Writing Feedback / Artificial environments. Positive and negative sides of zoos [4]

Some people feel that it is always wrong to keep animals in captivity, for instance in zoos. Other people say that there are benefits for the animals and for humans. Discuss both sides and give your personal view.

zoos - fun for humans, harm for animals?

Zoos are still the artificial environments where people visit to undergo the feeling of being in the short-term contact with the wildlife. While some people argue that it is cruel to keep them in such captivities, however, I believe that, it is beneficial for both the animals and the humans.

On the one hand, zoos are considered as safe and peaceful places in some respects. In the wild, there are great probabilities that most animals can lose their natural habitat, or be killed by other animals. This is more beneficial particularly for endangered animals, which in turn can contribute to the ecosystem. Apart from this, as the natural places where animals can be very dangerous for the lives of human beings, most of us would not have the chance to encounter other living creatures without the presence of zoos.

On the other hand, there are many who doubt the wholesomeness of the existence of zoos. As living in the limited space, the animals can suffer mentally and physically. For example, repetitive disorders and eating disorders seem in the zoo animals more frequently. Apart from not being healthy, some argue that zoos are unethical as they do not have the right to exploiting animals with the intention of making money. They also suggest that the best way to saving endangered animals is protecting their natural habitats.

In conclusion, it seems to me that despite some negative sides, zoos have noticeable advantages for animals, as well as humans, as long as their rights and comforts are preserved.

Writing Feedback / Music cannot be substituted. People can't live without it. [2]

the importance of different kind of music

Nowadays, people have a variety of different musical styles to listen. Listening music have turned into indispensable part of a life for a wide range of reasons, and I would argue that traditional music outweighs the international music.

The reasons why this activity have become the necessity comes from our childhood, as most kids enjoy listening music. As a result, in their later life, they have a tendency to consider the music as an essential tool which cheers them up. Apart from the type of entertainment, in most countries, listening music is regarded as an effective method to contribute learning process ranging from different languages to basic skills. Music is also an integral part of typical adult's life. Due to the fact that music can express and arouse our feelings which we cannot explain with words, most people see it as a need of the soul.

In the light of increasing presence of the international music, some people think the traditional music used up its time. I completely disagree with this idea, as the traditional music carry more meanings than the international music such as the culture or history of the country. It can easily be understood the traditions or lifestyles of the people in early days just by listening such kinds of music. On the other hands, the international music is a commercial product, so put more emphasis on catchy notes rather than meaningful words. It will be so disappointing if one day the traditional music disappears from the music lists because of growing popularity of the pop music.

In conclusion, music cannot be substituted by any other activity for aforementioned reasons, I restate that traditional music is more valuable than new types of international music because of the hidden meanings behind it.

Writing Feedback / Teaching foreign languages at primary school should be optional rather than compulsory. Ielts task 2 [5]

Some people believe that it is better for children to begin learning a foreign language at primary school rather than secondary school. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

children's burden

The virtues of learning foreign languages are too visible to be neglected. But is it wise to burden children with foreign language lessons from their primary school? I rather doubt it. From my perspective, it should be optional rather than compulsory.

On the one hand, it is an undeniable fact that learning foreign languages can develop the cognitive skills of children. It has been proved that bilingual people are more prone to see issues from different angles and their decision process is faster than their monolingual peers. Apart from that, this can also fuel their communication skills, so making friends would not be challenging for them. Moreover, knowing additional languages improves their career prospects, thereby their employability will be enhanced in their later life.

Even if having considered all these facts, would they enough to making language classes mandatory before secondary school? By no means, our future dreams should not be at the cost of children's spare time. At their earlier ages, their freedom, desires, should be our first priority instead of imposing our preferences. We cannot want from them to sacrifice their childhood, all we can do is just to drum up more interest in such things which in turn will be very useful as time goes by. Taking into consideration that they have a long education life in times to come, it would be cruelty of us to demand more.

In conclusion, I reaffirm my position that we try to lighten children's burden at their earlier ages and spending extra time to learning a foreign language should depend on their choices.

Writing Feedback / As the proverb goes "Union is strength", we owe to co-operating for our existence. [4]

Some people think that children should learn to compete, but others think they should be taught to co-operate so they could become more useful adults. Give your opinion

Competing or co-operating?

With the advancement of the technology, everything, as well as our way of lives, has changed. In retrospect, we can see our ancestry co-operated for surviving, whilst the people are prone to reveal to be successful as there is no apparent danger for people's life. Whether children should be taught to compete or co-operate is a heated topic and people take different attitudes. As far as I am concerned, I believe that living in a competitive environment has benefits neither to individuals nor to the society at large.

As the proverb goes "Union is strength", we owe to co-operating for our existence. İf our ancestries opted for rivalling rather than working together, probably, the human beings would not be alive today. There is no doubt that we can achieve good results as individuals, but the perfectness requires working in a team. As a result, we often see successful people associate their achievements with team-work.

Secondly, in a competitive environment, people are likely to see each other as enemies, while they have a tendency to make friends in a team work. That is why parents should teach their offspring how to be helpful to each other for warranting their happiness. Because, maybe they can be prosperous, but contentment really needs friends.

On the other hand, there are some who strongly states that the people around them just can bring drawbacks. As for them, life is based on competition, and to be the first person does not need any friends, even be able to leave everybody behind. More disturbingly, they teach their standpoints to their children for ensuring their success. These kinds of children do everything for their benefits, and some divine values such as friendship, help other people does not exist for them in later life.

By way of conclusion, I reaffirm my position that parents should their children how to work together, as advantages of co-operating definitely overshadow that of rivalling.