Writing Feedback / Students should become good people by their parents or their school ? ( ielt task 2 ) [3]

Whose responsibility to make students good citizens?

Some people think that parents should teach children how to be good members of society.
Others, however, believe that school is the place to learn this.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.[

Throughout these years, many people believe that children have to be good citizens of the society and they should be educated by their parents. On the other hand, there is also a myriad of people think that school is the best choice to make them become good people for the society. While i admit with both standpoints, i still strongly argue that there has to be a cooperation between the parents and schools.

On the one hand, parents teach their children has some undisputable benefits. The reason is because they have some precious knowledge, experiences that school does not have. For instance, some parents who are experienced entrepreneurs are definitely better than teachers at school about selling, which means if the boys or girls learn from their parents will be a better businessman than study at school and of course, they could avoid many mistakes in the business world. By contrast, the education from school can sometime enlighten student better than at home. In fact, school gives students great solid knowledge about everything from the elementary to academic like vocabularies, languages, basics math, history and so on.

However, i think it will be more beneficial if the children learn from both of them. To be more specific, school should be a hard foundation and then the parents will give them the "equipments" that they have learned in their life in order to let them "fly" far and "stay" safe in some renowned company or even open their own store. In other words, parents and schools are both must-have materials for the children.

To recapitulate, a combination between parents and school is best way to transform students become good citizens.
( this is my first writing so i am sorry for some mistakes and faults that i made is this essay and i will really really appreciate who give me feedbacks :), btw, i am using my own character is write this and not follow my teacher. If u guys see something that "go to far :)" plz tell me )

Writing Feedback / IELTS TASK 2: ANIMAL SHOULD BE "EMPLOYED" OR THEY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT AS HUMANS ? [4]

treating pets by human

A growing number of people feel that animals should not be exploited by people and that they should have the same rights as humans, while others argue that humans must employ animals to satisfy their various needs, including uses for food and research.

Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Throughout many centuries, there is a myriad of people believe that animals are born to be eaten or analyzed for scientific purposes. Personally, i see this too cruel and completely disagree with this point of view.

First of all, in some parts of the world, it has been proven that eating creatures or surveying them is a brutal,disgusting activity. The reason is because some of the animals have nearly same characteristics,brain,activity as humans, so why they cannot having the right to become the human, which they have independent and freedom. Take the eastern culture as an example. They have said that animals are reincarnated from the human beings and the reason they become animals is because they have done many bad things in the earthly world. Therefore, if the humans kill and eat those poor creature, it means they kill and eat themselves too.(right :) )

In addition, some of the people say that meat of the animals are nutritious and necessary. In fact, they are actually have some needed-nutrition, but downsides of them are too much. To be more specific, the downsides are the hugh cholesterol in them which could create many health problems like hardening, narrowing the elasticity in arteries or blood vessel or even cancer. Thus, instead of consuming unwholesome food, why dont the humans try to eat whole food that based on plant, which is much more healthier and more safe.

In conclusion, eating and researching on animals are savage and painful, they should not be despised and should be appreciated, respected, and maintained.( i know sb wont believe what i have written here but u should google it, of course deeply )

i will really appreciate who give me the comments or feedback about anything in myessay !

Writing Feedback / There is a myriad of people who believe that physically harmful sports ought to be forbid - IELTS 2 [6]

DANGEROUS SPORTS SHOULD BE BANNED OR NOT?

Some people think that dangerous sports should be banned, while others think it should be free. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

My essay:
Nowadays, there is a myriad of people believe that physically harmful sports ought to be forbidden. However, some groups of people consider it is ordinary and should be continued displaying on many TV channels. This essay will discuss both notions and state my own position.

On the one hand, prohibiting devastating sports has few incredibly undisputable advantages. In fact, there are some sports really unsuitable for children like boxing and rugby to watch because of some bloody scenes. Secondly, a particular group of kids will imitate to play that high-risk sports while they are still young. For instance, everyone can search on the Internet and they will see a plethora of images about injured children playing extreme sports. As a result, if the government prevent these types of sports on time, they can constrain the many incidents, injuries or even deaths in the prospect. Thus, they can also avert children from

mental problems like furious, psychological disorders, etc.
On the other hand, I strongly believe that permitting extreme sports showing on TV shows and let people play in the real life has lots of amazingly undeniable benefits. First of all, people who are a big fan of watching dangerous sports will feel happy because they can now watch it. Secondly, some sports are not that hazardous like people think and can be played like skiing, skateboarding, dancing, or normal parkour if they have their professional P.E teacher. Hence, children can enjoy their passions and live willingly in their life. Moreover, while they are playing or practicing them, it could enhance their body health like endurance, muscles which mean they have enough energy or study at school and not being bored ( :) ).

