing the play?Consider why the authors of the play decided to make certain changes despite the fact that they are portraying a real story. Did the authors of the play tamper with history? In the diary, the voice is of Anne, but in the play the authors and directors will inevitably bring their own voices.

Writing Feedback / Proportional number of gender in education system [2]

Final comments: You only present one argument against gender equality mandates in the classroom, that it will force students to take a subject which they are not passionate about. You should give more reasoning. Additionally you should develop this reason and say why taking classes outside your passion is damaging. If you are going to cite Japan as an example of a good system, say why this system is good, such as their high international test scores or something. If you are going to use a strong word such as "injustice", you need to to truly justify it. I would recommend re-writing this entirely

Writing Feedback / Effects of balanced numbers of male and female students in universities [3]

In recent years, having higher education is becoming a mainly purposeof some people. Many universities are opening wider possibility following subjects for all kinds of students.

... I personally argue that it is not being an essentially requirement , more attention for academic qualification should be paid by universities . ----> The words and phrases in red need to be changed because they are incorrect or don't make sense, here are my suggestions: "mainly purpose" to "an important goal"... "opening wider possibility following" to "creating more possibilties for"... "being an essentially requirement" to "an essential requirement"..."more attention for academic qualification should be paid by universities" to "universities should pay more attention to academic qualifications

A positive effect in promoting equality of both sexes is that it will open balance opportunities . For example, in engineering department dominantly gives more chances for male students, beside woman are just as capable of following any subjects as men have. Thus, it is a possible way to increase in particular attracting of women for joining in higher learning to reduce the women unemployment rate . ---> "in engineering department dominantly gives more chances for male students, beside woman are just as capable of following any subjects as men have." --- What does this mean? how about this: "Engineering departments usually give more opportunities to male students despite the fact that women are just as capable of success and understanding in the same subjects". What proof do you have of this?

In addition, accepting a balance of gender in university positions gives more benefits for society since many various qualifications of gender. Take medical experts as an example, in remote areas which have hardly any accessibility will possibly need male medical expert qualification. As it can be seen, same graduated in men and women should be provided by a university department . "since many various qualifications of gender."---> what does this mean? "same graduated in men and women should be provided by a university department"---> what does this mean? I don't understand your point, be more specific and clear.

However, while making the numbers balanced benefits both sexes , it has its drawbacks too. Firstly, it is better to accept student in a particular course or meeting ...

Secondly, the number of woman in the world is five times more than male rate. Consequently, university is not possible to make equal requirement. Furthermore, the higher number of female's s in the population that (...) will reduce the womanfemale unemployment rate. A statistic by the Bureau Labor showed that women tookhad a 68.7 % joblessness rate in South-East Asia. As a result, if there is no accepting equal numbers of genders, it was ...---> what do you mean? I don't understand.

The aforementioned evidence shows that , although accepting equal numbers of each gender is a good way to attract prospective students(How is it a good way to attract prospective students?) , it is not essential oneto increasing the competitive behavior of the university. Where possible, the government and university should be pay more attention and having wise solution with the graduated purposes.----> What does that mean? I don't understand at all.

Writing Feedback / IELTS essay; as long as we want to live in a free society, the freedom of speech should be respected [7]

I did some editing:

In the 21st century most of the countries in the world are ruled according to democracy. This type of government provides nationals with many rights, for instance, freedom of speech. Assuredly, it is an absolute necessity in a free society and, by all accounts , it is allowed to restrict this right. (this sentence seems contradictory... should free speech be a right or restricted?)

First of all, refer ring to the afore mentioned political issues, freedom of speech is a way to know the opinions of the whole society. As a result, it is the easiest solution to avoid a regime of one political option. Moreover, in the long run, it also disables changing the system, for example, by replacing it with authoritarianism. Thereupon, the one right preserves other rights as well.

Secondly, knowing various opinions of the people, sometimes even contrary ones can be used in positive way, too. To clarify, it may broaden horizons, not only in case of politics, but of every individual. Therefore, it is especially significiant to remember that apart from using freedom of speech, listening to other people is equally important. With this in mind, freely pronounced different points of view will always bring benefits for people.

However, some opponents claim that overusing this right happens too often. As a consequence, the border between free speech and an utter offence is disappearing. To some extent, it may be true, especially in situations when statements about public figures are made. Nevertheless, it must be noted that the law should not be blamed in this case but the people who use it inappropriately .

