Writing Feedback / Focusing on sports facilities is a very narrow approach and would not achieve the desired results. [3]

Some people say that the best way to improve public health is by increasing the number of sports facilities. Others, however, say that this would have little effect on public health and that other measures are required.

Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

There is no doubt that the decline in public health in the recent times has been one of our hottest social issues with conflicting views on how to stem this worrying trend. Some people claim that increasing the number of sports facilities will help, while some will argue that it is not enough. My essay will look at the pros and the cons of both options and present my personal recommendation.

There is a strong argument in favor of making sports facilities more available to people, from which originated an undeniable fact that playing sport is one the best way to keep a person healthy. To play a specific sport, however, one will need a specific sports facility. For example, a stadium is needed for football players; a swimming pool is needed for swimmers, and so on. Therefore, if easy-to-reach local sports centers were more available, people would be more likely to make exercise as a regular part of their life. Conversely, it is also a fact that interest in sport is not universal and that additional facilities might simply attract the already fit, not those who most need them.

There are, however, better ways of improving public health. One of these is making more wholesome parks which would cater for all ages, interests and level of fitness. It is not uncommon to find various types of activities going on in the park such as running, cycling, jogging, or just simply strolling to enjoy fresh air. Needless to say, all these activities considerably help to maintain people's healthy life. The only drawbacks of this method are that it is costly and it takes quite a while to put these parks in operation.

However, for the long-term benefit of public health, I believe it is worth for government to invest in it. Besides, along with physical activity, high tax penalties could be imposed on high-fat food products, tobacco and alcohol, as excessive consumption any of these contributes to poor health, etc.

By way of conclusion, my point of view is that focusing on sports facilities is a very narrow approach and would not achieve the desired results. I believe that people should be encouraged to be not only physically active but also adopt healthier lifestyle in general.

Writing Feedback / Encouraging students to take part in more unpaid community services is always an excellent idea [4]

Hi, Please give me some useful comments on my essay. Thank you very much in advance...

Some people believe that unpaid community service should be a compulsory part of high school programs (for example working for a charity, improving the neighborhood or teaching sports to younger children). To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It has been known for some time that the issue of whether or not people should take part in more Volunteer activities is always a contentious one. Some people suggest that unpaid community service should be a compulsory part of high school programs, while some argue that it is not necessary. It is my belief that encouraging student to work in community services is always a good idea. The principal reasons for my view are as follow.

First, there are many ways of acquiring social skills that students must have when they develop into adults and doing voluntary activities is one of those. Needless to say, one cannot do these types of activity alone but always with a team, therefore it offers student s a valuable opportunity to learn how to communicate with others, to work in a team, to manage their time and even improve the organizational skills. It also is one the best way to make new friends. Nowadays, unfortunately, teenagers do not have many after-school activities and after-school clubs are not very popular. The youngsters, thus, mostly go home and sit in front of a TV, search web or play computer games. This is not only wasting their time, but detrimental to their health as lacking of physical activities. By working for charitable or community organizations, students are encouraged to do something more creative and participate in more outdoor activities which provide many benefits to both mental and physical health. Beside, the skills gained through these works will not be only important for them to draw on in their later life, but also a valuable asset on the CV which can increase their employability.

Another equally important reason is that volunteering can help to increase students' self-confidence, self-esteem and life satisfaction. If students are doing a voluntary work, they deserve to be proud of themselves as they are doing good things for others and the community, which provides a sense of accomplishment. And the better they feel about themselves, the more likely they are to have a positive view of their life and future goals.

By way of conclusion, I once again reaffirm my position that encouraging students to take part in more unpaid community services is always an excellent idea. However, it does not need to be a compulsory part of high school of programs. The nature of unpaid community service is a voluntary work and volunteering means there is no compulsory

Writing Feedback / Decline in educational standards, causes and solutions?? [4]

Many people believe that educational standards have declined in recent times, particularly in the areas of literacy and numeracy.
Discuss the causes of this problem and offer some possible solutions to it.

There is no doubt that the declining in educational standards has been one of hottest social issues in the recent times. In the following essay, I aim to identify the sources of this problem as well as some viable solutions to it.

