Writing Feedback / IELTS Writing Task 2 - Should museum ask for entrance fee? [2]

Prompt:

Many museums charge for admission while others are free.

Do you think the advantages of charging people for admission to museums outweigh the disadvantages?

My answer:
In many countries, payment of entrance fee is a requisite for admission to museums. As a history fanatic, I suppose this place is for cultural and historical education. Therefore, I believe that asking for a charge here could bring more harm than good.

Understandably, museums need financial support to be fully operational. Businesses usually acknowledge that without a sufficient fund, they would not be able to pay for the renovation, preservation of expensive artefacts or just the employees working there. It is also true that many a time visitors come in groups, they tend to make noise, which can be disruptive to others inside. Because of this, a substantial amount of available budget might be shared for security services, and admission fee might supply that sum of money.

However, this should not be prioritized over the importance that museum attaches to the society. Firstly, it could be discouraging for low-income families to pay the required fee for entrance, and their children might not have access to witnessing history at hand, which might have helped for their education. This further raises the issue related to educational inequality. Moreover, it should be realized that taxpayers money can also suffice for the operation of museums. Later on, this amount can allow businesses to afford and enhance their security services, thus render museums more attractive and pleasing to visitors.

In conclusion, I am convinced that charging for entry to museum is more detrimental than beneficial. In other words, if admission is free of charge, it could somehow bridge the educational disparity. Even though museums might be cut off from a source of financial assistance, they can ask for funding from taxpayers and therefore, use it wisely to attract more visitors.

Writing Feedback / IELTS Writing Task 1 - Population in Australia according to nationalities and living areas [3]

statistics of australian population

Prompt: The table and pie chart give information about population in Australia according to different nationalities and areas

My answer:
The table and pie chart illustrate the proportion of people living in Australia in terms of their origins and location. There are five main nationalities represented in the charts, namely Australian, British, New Zealander, Chinese and Dutch. It is clear that native Australian is responsible for the majority of the population in the country, however making up the least proportion of city dwellers (80%).

The population in Australia is composed of 73% native Australian, followed by which is British with 7%. New Zealander, Chinese and Dutch made up for 3%, 2% and 1% of the population respectively. The rest people living in Australia have an origin from other countries.

Even though Chinese made up less than Australian in terms of population, it stood out as the nationality with the highest percentage of city inhabitants (99%) and also the lowest percentage of people living in countryside area. The proportion of city dwellers from New Zealand is lower than China by 9%, which was higher than Britain by 1%. Conversely, countries such as Australia and Netherlands have a larger share of people accomodating in countryside areas, with 20% and 17% respectively.

• 
  
  

Writing Feedback / IELTS Writing Task 2 - All countries should produce their own food or not? [3]

Hi there. This is my essay for the topic of food production :)

Prompt: Countries should try to produce all the food for the population and imports as little food as possible. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

I DISAGREE WITH THIS TO A LARGE SCALE

My answer:
Due to the recent development in food industry worldwide, many people argue that countries should push their domestic food industry and import fewer food products from foreign countries. However, I am not in favour with this idea to a large degree.

It is understandable that not every countries can have the ingredients available to produce particular food for their population due to differences of climate conditions. For instance, farmers in countries with perennially cold weather can encounter great difficulties in cultivating crops and producing food such as rice. This is why the government are reluctant to import rice products from countries where the weather patterns are compatible for agricultural development. As a result, this helps to meet the demand for agricultural products and increase food security.

Nevertheless, there is a belief that food imported from foreign countries is not guaranteed in terms of safety and standards, which I think is not a reason why countries must switch to producing their own food. This situation can be tackled with stricter food quality monitoring. When a food product is delivered from an international source, it is imperative for the government to reassure the quality by examining its current condition. In case this product is considered a violation to safety standards, the authorities can immediately put a ban on commercial distribution, thus preventing dangerous food consumption in the public.

In conclusion, I am not an opponent of encouraging countries to produce their own food and restrict imports, as the different climate conditions make it nearly impractical. Although imported products can cause problems related to consumers' health, it can be solved with stronger law enforcement, such as quality examination.