All things considered, I strongly support a statement that freedom of speech is necessary and that it is one of the basic rights nowadays. On no account should it be allowed to dissapear as long as we want to live in a free society

Writing Feedback / The host country should welcome cultural differences but people have to follow the local behavior [2]

I am going to make some changes to your work, if you have any questions, let me know! :)

However, I would personally argue that the travelers should behave well about new culture. (what do you mean? I don't understand.)

One of the reason that people have to follow the local behavior is that they get more new sensation of holiday (what do you mean? rephrase this because I can't understand.) .

Writing Feedback / The priority is to minimize a high cost of people's budget when they want to go anywhere [2]

I made some edits in this to the grammar and wording, the reasoning is pretty good, but it might be better to give more reasons for one side, it is not entirely clear which you think is better, you seem to be in favor of both equally, but the question asks you to choose one, if you choose both you should be clear that funding should be divided

... governments should spend funding to build the number of public transportation systems in order to reduce pollution which is one of the causes of the significant increase in global warming. However, others believe that it would be better if the city councils spenta lot of money to develop electric ...

Developing many public transportation systems is a must for governments for several reasons. First of all, the more private cars, the more traffic congestion happens on the road because it is difficult for governments to enlarge the roads, so as that using public transportation is an effective way to solve this problem . In addition, using private cars produces bad pollution (is there good pollution?) which is the predominant cause of global warming. In 2013, a paper published by experts in the J ournal of C limate examines the recent IPCC statement that expressed with 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming. so that it proves that using public transportation can alleviate bad pollution.(How does it prove this? Does the article have a direct link or is this just your own connection? Elaborate and make this a separate sentence) Not only this, using mass transportation can decrease people's budgets because the cost of using private cars is higher than using public transportation.

On the other hand, the development of electric and other types of cars is more effective because it is not possible to make policy to limit societies of using private cars. For this reason, electric cars are the best solution for those people who worry about increasing of global warming that it is caused by pollution from private cars. Take Japan as an example, the government of Japan produces many electric cars to fulfill their societies' needs. As a result, Japanese can use private cars without worrying about carbon emissions. There is no doubt that governments should spend their funds to develop electric and other types of cars.

To conclude, although developing electric and other types of cars is able to reduce pollution which increases global warming, governments should spend their budgets to develop public transportation systems which can minimize the high cost of people's budget when they want to go to anywhere, and it is effective to force crowded street.(I don't understand this sentence, you should rephrase it because it doesn't make sense in English)

Writing Feedback / IELTS essay; as long as we want to live in a free society, the freedom of speech should be respected [7]

Sorry for the spelling error, I was typing too fast. You wrote that the government should "restrict" the right of free speech, but restrict means :

1. To keep or confine within physical limits:
2. To prevent or prohibit beyond a certain limit or by restriction:

therefore be sure to change this wording if it is not what you mean

Writing Feedback / The number of marriages-divorces and marital status in the USA [3]

I made some corrections, but also try to be more clear and specific. Try to break up your sentences more to be clear, you don't need to cram too much information into one sentence.

The two charts give information regarding marriages and divorces in the USA from 1970 to 2000. The first chart shows the number of marriages and divorces in ten year increments between 1970 and 2001. The second chart shows the division of adult Americans in four categories of marital status for the year 1970 and the year 2001.

What stands out from the first chart is that the number of American people getting married and divorced shows a downward trend over the time periods. The second chart shows that the highest percentage of adults in the USA in both years were classified as "married" , while the lowest percentage was in the "divorced" category in 1997 and "widowed" in 2000.

In regard to the first chart, in 1970, the number of marriages in the USA stood at 2.5 million of people which was higher than the number of divorces. This trend was unchanged in next period before the amount of American people getting married experienced a decrease in 1990 and 2000 at about 2.3 and 2 people million approximately. In contrast, at one million people in 1970, the number of divorces increased slowly to some 1.4 million people in 1980 before it reached one million in 2010.

Moving to a more detailed analysis, the second chart reveals that the "married" status was the highest percentage of all in both years. It was at 70% in 1970 and at about 59% in 2000 , followed by never-married as status as the second highest. While under 10%, widowed status in 1970 had a similar pattern with divorced status in 2000 at around 8% of marital status of adult Americans, and then divorced status in 2000 was the lowest of marital status in USA which was some 5% lower than the percentage of widowed status in 2000.