From my perspective, chief among the causes of this problem is the enterprising approach to education. This is originated from the fact that the education industry has been contributing huge profits in many parts of the world. One particularly good example for this is Australia where international education is the third largest export industry, generating approximately AUD 20 billion annually. Yet, this approach is not only beneficial it also brings with it variety of negative effects. To begin with, as a direct result of running after profits, more and more new universities are opened without controlled quality and depend heavily on tuition for survival and growth . Students have become the source of revenue therefore to keep retention rate, tests are adjusted downwards to remain acceptable pass rate, teachers are lowering standards, bending deadlines and using upcoming exam questions as study guides. Another important reason to blame is on students who increasingly feel that the goal of higher education can be reduced to passing grades and an eventual diploma (which they feel is the key to a desirable job). Obviously, the more students with these poor motivations, the more employers no longer trust university education or in other words, a college diploma.

In order to resolve this deterioration effect, I believe we must address its root causes. Perhaps the most effective method of doing this would be for governments to provide financial aids to the universities with emphasis on quality rather than quantity of their students. Without feeling the pressures to retain or enroll students, I believe those universities can easily turn away many disqualified applicants every year and maintain their high educational standards. Admittedly, such financial aids would be a massive burden every government if there are too many universities, therefore, government must have effective policies close controlling and strict regulations on applications to establish a university or an education institute. One good example for this is my government's policy on university education. This, indeed, derives from the high demand of engineers, teachers, doctors, etc for my country. However, instead of focusing on quality of graduate students, our governments went soft on policies and allowed more universities to open and enroll students. As a result, after few years, although the number of fresh graduate student is increasing rapidly, only few of them qualify employers' standards. Maintaining the high standard educational environment, hence, should always be a vital mission for a government.

In conclusion, I believe that this is clearly a problem of such complexity that no solution is likely in the short term. However, I believe that the measures outlined above would constitute good first steps.

Writing Feedback / Immigrants should abandon their own ways and adapt to local customs? [6]

Nowadays, more people are migrating to other countries than ever before. In order to become integrated into society in their adopted countries, immigrants should to abandon their own ways and adapt to local customs and codes of behaviour.

Do you agree or disagree?

There are a variety of different opinions on whether or not immigrants should change their behaviour to fit in their new country. Although some people would no doubt disagree, I personally believe that newcomers should indeed try to adapt. In my view, this means following both the written laws and social customs of their adopted country. There are two primary reasons for this.

First, it is obvious that society would not function properly if newcomers did not obey the laws. One particular good example of this is road rules. Imagine what would happen if people refused to drive on the same side of the road. Thus, it is nescessary for immigrants to make sure that they obey the law in their new country even if laws in their home country are different. Two other examples of things which are allowed in some countries but illegal in others are owning a gun and gambling.

Second, it is important to remember that societies are built on shared values. The social rules of a country are the glue that keeps it together, so new immigrants must respect them. Certainly, having many different cultures makes a country more interesting; however, I would argue that too much difference weakens a society by making people feel that they do not belong there. I believe that similarities between people bring them together, while their differences pull them apart. A healthy society is a society with strong sense of unity.

In conclusion, I once again restate my view that new immigrants to a country must try to adapt to local rules of behaviour. As the old saying goes: "when in Rome, do as the Romans do"

Writing Feedback / Families today are not as close as they used to be, causes and solutions? [5]

With divorce rates and family breakdowns increasingly globally, it is generally accepted that families today are not as close as they used to be.
Discuss the causes of this problem and offer some possible solutions to it.

There is no doubt that the rising of divorce rates and family breakdown in the recent times has been one of the hottest sociological debates. Among a variety of reasons for this trend, one widely acknowledged is that it is a direct result of the growing distance between family members. In this essay, I tend to explore the sources of this problem along with some possible solutions to it.

Chief among the causes of this problem is the modern lifestyle. Today's parents have to work harder than those of previous generations to support their families. In the past, one parent assumed the role of breadwinner, whilst the other, typically the mother, acted as the homemaker. Recently, though, the double income families have become the norm. As a consequence, parents are spending less and less time on taking care of their children, the other partner and even his/herself alone. More seriously, many families do not even eat dinner together anymore. Naturally, over the time, the importance of bonds and kinship is gradually shading in our minds. Another equally important reason is that many children have to leave their parents at an early age to study or work elsewhere. As time passes, they become estranged by time and distance.

