Writing Feedback / IELTS TASK 2 - Discussion on giving financial or practical aid to developing countries [3]

the type of support needed the most

Developing countries require help offered by international organizations to ensure healthy and sustainable development. Some people think that financial help is important. Others believe that practical aid and advice is more important. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Concerning aid provided by organizations to help developing countries achieve sustainable development. some people believe financial support is more important than practical help and advice while others hold the opposite opinion. In this essay, I will discuss both views and elaborate on my thoughts.

To provide money is crucial to development in various ways. To start with, giving money means the country has self-determination rights on how they want to improve, regarding infrastructure, education and so much more. In addition, money instead of free objects and stimulate the domestic economy, leading to a healthy market mechanism.

On the other hand, giving out practical help such as food, skill training, and medical service is also important. Firstly, if one nation is underdeveloped, there might be things that could not be bought, for instance, medical equipment. Secondly, empowering people through various kinds of training can make people have the ability to change his/her life on his own. In fact, when people only receive can and free stuff, welfare dependency might be acquired, depriving one's awareness to work form himself.

Taking both views into consideration, I believe both ways of helping are equally vital. How these two methods put into practice for the benefit of the nation is a difficult but certainly significant issue every international organization should constantly think about.

In conclusion, there are many reasons why people argue that whether financial or practical help is more important while I believe they are crucial in the same way.

Writing Feedback / IELTS Task 2 - opinions on transportation improvements [3]

MORE FUNDS FOR RAILWAYS OR FOR PUBLIC ROADS?

In a number of countries, some people think it is necessary to spend large sums of money on constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities. Others believe the money should be spent on improving existing public transport.

Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

In a few countries, there has been a discussion on whether they should invest money on building new high-speed-trains or rather spend money on currents public transportation system to develop better functions. Overall. I believe the priority should be upgrading transportations that we already have. However, I think the answer depends on different situations of different countries.

Without a doubt, there are both advantages and disadvantages of constructing a new fast train system. First of all, it can considerably reduce the time of commuting between cities, which can bring up the development of various cities, resulting in the economic performance of one country. For example, in my country Taiwan, our High Speed Railway (HSR) system was launched about 15 years ago. It had lowered the cost of traveling between cities, and benefitted those who had to travel frequently. Secondly, however, constructing a new system takes up spaces and costs bigger amount of money comparing to upgrading the old one The HSR in Taiwan had caused conflicts in selecting the adequate location and also once appeared financial crisis due to expensive construction costs.

In my opinion, government should evaluate the possibility and compablity of improving existing systems. This can achieve a result of spending less money. Take my country for example, a new type of train using 100-years-old system was established 10 years ago, cutting half the time traveling among cities. With this approach, the government only needed to buy new trains and slightly altered the system. The best feature of this approach is that no new railway was needed.

To sum it up, building a fast train system with new railways or improving the old ones can both achieve better public transportation. I believe government should take upgrading old railways first since it costs less. In conclusion, whether constructing a new system or upgrading the old railway, we should evaluate according to the needs and circumstances of one country and also take cost-benefit analysis into consideration.

Writing Feedback / Hi! I'm currently preparing for IELTS. This is one of my writings for describing a map [2]

commuting ways to a city hospital

The maps illustrated the difference of the ways to arrive at a city hospital in 2007 and 2010.
The most recognizable change is that there used to be no bus station in 2007, but it was constructed over the span of three years. On the other hand, staff and public park were separated in 2010 whereas both of these people were allowed to park at the east side of the Hospital Rd.

In order to establish the bus station, roundabouts were constructed at both ends of the Hospital Road. The Bus Station was located at the west side of the Hospital Road, harnessing the space which was once empty. People can access to the Hospital by bus in 2010.

In addition, the public car park was divided from the staff car park. The public car park was situated beside the building of the City Hospital which was slightly bigger than the staff car park. Therefore, people who drove to the hospital instead of taking the bus, should park at the east side of the main building.