To recapitulate, both viewpoints are all correct but in my personal thinking that the positive outcomes of dangerous sports outweigh the dark sides.

Thank for reading my essay and if u have any ideas about my mistakes or if this essay too long, don't be shy and tell me :D ( Have a nice day! )

Writing Feedback / IELTS TASK 2: TEENAGERS SHOULD HAVE A PART-TIME JOB OR NOT ? [3]

SOME COUNTRIES ENCOURAGE TEENAGERS TO HAVE A PART-TIME JOB AND SEE IT AS A GOOD THING WHILE OTHERS DISAGREE. GIVE YOUR OPINION AND EXPLAIN BOTH VIEWS.

Many countries around the world stimulate adolescents to work in a part-time job because it is beneficial in many aspects. However, others think it is not necessary. In my view, I am neutral with both points of views and I will discuss more in this essay.

On the one hand, myriads of people think that having a part-time job will restrain the efficient of the study in school. In fact, working will obviously take a lot of time, endurance and joy which will make the students exhausted and they will not have the opportunity to perform well in school. Furthermore, working maybe also creates pressures for the workers, which leads to stress, depression, and even sadness. Consequently, having a part-time job is not a suitable option for the students and they should spend their time enhancing their study.

On the other hand, some of the groups think that a part-time job is really crucial for teenagers to have. First of all, a full or part-time job is not only provide salary, but experiences are actually the most valuable reward. In fact, studying is just a foundation to step forward to real life, but those priceless experiences are must-have if people want to succeed. For instance, learning those mathematically complicated formulas or those lengthy poems or even remember those events in the history is hardly open the gate of success. Knowing easy formulas like adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing is essential, or maybe just little skills in communicating are enough for the foundation.

In my opinion, both views are all needed for teenagers to manipulate into their life. However, I personally think that the way how people balance two activities is the most important factor. I mean they have to work in a part-time job and still study well at the same time which means they will also have the foundation and a little bit of the experiences. As a result, they could go far on their future.

To recapitulate, having a part-time job could be a bright side or a dark side depend on how people arrange it at the right time which means it does not cost a lot of time, power, and do not create much pressure and stress.

(I'm sorry, the conclusion is quite not good I know :), can somebody fix it :( and make it better :) ! )

Writing Feedback / IELTS TASK 2: Science will soon make people live longer. Good?Bad?Discuss both, give your opinions [5]

Hi guys, while I was wandering around on the Internet and see this interesting topic makes me want to practice with it now @@. Feel free to comment and give me feedbacks ( it would be better if u give me a band score too : V )

Topic:
SCIENCE WILL SOON MAKE PEOPLE LIVE UP TO 100 OR EVEN 200 YEARS. SOME BELIEVE THIS IS A GOOD THING WHILE OTHERS DISAGREE. DISCUSS BOTH VIEWS AND GIVE YOUR OWN OPINION!!!

My essay:
In the future, scientists will soon have the capability to make humanity live longer. Some people think this is beneficial while others oppose. This essay will discuss both standpoints and shall give my comment later. (am I doing this right ?)

First of all, people having a longer lifetime is actually great in various aspects. The first one is obvious, people can enjoy more in their life, such as foods they never taste, places they never go as well as things they never see. Secondly, there are still myriads of intelligent people such as scientists in the world who can contribute a lot more for this community and it would be sad if they die so early. In other words, having a longer life span can help them reach more helpful achievements.

Nevertheless, everything has its dark side and this is not exceptional. To elaborate, imagine there are still bad people outside namely criminals, terrorists and suchlike can lengthen their life. What can be worse more is this, people will suffer more pains, tears, threats, living in a dangerous world where they do not know the when death coming in any seconds just because of bombs as well as other explosions. (lol this part makes me so emotional that makes me throw all out :))

Although it can be dangerous as I stated, I would choose the former opinion due to this problem can also be solved. To prevent this disaster, education needs to be improved a lot more, making children realize that crime and suchlike is a really serious bad job which can affect others and it is not worth for their tiny, selfish benefits. Even this happens, our technology needs to be supreme enough that can counter those deadly criminal activities.

In conclusion, having a longer life has its pros and cons, but in my personal point, humanity will gain benefits if they can handle those upcoming difficulties.

Wish luck to all students at here having a great IELTS band score :D

Writing Feedback / IELTS TASK 1: Marriage Statistics of 8 countries in 2 different years [3]

1981 and 1994 - marriages per a country

Hi guys, i just wanna say that it's been a long time that i have not written IELTS task 1 so i guess it gotta be suck :( but hope your comment will improve it give me some tips so i can do better next time xD :D!

The question:The bar chart below shows the marriage statistics for eight countries in 1981 and 1994. Write a short report about describing the information shown below.