In order to resolve the sense of alienation within families, I believe we must first address it root causes. As mentioned above, lacking of the time sharing with other family's members is one of the primary reasons of this problem. Therefore, the most effective method of resolving this would be rather than using too much of the time resource to watch TV, search web, or hang out with friends, adult people should, instead, allocate more time to play with their children, help them to review the lessons, read book with them, or just simply have more intimate conversations with them. I firmly believe this method is not only useful for parents to reinforce the bond with their children but also gives them a practical opportunity to supervise and help their children. Beside, for members of families who live away from one another, regular contact of any sort can bring them closer. Take my case as an example, I live and work in Australia while my parents and other family's members are in Vietnam. Before, owing to the expensive expense to call to Vietnam, I could afford to call them few times per month, now along with the development of technology, I can easily and freely talk to my parents using Viber or frequently update information of other family's member through Facebook. Whenever I want to share a lovely photo of my daughter with my parents, I just need to upload them on Facebook and vice verse. Thanks to Facebook that helps to make my family more close-knit irrespectively of the long distance.

In conclusion, my opinion is that growing distance among family's members is a problem of such complexity and that no solution is likely in short term. However, I believe that the measures outlined above would constitute good first steps.

Writing Feedback / Impacts of and solutions for rural depopulation??? [6]

These days, it seems that an increasing number of people are leaving rural areas to live in the city.
Discuss some of the effect of rural depopulation and suggest some ways in which this trend could be reversed.

It goes without saying that nowadays there are more and more people moving from rural areas to the city in search of work and excitement. This trend evidently brings with it a lot of complicated issues. In this essay, I tend to discuss the impact of the rural depopulation and suggest some solutions to encourage people to live in rural areas.

Overcrowding in the city is undoubtedly not good. There is a rising number of cities throughout the world are suffering environmental problems such as air, noise and water pollution. As a result, the living standards are deteriorated while the price of houses is pushed to excessively high just because the supplies do not satisfy the demands. My city, Hanoi with more than 8 million people, is a particular good example of this. It is not so difficult to find a typical household in the centre of Hanoi with more than ten people living together in an extremely small area from 15 to 20 square meters. Needless to say, it is imaginable how well they live. To buy those houses, surprisingly, people need to spend million dollars for each. Aside from this, the uncontrolled growth of cities also leads to series of social problems such as, traffic jam, high unemployment rate, poverty, crime or even the creation of slums. If this situation lasts too long, it will affect seriously to the stability and prosperity of a society.

In order to stem the tide of rural depopulation, I believe we must address its root causes. To begin with, one of the important reasons why people keep moving to the city to live is that because the services and facilities there are much better than those in their hometown. Therefore, I firmly believe that urban and rural dwellers alike find the idea of country life far more appealing if high quality shopping centers, restaurants, cinemas, schools, libraries and hospitals were more readily available in the areas outside the city. Another important solution is that government should plan and make effective public transport systems that are convenient for every commuter to go to the city and everywhere. Obviously, there is no reason for you to stick to the city if it takes only 30 to 40 minutes to get there from your house by train or tram. Relocating large companies, factories and universities to the countryside is also a valid solution as they are the primary causes pushing people to leave rural areas.

In conclusion, it is my belief that although this problem is unlikely to be resolved in the short term, it is by no means insurmountable. I am convinced that more and more people, like me, will choose the country life as city life becomes less comfortable and more expensive.

Writing Feedback / Is saving endangered species worth? 'maintain the balance of ecological systems' [3]

Trying to save endangered animal species from extinction is a waste of valuable resources. Do you agree or disagree?

It has been known for some time that the issue of whether we should attempt to protect endangered species from extinction or not is always a contentious one. Some people believe that such animals serve no useful purposes and should be allowed to die out just as many others (including dinosaurs), while others think that it is not true. It is my belief that endangered animals species in fact should be preserved. The principal reasons for my view are as follows

First, it is vital to appreciate the importance of endangered animals in maintaining the balance of nature. Although there is much we do not know how ecosystems or biological communities function, we do know that no creature exists in isolation and that ecosystems are delicate arrangements where plants and animals all depends each other for survival. The removal of a single species can disrupt the balance, conceivably set off chain reaction affecting others by breaking the food chain and altering the habitat where they live. The impacts of these imbalances, though, are difficult to predict and frequently haunt us unexpected ways. Just as dingoes, Australia's top predators, they are classified as vermin as their appearance cause the loss of sheep. Dingoes even carry a bounty of AUD 20$ a head. It is because of this policy that the amount of dingoes decreased significantly over the time. Where dingoes had been exterminated, though, scientists found increased abundances of introduced red foxes and herbivores, while small native mammals and grasses were lost. Without a native predator, the kangaroo population exploded. They have become rivals of sheep, competing for water and grass. Consequently, kangaroos are now cursed more than dingoes. The extinction of a predator can cause plagues by allowing its prey multiply unchecked. Therefore, since ecological change constitutes potential risks to us and our environment, it is clearly our own interests to protect endangered species.

