Writing Feedback / Writing 2: Should the government encourage a certain percentage of jobs to be reserved for women? [3]

Men do most of the high-level jobs. Should the government encourage a certain percentage of these jobs to be reserved for women?

Use your own knowledge and experience and support your arguments with examples and relevant evidence.

Different jobs for both gender

With the rising of women's consciousness, there are more and more people advocate gender parity. Especially in work place, men dominate the more high positions than women do currently. I believe the government should protect a certain quota of the high-level jobs for women.

The first reason is, obviously, men and women are definitely different in physical aspects. Thus, when it comes to the job regarding physical factor, for example, cement porter, women tend to show the less abilities than men do. Besides labor conditions, there is no reason for women to reach the same achievement as men do.

The next reason I am on the position of supporting the government reserve the jobs for women is that it can stimulate the diversities. Because of sexual stereotype, the public often think women are emotional and cannot think as logical as men do. In my opinion, that argument is quite unfair since men are equal mad and exaggerated. Hence, women can use this kind of personality adequately, thinking in more considerate and detailed ways. Particularly for the higher positions, they usually need to manager people. I suppose that having more gender can boost more spark in career.

Having said that, the opposite people argue that the behavior of limiting the certain percentage for specific gender is ironically against the parity itself. However, the history proofs that women had been treated as second people for a long time. Compare to men, women got the working right after World War two, which was less than a hundred year to now. Therefore, I strongly support that ensuring the women working right is the right path toward a equal society.

To conclude, it seems reasonably clear that the government should be encouraged to make a growth of high position quantity for women.

Writing Feedback / Writing 2: Computers replacing teachers / Money Education [2]

Computers, Money and Education

Computers, robots, or any AI application, these high technologies with high intelligence are using widely in modern life. Some people think this kind of tech can replace human being in certain area, furthermore, replacing some occupations requiring professional skills, like teachers. As for me, I am on the opposite position with this statement.

The first reason is that the ability of teachers is far than teaching knowledge. By sharing the attitudes toward life and their teaching experiences that accumulate by years, the value of a teacher is a model they act to students. Especially for the young generation, which tend to imitate someone they admire. In contrast, Computers are apparently cannot establish any good example to anyone.

The other reason I disagree to let computer eliminate teachers is due to the things students need to learn are more than textbooks. They learn how to cope with other gender; to experience the life in team term; to study how to stress the pressure when encountering frustrates. These situations sound happening in peer, however, the really position leading them to border their horizon is the key role -teachers. Without the instruction of teacher, the things students learn may be misleading or distortion. This is the feature that computers cannot replace-the interaction with others.

The practicalists may argue that the biggest benefit is saving money, since the cost on human hiring must higher than machines. Having say that, I think these people are too utilitarian orientation. It cannot be denied that money is worth considering, but I think education is so important that cannot be measured by money.

To sum up, I suppose that no matter how useful computers could be, teachers are still indispensable for the reasons I proofed.

Writing Feedback / Each roles are significant - who should teach kids how to be good members of the society? IELTS W2 [4]

Some people think that parents should teach children how to be good members of the society. Others, however, believe that school is the place to learn this.

growing-up stages from different aspects

Being a good member in society is an important lesson for children, and who should take such responsibility, whether parents or school, becoming a worth discussing issue. I think both sides play equally important roles and reasons are following.

Firstly, imitation is children's nature, and the way they learn to treat the world. Furthermore, their first models are usually their parents, who spent most of time with during the childhood. Kids copy parents' behavior, regarding the words they use, the attitude they toward others and the value they have. There is a Chinese saying that goes, like father like son, which means what kind of parents will have the same type of children.

Secondly, after entering schools, where not only provide the educational opportunities, but also a place children start to learn how to cope with others. This is their step to socialize. Apart from the peer, teachers are model to the kids as well, since they replace the roles as parents in school life, who lead children explore the world. You can image a school as a small society, where the child will face many frustrations and joy, learning how to be a mature adult.

To conclude, although people hold different views toward who should teach children be a great participant of society, whether parents or school, I suppose each roles are significant since these people will affect the children in many aspects during their growing-up stages.

Writing Feedback / IELTS W2. People do not have such a close relationship with their neighbours as they did in the past [2]

In general, people do not have such a close relationship with their neighbours as they did in the past.
Why is this so, and what can be done to improve contact between neighbours?

Bonds between people are not so tight like it was before

Neighbor plays an important role in our life, whereas a good neighbor can bring benefits and a bad one can make your life miserable. Having said that, in modern society, we have become more and more isolated, having far distance from the neighborhood. In the following essay, I am going to discuss the reasons and the alternative method to improve the relationship.