My essay:
The given bar chart depicts the marriage figures for eight nations in 1981 and 1994. In general, there was a downward trend in all territories except Denmark and USA had the highest marriage statistics.

As is observed from the presentation, the marriage ratio(am i using right) of the Americans in 1981 was the greatest among other given countries which peaked at nearly 11 per thousand people. Meanwhile, other's marriage statistic was only around 6 per thousand. To be more specific, countries namely UK, Japan, Finland and Germany's marriage figures was all above 6 per thousand and UK was noticeable for its peak at 7 per thousand in the named group(i feel weird about this...).On the other hand, most people in the remaining countries which is France, Italy and Denmark is not married which is proven by their statistic was all below 6 per thousand. (i feel sthing wrong bout this sentence...)

However, in 1994, most of country's marriage figures decreased but USA still got the top 1 which peaked at 9 per thousand. Nevertheless, Denmark was better in the USA by its marriage statistics have been improved, which reached at 7 per thousand. Beside that, among 6 other countries, Japan was the country which its marriage statistic was above 6 while others in the opposite.

And that is done :D, whoose i just check : V, 215 words in my essay. Feel free to give feedbacks, especially i need linking words and tips :D.(of course grammar too, i would be good if u give me some complitcated sentences for my essay :) )

• 
  
  

Writing Feedback / IELTS TASK 2: Watching TV is a waste of time. Agree or disagree? [2]

Hehe, finally i can find a good topic that I can show my mom PROOFS that TV is gooooodd. So she will never stop me watching TV hehe :D( but i have to make it convincing godammit :( )

spending time watching tv programs

The question: Some people think that watching TV is a waste of time. Do u agree or disagree?
My essay:
Nowadays, watching TV is although considered as one of the best stress relievers, it is also unworthily time-consuming. While I agree watching TV is not healthy and should do something else instead to entertain, I strongly believe that TV viewers will gain myriads of benefits if they know how to utilize it correctly.

First and foremost, it is easily understandable that watching TV is a wasteful activity. In fact, there are many channels which are really harmful and crap at the same time. Take Vietnam for example. Kha Banh's channel is well-known for his swearing sayings and detrimentally playful lifestyles. What makes him unusual is that he attracts the children very well and they all try to copy lifestyles which are proven by their stupid dances so-called "mua quat". As a result, watching these types of channels is such a waste of time and harmful too. (please fans of Kha Banh getta the way :) )

Nevertheless, as I stated before, TV viewers will gain tons of advantages if use it rightly. Firstly, the obvious reason is entertainment. However, this kind of amusement is extraordinary because it is not as addicting as online games which are somewhat beneficial. Secondly, if people select smartly the good channel, they can learn numerous knowledge depend on different categories. For instance, watching Wild Discovery Animals will enhance your understanding of the animal's living and suchlike and watching PewDiePie will boost your sense of humor and diplomacy.

In conclusion, while some people believe watching TV is such a waste of time but if they watch it properly, I ensure that they will change their belief.

Feel free to give any feedbacks :) (but not fans of Khabanh :))

Writing Feedback / IELTS TASK 2: CARE ABOUT ANIMAL EXTINCTION OR HUMAN'S PROBLEM? DISSCUSS AND GIVE YOUR OWN OPINION. [4]

extinction of some animal species - Should we be concerned?

Question: Many think that we should focus on the extinction of certain animal species, while others think we should pay attention to human's problems. Discuss both sides and give your opinion

My essay:
There is a heated debate about whether people should be cautious with the shortage of some particular animal species or concentrate on human's issues. This essay will discuss both perspectives and give my own commentary.

On the one hand, putting human's problem to the first priority is undeniable. First and foremost, human, the superior species, can almost create anything. Thus, even there is an extinction of some animals, they could create a new species with higher quality with their developed technology. Secondly, humans have the utmost brain on Earth, which means they can set rules, laws, modernize anything and other aspects such as fashion and games. In other words, they can make the world better when animals can not because they only know to consume.

However, the extinction of some special animal species can cause big trouble for humans. Take developing countries like Vietnam for example, if the buffalos and cows are all extinct, the agriculture will drop dramatically because of lacking tractions. If chickens are also all eliminated, famous fast-food shops like Mac Donald, KFC or BBQ will be bankrupted. Follow that consequences, many employers from all around the world will lose their job and many more problems will occur.

In my view, both standpoints are all equally essential. Nevertheless, they are still based on many complicated aspects. Speaking about morals, making a whenever species completely gone is such an evil, gruesome activity, and the consequences are stated before. However, if the human is in urgent situations such as tsunamis, earthquakes, floods and other catastrophes, then they are more important.

In conclusion, both perspectives all have its pros and seemingly equally crucial. Howerver, one of them will be more significant than the other are all based on that situation.

290 words count