Despite the fact that extinction is part of natural order and that it does occur naturally, the accelerating decline of wild animals is less and less a result of natural events. Most dangers to wildlife are from habitat loss and degradation, environmental pollution, the introduction of exotic organisms, etc; all generally a direct result of human activities. One important example is that during the 3000 years of Ice Age period, all North America lost only about three species every 100 years while since the Pilgrims landed in 1620, more than 500 plants and animals have become extinct in North America alone. Aside from these, perhaps the strongest argument in favor of saving endangered species is that every creature has intrinsic value and a right to exist, even if they are not useful to us in any practical ways, they are needed to be preserved nevertheless.

In conclusion, I once again reaffirm my position that preserving endangered species is our vital mission and worthwhile. Not only, do they help to maintain the balance of our ecological systems, but they have value in and of themselves; and given that the human activities cause damages to them, we need to make every possible effort to save them. Endangered means there is still time, but extinction is forever.

Writing Feedback / A person should never make an important decision alone? I dont agree [3]

Please help to review my essay. Thank you very much in advance

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
A person should never make an important decision alone.
Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

It goes without saying that how to make a decision is always an issue of much controversy. Some people claim that one should never make an important decision alone, while others believe that it is not true. My opinion is that it is always beneficial to consult other people such as family, relatives, friends or colleagues before making any decision. My view is based on the following reasons.

First, from personal point of view, if one makes important personal decisions himself/herself without consulting with other people, especially with his/her parents, it may bring a lot of disadvantages to his/her life later on. For example, if one student studying in a high school, for some reasons he need to find a part-time job to have some extra money and he gets it. With his extra money he can buy things he likes which his friends who still studying cannot such as mobile phone, Ipod or even cigarettes. One day, he might come up with an idea to drop out from school as he might feel comfortable with that small amount of money, happy with his job. At that time if he just decided himself without discussing with his parents about his idea to get their advice, it would be a big regret for him later on as after years he might still be a worker with low income while his friends as engineers or doctors have more prospective careers.

Secondly, from the reality of the world point of view, a true leader is always the one who seeks for proper advice before making any important decisions. This is because he knows that his decisions do not only affect to himself but to other people around. For example, in the case of North Korea, the leader of the country instead of following policies to foster their own country's economy, improve their citizens' lives, and listen to their people's desires, they follow nuclear programs and always put other countries in fearing of a nuclear war. The consequences are the country's economy is surrounded; their people have to live in poverty, every year so many people have died of famine. It is all because of the proprietary in making decisions of the leader.

In conclusion, my opinion is that we each have to make our own important decision our self alone after all; no one can help us to do that. Therefore, learning to listen to others' advice and always seek for good ones before making any important decision is a crucial skill which is not only good for oneself but other people around.

Writing Feedback / Both parents work, bad or good?? [8]

Please help...

In today's competitive world, many families find it necessary for both parents to go out to work. While some say the children in these families benefit from the additional income, others feel they lack support because of their parents' absence. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Nowadays, it is very common that both parents in a family go to work. This trend is not restricted in families with difficult economic situations but also in wealthier ones. Some people believe that their children will have more benefits as both parents work, while others claim that this has negative effects on children. My opinion is that both parents working are an inevitable trend, it has its own advantages as well as disadvantages and that parents must find a means to keep balance between it pros and cons

It is undoubted that both parents working bring with it a lot of benefits not only to their children but also the whole family in general. First, with extra salary from both parents, children can be sent to a better school which requires more school fee, they can be given a better health care service from more expensive but better hospitals, in case they need closer supports with their studying their parents can afford to hire tutors without any difficulties, etc. Secondly, when a mother works, it means that she is helping to ease off her husband's financial burden and stress. A stable source of finance is always a foundation of every family's happiness. One obvious example is that traveling for a whole family annually, an excellent way of making families more close-knit, is only feasible if the financial source of that family is strong and steady.