One of the main reasons is that the change of family structure. In the past, an ordinary family usually includes three generations, from grandparents to grandchildren. However, with the low birth rate, the average population in a family in Taiwan, according to the latest demography, is less than three people. In such premise, the demand for the living place transfer from a house to an apartment. Therefore, the less amount of people live in a rather smaller place, making an isolated form of living.

The other reason may cause the cold relationship between neighbors is the widespread use of high technology. Nowadays, technological gadgets are ubiquitous; people can communicate with others without face to face, by using the APP in mobile device, spending more time on virtual world than reality. Those high techs seem to bond the connection between people though, the real interaction are dying away.

In order to improve the link between neighbors, I suppose that the administration of a community can often held various activities, not only festival celebrations but also some educational types, attracting the residents to participate in. Via these activities, whole community can strengthen the identify, and the concept of "neighbor" is not "the person who living next to you" anymore.

The ignorance of neighbors reflects an indifferent society. By giving more concerned toward our neighborhoods, we can make a warm world.

Writing Feedback / Writing 2: It has been suggested that everyone in the world wants to own a car, a TV and a fridge. [2]

It has been suggested that everyone in the world wants to own a car, a TV and a fridge. Do you think disadvantages of such a development outweigh advantages?

the evolution of human needs

The desire of having own items is human nature. With the boost of economic development and the growing number of advertisement, raise the desire of having more and more products. Whether owing a car, a TV, even a fridge is essential or not, I think the drawbacks are by far than the benefits for following reasons.

First of all, these kinds of products are certainly not necessary. I suppose the first thing people should consider before purchasing is that are they must to have? Since people are easily manipulated by ubiquitous media, which persuade people to buy the goods they actually do not require. Moreover, some people consume beyond they can afford, inevitably causing the debt they have no ability to pay.

The second reason for the negative influence of this development is that it widens the gap between rich and poor people. The encouragement of having own vehicle, entertainment and electronic appliances raise the desire which can only fulfill by the wealthy instead of the poor. Under such situation, jealousness, unfairness and anger emerge.

Some people may argue that the purchasing stimulates the economic. It can be partial right, however, the reasonable consumption id limited in an affordable range, which means, the over-budget consumption generate the bad consequence, dragging the economic dramatically.

To sum up, the over-chasing of owing products is not encouraged. People should evaluate their financial condition and think twice before action.

Writing Feedback / IELTS W2- Some people believe that it is good to share information freely, others don't [4]

Some people believe that it is good to share as much as information as possible in scientific research, business and academic world. Others believe that some information is too important or too invaluable to be shared freely.

Discuss both views and five your opinion.

protected information

This is a generation of substantial information, with widespread of technology, people can easily access to data they need. Therefore, should such information be shared freely have become an issue to discuss. In my opinion, I think that is inappropriate.

My mayor concern is that some information is classified. Knowledge in academic research and corporate operation have tight relationship with national security. For example, the exploration of rare element for scientist research may be used to produce fatal weapon if terrorists can reach this technique easily on public platform. This will cause serious consequence.

People who support the transparent of information may argue that the authorities can choose the severity of information they are willing to publish. By sharing information, people can enhance their own knowledge, even improve their life, creating a win-win situation.

Although this argument sounds reasonable, I have to point out that people should considerate the Intellectual Poverty Rights. Freely sharing information which made from others may jeopardize the authors' rights, moreover, break the law. Who can decide what kind of information can be shared and via what methods are much difficult than we think.

To conclude, the original belief of sharing information freely is built on positive purpose, but when it relates to sensitive topic of such information, people should think twice before action.

Writing Feedback / Proportion of older and young people in the society [2]

At the present time, the population of some countries includes a relatively large number of young adults, compared with the number of older people. Do the advantages of this situation outweigh the disadvantages?

human population by age

According to census that in some countries, the population of young adults is much more than older people. In my opinion, I think this phenomenon brings more advantages than disadvantages and my reasons are following.

Firstly, it benefits the economic. The youth can do more labor jobs than the old, especially in some physical-oriented industry. The number of young people illustrates the workforce and the larger number demonstrates the more productivity. Also, less old people means the lighten burden of young generation has to be responsible to. It can let young people concentrate on contributing to develop economic.

The second advantage of more young people than old people is that the young generation absorb new knowledge efficiently. They born in internet era, which makes them get used to share and obtain information globally. They can get rid of tradition and bad policy easily. With fresh idea and high-tech, the youth creative progressed society.

However, it cannot be denied that the contribution made by senior people with experience from life or professional. They are suitable to the position of decision maker. Therefore, they can pass their experience to the next generation, in order to create a brighter future.

To sum up, although old people have their value to the country, young adults dedicate more energy and pour innovation into the society. That is why I think the advantages of this situation far outweigh the disadvantages.