Writing Feedback / IELTS Writing Task 2 - Celebrities' viewpoints on a wide range of matters [4]

Film stars and celebrities often share their views on public matters that have little to do with their profession.

Is this a positive or negative development?

Public figures are usually seen to voice their opinion with respect to public issues beyond the scope of their expertise. From my perspective, potential drawbacks of this tendency are incomparable to its upsides.

The fact that celebrities' viewpoints on a wide range of matters being publicized is indeed positive. Firstly, this could raise the public's awareness about the problem in question. Due to followers being predisposed to take what their idols concern into consideration, when well-known people share their ideas about a specific issue, it could instantly become the public's interest. Conversations featuring it might become prevalent, and numerous public members even do research, thus gain more insights of it. In addition, in some cases, consciousness of a matter brought up by famous individuals could translate into reforming initiatives in response. For instance, as an iconic figure raises her concern about the local environmental degradation, her admirers might be encouraged to organize campaigns for environment preservation, or simply think twice before littering in the park or discharging garbage into the river.

Nonetheless, a negative aspect of the mentioned development is that if public figures' viewpoints regarding issues outside their domain involve inaccurate information, several members of the community could be left ignorant. Idolatry could sometimes cause followers to take their idols' false beliefs for granted without attempting comprehensive research. For instance, if a celebrity, due to his superficial knowledge, consider an aboriginal group as culprits behind the extinction of a species, many of his fans might unthinkingly develop an aversion for the group, who are innocent people. However, this negative effect is unlikely to be severely damaging and long-lasting, since sooner or later there tends to be specialists stepping in to correct mistaken notions and leading blind followers into enlightenment.

To conclude, despite my recognition that celebrities voicing their views about a public matter beyond their profession is negative in some way, in general, it seems to me that this has more positive elements.

Writing Feedback / lELTS WRITING TASK 2 - Televised trials shared in public [3]

In some countries, some criminal trials in law courts are shown on television so that the general public can watch.

Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?

The community in several countries is occasionally allowed access to footage showing real criminals tried in law courts, as these events sometimes go on the air. From my own perspective, the drawbacks of this are incomparable to its upsides.

Publicized trials are beneficial in certain ways. To begin with, the complex nature of legal procedures can be further understood by ordinary people, which may result in them having greater confidence on their nation's legal system. To be specific, observing a transparent, organized and step-by-step process of how witnesses are inquired, how testimonies are given under oath, as well as how a verdict is reached with deliberation renders the public convinced that the country's judiciary is indeed effective and trustworthy, on which they can rely for legal protection. In other words, people are inclined to believe in and approve of what they comprehend adequately well; so is the case of complicated judicial processes clarified through televised trials.

Another prominent benefit is that the publicity of trials could have crime rates decreased. That is to say, the sight of criminals being properly sentenced for their offenses gives people a prospect as to how severe punishments would be if they themselves commit crimes. Comparable to the concept of Hell awaiting malefactors - an idea constructed by some religions to warn people off wrong deeds, watching the uncompromising enforcement of laws in specific details on television could serve as a deterrent to people's potential law-breaking intentions. Therefore, it is likely that broadcast trials assist in bringing down the number of illegal acts.

On the other hand, a notable downside of making a guilty person's ordeal in law court publicly aired is that offenders could face difficulties in social re-integration after serving their sentence. Since ex-criminals are usually prone to skeptical attitude from local people, they are predisposed to start a new life in another locality where they are barely known. Nonetheless, if the footage of them being tried circulates across the country, these people become nationally recognizable, and nasty criticism against them may continue to prevail in the new neighborhood. In worse scenarios, the potential prevalence of cynical views wherever these individuals relocate to can result in them being unemployed and excluded from social activities, thereby finding themselves a burden to their family and the community. Although it seems to me that former inmates' life being forced to such extreme due to the influence of televised trials is not highly possible, this negative aspect should still be taken into consideration.

To conclude, my personal conviction is that broadcasts of criminals standing trial are rather positive than negative; however, its prospective drawback should not be omitted.

Writing Feedback / IELTS Writing Task 2 - Negative effects of fast food [3]

Many claim that the fast food industry had negative effects on the environment, eating habits and families.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The prevalence of fast food is widely deemed to be detrimental to Mother Nature as well as key aspects of a healthy life, including diets and domestic relationships. Personally, I am an ardent advocate of the mentioned viewpoint.

That convenience food adversely affects what one eats is readily apparent. A rise in red meat, salt and calories intakes is witnessed for virtually all people embarking upon the consumption of fast food on a regular basis, compared to their previous self-cooked meals with fresh ingredients bought from the market which might be more of an organic nature. In other words, owing to fast food being easily accessible to them, these individuals switch from a more or less healthier home-made diet to quick meals want of nutritions and high in substances that give rise to severe health issues such as hypertension, obesity and cardiovascular diseases.

Opponents of fast food also point to the fact that the constant use of it contributes to family aloofness, with which I consent. Ready meals of this kind deprive husbands and wives, as well as parents and children, of the opportunity to prepare and have dinner together after working separately for a whole day. This absence of family activities could, over a long period of time, induces a frosty atmosphere and a lack of mutual understanding among family members.

In addition, there are environmental concerns raised with regards to the increasingly expanding junk food industry. Hamburgers, one of the most celebrated types of fast food, have beef as their core component. The significant demand for such ingredient encourages the farming of beef cattle, whose excrement releases methane, which is an even more potent candidate than carbon dioxide as a culprit behind global warming.

To conclude, I am convinced that the expense of fast food brands thriving is the public's dietary plans and domestic happiness, as well as the environment, Earth's atmosphere in particular, are all negatively impacted.