On the other hand, this trend, however, has significant drawbacks. To begin with, in a family where both parents are too busy and concentrate too much on making money, their children are often lacked of necessary supports and supervision. For example, without parent's supports it is very likely for children to find their studying tedious and difficult. Overtime, it will make them demoralized, and affect seriously to their education's performance. Without parent's supervision, children will also be very likely to take on bad habits due to peer pressure such as game addicted, smoking, or even taking drugs. Moreover, there is an alarming issue that less and less close conversation have been made between children and the other family's members, many children feel lonely even in their own home. A parent should be aware that, not only the children's materialistic live need to be taken care of, but also their metal one.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that we cannot change the fact that both parents have to work nowadays. However, parents must find a happy medium to keep balance between their work life and the family life so that their children will be given benefits in both material and mental lives

Writing Feedback / Complain about a bad product or service in writing or in person??? [4]

Please help...

When people need to complain about a product or poor service, some prefer to complain in writing and others prefer to complain in person.
Which way do you prefer?
Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

Nowadays, it is common for people to complain about bad products or services. Some people are in favor of complaining in writing, while others prefer face-to-face complaining. My opinion is that it is hard to say which method is better, because it very much depends on what situation complainer is in and that each method has its own pros and cons.

There are good reasons for someone to complain in writing. For example, by writing a letter to complain about a bad product or service, one does not need to waste valuable time on driving a long way from home to the product center, waiting for his turn and talking to the representatives. It also enables them to avoid unpleasant conversation. Moreover, this method is especially effective in the case that someone does not have a chance to have a face-to-face discussion. For instance, a man is on a business trip in a foreign country; his mobile phone cannot use roaming services; then writing a letter is an excellent way to complain and ask the Mobile operator in his country to enable that service for him.

There are, however, strong arguments in favor of complaining in person. First, this method allows people to have immediate feedbacks. If one has complains about a company's product, he/she will receive answer and explanations right away. He/she doesn't need to wait for the company's response which often takes several days or even a month by sending a company a letter. Secondly, by seeing each other's facial gesture, or body movements, it can tell more about a person. In the case that one cannot receive a creditable answer from one representative, he can always require to talk to another person.

In conclusion, my point of view is that both complaining in writing or in person has its own advantages and disadvantages. Choosing which method to complain is very much dependant on the situations in which one is and depends on how he/she wants to do it.

Writing Feedback / Contribution of artists and scientists are both important to society. [4]

Please help...

It is generally agreed that society benefits from the work of its members.
Compare the contributions of artists to society with the contributions of scientists to society.
Which type of contribution do you think is valued more by your society? Give specific reasons to support your answer.

It goes without saying the contribution of artists and scientists are both important to society. Some people claim that scientists make way more contribution than artists do, while others argue that it is not true. In my point of view, both artists and scientists are playing equal, valuable and irreplaceable roles in terms of contributing to our society. My view is based on the following arguments.

From the one hand, it is undoubtedly that art nourishes our souls, makes our mental lives diversified and healthier. Literature, for example, is a refuge of fantasy. It is a way of becoming someone you have always wanted to be, living in the world that you want to live - for both writer and reader. Lying on a beautiful sunny beach, reading a favorite book is an excellent way of relaxing. Movie, another the form of art, helps people to read a whole novel or a fiction in a lively way. Having a romantic dinner following by a good movie in a favorite cinema is a typical way of enjoying life. Music and dancing also make our life better. Listening to profound melodies or burning oneself in emotional movements is another great way of wiping out our stress. Therefore, without these art forms I believe that our world would become boring than ever before.

From the other hand, scientists play no less important role. I can hazard to say that every single one in the world is indebted to the scientists. We have cars and airplane to travel from one place to another place fast and safely. We have mobile phone so that we can talk to our friend who is thousands of kilometers far away. We have internet where we can access to the immense source of knowledge, etc. Finally, variety of medicines helps to cure many types of disease and prolong our lives. Those convenient facilities were all invented by nobody but scientists. The contribution of scientists, thus, is invaluable to the society.

In conclusion, someone cannot say that artists' contribution to society is greater than those of scientists or vice verse. My opinion is that both types play equal roles to the development of our society. Artists feed our mental lives, while scientists make our world a better and more convenient place to live.

