Writing Feedback / In education and employment, some people work harder than others. Why? Is it a good thing? [2]

In education and employment, some people work harder than others.

Reason? Is it always a good thing to work hard?

In educational and workplace settings, there is often a difference between people regarding their hardworking level. In my opinion, this can stem from the variety of personal goals people set for themselves. I also believe that working and studying conscientiously all the time is not always positive given the possible health problems and poor social life an extremely hardworking person may lead.

Trying to realize an ambition always drive people to work harder. A student, for example, can pay his painstaking attention to each lecture while his friends are chatting if his goal is to get the highest scholarship granted by, say, his university. Similarly, a worker who desires a higher position tends to make diligent efforts to get their work done with the highest quality whereas others' care may be just to meet the deadline. It stands to reason as normally, hard work will be paid off with rewarding results. Thus, personal objectives can explain why some people devote themselves to their education or career more than anyone else.

That said, the idea of working hard can sometimes stray too far. To exemplify, the student who gives up his sleep to study hours on end can suffer badly as his health is greatly abused in exchange for better results. This can also be seen in adult workers. Not only their healths are adversely affected, their social life can be degraded as well. Making more time for education and work means less time for family and friends. Furthermore, as all their time and efforts are concentrated in achieving their goals, social events at which people can widen their network can be conveniently ignored. As a result, a poor social life is expected.

In conclusion, goals and ambitions are the driving force behind many people's working harder than others. Overall, this is a positive idea, however, excessive work can inevitably lead to health problems as well as limited social activities when not managed properly.

Hi, I'm back. Hopefully, this essay won't make you too disappointed.

Writing Feedback / Olympic Games- Some people think it has positive effects while others argue it is a waste of money [2]

Holding Olympic Games is an exciting event.

Some people think it has positive effects while others argue it is a waste of money. Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.

Olympic Games is an international sports event which attracts a great amount of interest. While it is said by some that this occasion has merits, others claim that such one does nothing useful other than wiping out a huge sum of money. In my opinion, despite its possible advantages, this practice is truly an extravagance.

On the one hand, it is understandable why many people say such an event may exert positive impacts. Firstly, it provides the chance for professional athletes to prove themselves. Usually, the participants have to apply themselves to harsh training courses for the Olympics Games, the biggest competition on the planet. In return, they can bring honour to themselves and their country, making those hardworking years pay off. Secondly, this sports event can greatly promote physical activities. Matches of different types of sports are aired on television each time it takes place, which embeds an idea of how popular they are on an international scale. People, as a result, may be drawn to the high spirit prevalent all around the world and pay sporting more attention.

However, others argue that the huge cost this event inflicts for the short period of time it is held is virtually pointless. During the preparation, modern sports facilities may have to be erected which use up an enormous amount of the national budget. Many of them, however, fall into disuse after the event, generating no revenue and even requiring upkeep to maintain their conditions. Consequently, they become a drain on the economy and even leave the country in debt. Given how those colossal investments in Olympics can be used for other rational purposes like education or healthcare, I agree that an event like this is a waste of money. Besides, local sporting events also can cultivate people's sporty behaviours, obviously with a lower level of investment. Accordingly, there is no need for more extravagant Olympics Games.

In conclusion, despite some benefits this international event might have, my view is that this practice should not be kept going in the future since the cost of it is basically unbearable and of little avail.

Writing Feedback / The best way to reduce crime is to educate criminals in prison to help them find jobs [4]

It is shown that many criminals have a low level of education. Some people argue that the best way to reduce crime is to educate criminals in prison to help them find jobs when they leave prison.

Do you agree or disagree?

It is a fact that many criminals are uneducated and thus unable to find a decent job. Due to this, many people say that incorporating education into incarceration is the optimal way to prevent those ex-offenders from recidivism after release. Personally, I completely agree that there is no better approach than this idea of bringing knowledge into jail.

The first reason is that job training can give the lawbreakers a chance to start a crime-free life. Many criminals after being given back freedom feel completely lost in the outside society. They do not have the slightest idea of how to earn a living because of the lack of skills pertaining to any jobs. As a result, the stress to support themselves when the cost of living is ever-increasing can make them relapse into criminal behaviour again. However, by inmate education, the professional skillset is already equipped when the release date comes which will give those convicts a sense of confidence and self-reliance.

Furthermore, it seems to me that when it comes to a solution to recidivism, any other pales into insignificance due to its ephemeral nature compared to how education can exert a long-lasting effect. Take post-prison monitoring as an example. This kind of measure will be downgraded gradually as time goes by, therefore, the possible threat is that the criminal will go on to another crime as the bad intention has taken root in his head. However, with rehabilitation programs and job training, this possibility will be greatly ruled out as wrongdoers are given a new purpose in life. This is enough to keep them away from descending into a criminal lifestyle again.

In conclusion, I believe that education is the best measure in assisting poorly-educated convicts to integrate into society as it not only gives criminals the opportunity to land a job after release but also has a positive and lasting impact in the long run.