Writing Feedback / IELTS Writing Task 2 - Old buildings or new buildings? [4]

Hi. Here is my essay for the topic of preserving old buildings. It was really nice to receive feedbacks and responses from you in the previous essay. Here is the prompt.

Prompt: It is too expensive to look after and repair old buildings. This money should be spent on building modern buildings instead.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

I DISAGREE AND I THINK OLD BUILDINGS ARE SO IMPORTANT THAT WE SHOULD PRESERVE THEM

It can cost a great amount of money to renovate and restore antique buildings. Therefore, people believe that there should be more emphasis on the construction of new buildings. From my personal perspective, I totally disagree with this opinion and will give my reasons below.

Many old buildings are considered as the world's historical attractions, which make great contributions to the tourism industry of the economy. That is why it can be inferred that the destruction of these buildings can be equivalent to a hard blow in the industry. Taj Mahal - an ancient castle built in India is a clear example for this claim. It is widely known as a mausoleum and praised by the UNESCO as a heritage site that needs protection. Due to the timeless beauty and historical importance this building attaches, it has attracted thousands of tourists from all over the globe every year and contributed greatly as India's national treasure. Thus, the loss of this wonder means a significant damage to the economy in India, proving that old buildings can play an important role in the tourism industry.

In other case, ancient buildings can signify great sentimental values; the irreplaceable charm that modern houses cannot be compared to. This emotion, such as patriotism, can stem from the significance that these buildings have. In Vietnam, the house on 48 Hang Ngang Street brings national pride, as it is the place where our first president wrote the "Declaration of Independence", thus ending years of slavery and opening a new era of liberty in the country. Throughout time, this house has turned into a small museum, where a handful of important historical documents from the time of war are preserved.

In conclusion, I disagree that there should be more attention to modern buildings, because old buildings can also contribute significantly to the economy and reminisce great memories of the past.

Writing Feedback / IELTS Task 2 - What can people do to discourage increasing car ownership in big cities? [5]

Hi. This is my essay for the prompt about car ownership in big cities. It would be grateful to hear your comments and feedbacks since I am studying for the IELTS exam and my desirable writing band score is 7.5 (which I think is ambitious). Thank you :)

CAR OWNERSHIP IS PROBLEMATIC

Prompt:
Car ownership has increased so rapidly over the past thirty years that many cities in the world are now 'one big traffic jam'. How true do you think this statement is? What measures can governments take to discourage people from using their cars?

My answer:
The fact that many people today can afford a car for commutation and travelling has raised concerns about traffic congestion in urban areas. From my perspective, I totally agree with this and believe there are several measurements for tackling the issue.

Economic progress in some developing countries, such as Vietnam, is arguably the main reason why the car ownership in big cities is increasing. In the last 10 years, many families in Vietnam have been able to purchase an expensive private vehicle like car, whereas most households in the past relied heavily on the use of a cheaper mode of transportation, such as motorbike. Furthermore, it is easy to understand that travelling by car brings about more convenience and privacy for drivers than motorbikes or public transportation, which have a notoriety for social crimes such as public harassment or daylight pickpocketing. There is also another explanation for the increase of car ownership. For example, the increasing rate of urbanization has eventually led to the development of infrastructure in big cities, allowing thus creating more space for car.

Since this has in turn resulted in a plethora of road problems, such as traffic jam, it is necessary for the government and individuals to take actions. One solution proposed by the authorities in Hanoi is to impose heavy fees on reckless driving behaviours and increase the registration fees for license, which may discourage people to buy car for personal purposes. In addition, some cities in the world, such as Seoul, have been popular for their solid public transportation system, reducing number of private vehicles on the road and avoiding traffic jam. On a smaller scale, people should acknowledge the problematic use from car and educate themselves to switch to other public means of transportation or bicycles.

In conclusion, the number of car in cities is increasing because of economic development, privacy and urbanization. However, this is also associated with high volume of traffic, and therefore, imperative measurements should be taken as soon as possible to deal with the issue.