Writing Feedback / A college or university should be open for every student or only for good ones? [2]

Some people believe that a college or university education should be available to all students.
Others believe that higher education should be available only to good students.
Discuss these views. Which view do you agree with? Explain why.

There is no doubt that university education is an issue which generally a great deal of heated debate. Some people think that universities should be open for everyone, while others think that it should not. My opinion is everyone has equal rights to study at university or pursue higher education as long as they qualify the requirements of that university. My view is based on following reasons.

Firstly, pursuing a career and getting successes is a human right secured by every government; and studying in a university is seen as one of the most effective ways to achieve that purpose. Therefore, everyone must have equal chance to study in a university. However, this will lead to several serious drawbacks to people who do not qualify the university's requirements. For example, if someone who is not good at math, physics or chemistry but were allowed to study in technical university, he/she would find it very difficult to understand. If this lasted long, he/she would feel demoralized and would be very likely to drop-out.

Another important reason is that if anyone who didn't meet minimum requirements of a university but allowed to study there, would lead to deterioration of that university' education quality. Bad inputs lead to bad outputs which, in the end, the society will be suffered from. This is inevitable and has no exceptions. For instance, when I was in South Africa, in one discussion with a local friend, he sadly told me that the quality of South African Education has been decreased seriously. The reason was that because many local students cannot pass the normal exams but the universities are not allowed to fail them according to the government's rule; then they decided to lower the exam standards for all the local students to pass the exams. Consequently, many graduated students are not hired as they cannot qualify companies' requirements, the unemployment rate soars while the competent labor is turning old.

In conclusion, my opinion is that everyone should have equally chances to study a university or pursue higher education. However, to do this he/she needs to meet the minimum requirements of that university.

Writing Feedback / Encourage to take private health care insurance or maintain free health care systems? [4]

The costs of medical health care are increasing all the time. Governments are finding it difficult to balance the health care budget.
Should citizens be totally responsible for their own health costs and take out private health insurance, or is it better to have a comprehensive health care system which provides free health services for all? Discuss.

There is no doubt that taking out private health insurance or maintaining the free health care system with free health care services, during the period that the price of health care services and variety of medicine keeps increasing and there is no sign of falling down, is an issue of much controversy. The arguments surrounding this issue will hence be discussed in the essay.

There are strong reasons that someone should be encouraged to buy private health care insurance. To begin with, giving free health care services to wealthy people who can afford or even they are willing to pay for good services is a waste of tax payers' money. Secondly, people who pay for insurance premiums have better services which free health care services cannot offer; such as they can select the best hospitals, choose the favored doctors or can stay in convenient patience rooms, .etc. Thirdly, paying insurance fees is one of the practical actions to help to lighten the government's financial burden.

On the other hand, there are also important reasons for remaining free health care systems with free health services; these systems still play an important role in society. For example, it enables people living in poverty or unemployed who cannot afford for dear insurance fees and expensive medical bills to have a way to take care of their health. No matter how poor they are, their rights to access health care system cannot be rejected. However, for those who are working, they should pay a percentage (1% or 2%) of their, even little, income as a tax which pays for the cost of providing "free" health care services. It is also another effective way to help the government.

In conclusion, my point of view is that governments should maintain both private health insurance systems and free medical care systems. The former ones are for people who are willing to pay and the other ones are for people who cannot pay or cannot afford to expensive health care services.

Writing Feedback / Children with different levels of intelligence should be taught separately??? [11]

Here is my new essay. Please help to comment. Thank you guys in advance :)

It is widely believed that children of different levels of intelligence should be taught together, while others think that more intelligent children should be taught separately.

Discuss and present your own opinion.

It goes without saying that children education is an issue of much controversial. Some people think that children should be taught equally together regardless of their different intelligence levels. While some others claim that it is not appropriate. I am of the opinion that children with differences in intelligent levels should be educated separately. My view is based on the following reasons

While it is true that studying together may help young learners to develop their sense of harmony. However, this also has a lot of serious defects such as de-motivation, demoralization and weariness. For example, young people who study together with those of higher level intelligence often have the sense of inferiority. There are always questions in the minds such as "How come my friends can answer such difficult questions but they cannot?" "Why other people can resolve the exercises but I cannot?", "The teacher is teaching to fast, I cannot understand what he is talking about", "Am I really a loser?" If this situation last long, it will lead to demoralization and weariness in these children. In contrast, those who are more intelligent feel restricted in term of intellectual freedom. They deserve more difficult assignments or broader and deeper knowledge but cannot, and this will cause them de-motivated later on.