Writing Feedback / Price increase of fattening foods will solve overweight problem [2]

More and more people are becoming seriously overweight.

Some people say that the price increase of fattening foods will solve this problem. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Obesity rates around the world seems to be ever-increasing and some argue that by raising the amount of money people are having to pay for greasy fast food, the issue will be tackled. Personally, I totally disagree with this idea as little amount of change will be made and it may unneccesarily bring about a financial inconvenience for those who consider those types of foods as nice treatments at weekends.

My belief is that if this idea is brought into effect, no pronounced difference will be experienced. People these days turn to fast food not just because of its appetizing look and good taste but also because of its fast nature. They are seriously caught up in the city rat race and there is basically too little time to make a home-cooked meal, especially after an exhausting day at work. Therefore, even if the number on price tag is made bigger, it is likely that purchasers still choose them, sacrificing a small proportion of their income for a significant amount of time saved from preparing a healthy meal.

Furthermore, what should not be ignored is that there are many people who consume these foods as an indulgence occasionally will sustain this financial consequence because of other people's actions. This is extremely unfair because children from low-income families will be deterred from enjoying this small pleasure. When they turn into teenagers, socializing is essential and fast food is often consumed in those occasions. In this case, the price will unnecessarily constitute a challenge for them to make friends. It is common sense that no one should be deprived of happiness when a policy is released, therefore, it seems to me that such approach should not be the right one.

In conclusion, I am totally opposed to this suggestion on the grounds that it would be ineffective given people's being fully occupied with work and the fairness it will definitely fail to achieve.

Writing Feedback / The main aim of advertising campaign is to increase sales of a certain product [2]

The main aim of advertising campaign is to increase sales of a certain product, but people don't really need it.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is undeniable that advertisement was born to boost product sales and many people hold the opinion that advertisement serves the primary purpose of profit-making from dispensable merchandise. In my opinion, I totally disagree with this idea as commercial advertising helps us to make the right purchase decisions and what really affect the people's choice of products are spending power and their need.

The first reason why advertising should not be deemed only profit-seeking is that it has constantly making people aware of the latest features of a new product. Through all kinds of advertisement presented everywhere, from the banner on a building to commercial breaks between shows on television, people are introduced to what is available now in the market, together with the information about the price range and new unique features. Based on this, customers will themselves decide whether they need it, not the advertisement will.

Second, without advertisement, people virtually can not draw a comparison between different items that serve the same purpose. For example, when a technologically illiterate elderly go to buy a phone, it is likely that he will go for one advertised to be affordable and possess only basic features like texting and calling. In this case, advertising does a great job of providing insight into the product which then helps people make the right choice according to their needs and conditions.

On the other hand, I understand those who argue that there are advertisements that aim to reach sales targets for some unnecessary commodities. There are those from high-end fashion brands, luxurious car brands or phone manufacturers that promote new models on a frequent basis. These types somehow prove to be successful due to people's desire to keep themselves up to date with the latest items. However, not all people are able to afford them, especially people below the middle class. They are very critical of their choice so, in effect, they only exert an impact on a small proportion of the upper-class population.

In conclusion, I believe that advertising is much more than a tool to promote the sales of certain products as it allows smart shopping based on the information customers receive and also because the deciding element of each purchase is actually spending power and how important the product is to a buyer.

Writing Feedback / Countries should try to produce all the food and import as little food as possible [2]

Countries should try to produce all the food and import as little food as possible.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Many people say that every food produced should be made in the country's border and foreign imports should be avoided as much as possible. In my opinion, I completely disagree with this idea because of the potential lack of nutrition as well as hindered economic growth if people are concentrated to fulfill the need for self-reliance of food.

It seems to me that if a country only consumes the types of food available to its region, people's demand for a wide range of nutrition can not be met, especially in a country with an extreme climate. For example, countries with continental climate like Russia can not grow staple crops like rice and need to import a large amount each year if they want to have it in their daily meal. Therefore, minimizing the food imported from other countries may be an extreme choice.

Moreover, due to the disparity in technological resources, weather and geographical conditions, enormous manpower may be required to produce enough food. Many countries are not favoured with conducive factors for food production and this will result in a lack of human resources for other industries. Therefore, a deteriorating economy predicating on agriculture is anticipated.

I understand those who argue that food transportation is a huge carbon burden. However, if a country wants to supply itself, it is likely that deforestation will expand to make way for agricultural land. In this case, there is no big difference regarding environmental cost and the farming practices per se also release a whopping amount of greenhouse gases. Take livestock farming as an example, enteric fermentation produces methane during digestion in ruminant animals like cows and this has done great harm to the environment.

In conclusion, I completely disagree with the idea that a country should be independent of food due to the possibility of malnutrition, potential economic failure and the fact that it makes no big difference if we clear forests, conduct farming and transport food by plane.