Another advantage of teaching children separately is that teachers can take care of their students better and give them more appropriate education. For instance, if good students are put into a more open education, where creative ideas are encouraged, with a lot of academic challenges, they are more likely to become excellent students. On the hand, children at lower level of intelligence with closer attention of teachers and families as well as given relevant teaching methods they will become better students. Besides, teaching separately also help to develop the sense of competition in children which is crucial for society development. Is Havard still the number one University in the world if one day it opens for every student?

In conclusion, my opinion is that although the sense of harmony can be generated by teaching children together, the pros of teaching children separately base on differences in level of their intelligence far outweigh those of teaching together. It is not only good for the development of children in individual but also for society in general.

Writing Feedback / Globalization leads to cultures identity loss? [5]

Please help to review my essay. Thank you guys so much in advance...

As mass communication and transport continue to grow, societies are becoming more and more alike leading to a phenomenon known as globalization. Some people fear that globalization will inevitably lead to the total loss of cultural identity.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

There is no doubt that globalization is an issue which frequently generates a great deal of heated debate, with opponents claim that globalization can lead to total loss of cultural identity, whilst supporters remaining that it is not true. The arguments surrounding such issue will hence be discussed in this essay.

Upon initial examinations, it cannot be denied that globalization is making countries in the world we live in closer than ever before. As a general rule, people around the world, in some ways, are becoming more and more similar. For example, we often eat the same food, watch the same TV shows, listen to the same types of music and we wear the same clothes. Beside, it is not difficult to find that many cities in Western countries are decorated during Lunar New Year as well as people in Asian countries are celebrating on Halloween or Thanksgiving days. As a consequence, it seems that societies are becoming alike and the uniqueness of every culture is dying.

On the other hand, advocators of globalization generally base their arguments on the essence of culture identity. The foundation of culture identity is shared values. For instance, in Eastern countries, living close to your parents and taking care of them when they turning old are considered very important, even when you are mature enough and have your own family. In contrast, in Western societies, people after the age of 18 are encouraged to move out by their own parents. Being independent is considered a great value. Another example is that, regardless of how well the world be globalized; most of Asian people still prefer chopsticks and spoons to forks and knives.

In conclusion, I totally disagree with the argument that cultures identity can be inevitably lost due to globalization. In my opinion, the identity of every culture is immortal and exists independently with globalization

Writing Feedback / Changing jobs frequently or loyal to the same jobs? [3]

Please have a look on my essay below and comments. Thank you guys so much in advance...

People have different job expectations for jobs. Some people prefer to do the same job for the same company, whereas others prefer to change jobs frequently.

Write about the advantages and disadvantages of each viewpoint?

In the world of work, there is no doubt that everyone has different expectations and ways to develop his/her own career. Some people claim that frequently changing their job is good; some believe it is totally not. My essay will discuss both the pros and the cons of these views.

There are several reasons for people who choose to be loyal to their company. First of all, working for the same company for a long time might help people to establish a solid position in that company. This is very important since our world is experiencing difficult periods with serial of crises and labor market is getting harder than ever before. Another second point is that it brings stability to their lives, people don't need to be worry about moving their houses, changing their children's school or losing their source of income in a period of time. However, staying in one company too long may lead to the de-motivation, boring or even laziness. These issues affect seriously to employees' work quality which, in the end, the company will suffer.

There are also, however, strong arguments in favor of changing jobs frequently. To begin with, those who have spent some time working in different companies in different positions often have broader view of work and personal resources as well as skills to draw on. They tend to be dynamic and versatile, which are important factors in coping with the challenges of the company business. Yet, those who change jobs too frequent would be seen as unreliable, lacking in experience and loyalty. This causes employers might be reluctant to hire or invest training on them.

In conclusion, loyal to one particular job or changing jobs frequently resemble a double-edged sword. My point of view is that, people should stay in one company for a certain period of time, for example 3 to 5 years, to get expertise as well as significant experiences in that job, then they can change jobs to have new motivations and, which is not less important, new salaries.