Writing Feedback / ielts essay: zoos should be built to protect rural animals, do you agree? [3]

Preserving wild animals in zoos is an issue which frequently generates a great deal of heated debate, with supporters maintaining that wild life would be taken good care from professionals, while opponents claim that the animals are deprived of freedom as a result of staying in zoos. From my perspective, animals should live in natural habitats instead of zoos.

To begin with, it is the right of wild species to live in a environment away from human beings. Given the fact that human beings are responsible for the heavy pollution and severe damage to the natural habitats of many wild animals, it is our responsibility to create a natural and safe environment for animals to live in. Apparently, the limited space and the artificial trees and lakes can not fully compensate the animals for their loss. Moreover, if rural animals are captured in the zoo for a long period, it would have negative influences on both the physical and psychological status of the creatures. As a result, the wild species would suffer from isolation and depression. It seems that zoos are more likely to be a killer rather than a protector in protecting wild lives.

Nevertheless, supporters would argue that zoos, which are equipped with modern facilities and professionals, would provide better care for the animals inside. They further point out that the endangered species preserved in zoos would never die of illegal hunting. However, I would contend that the strict laws prohibiting poaching would provide a shelter for various kinds of animals in natural habitat. It seems that the growing number of natural habitat would be the ultimate solution of saving wild animals worldwide.

By way of conclusion, it is my belief that wild animals should be set free from zoos not only because they have the right to enjoy freedom but they also escape from isolation and depression.

Writing Feedback / ielts essay: distance-learning vs. attending school in person [2]

question: Nowadays, distance-learning programs are such common thing for us, but some people argue that they're not as good as those by attending in a college or university in person. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

A matter of considerable controversy at present is the issue of whether distance-learning should be promoted as much as possible, or rather attending lectures in person should be allowed to take a predominant place in universities because this way of learning is superior than online degrees. From my perspective, online-teaching should be widely used among colleges and universities in terms of convenience and optimizing cost for educational institutions.

To begin with, distance-learning brings significant convenience for students in every corner of the world. In earlier times, students who were tired of commuting had to attend schools nearby, regardless of any differences in teaching facilities, teacher's qualifications or the school reputation. Now, however, students are able to apply for online-courses provided by top-of-the-range universities and colleges worldwide. Furthermore, the presence of video conferencing allows a teacher to teach a greater number of students. Consequently, educational institutions are able to optimize costs by increasing teacher-student ratios. Thanks to the economical online-teaching, universities and colleges are able to offer grants for students who have outstanding academic achievements but are unable to attend schools because of financial constrains.

Nevertheless, opponents of online-degrees would argue that attending lectures in person provides students an opportunity to communicate with teachers and other classmates. They further point out that traditional teaching approaches involving discussion and cooperation among students play a significant role in campus life. It is the real interactions and communications in class make education much more attractive.

By way of conclusion, it is my belief that distance-learning will become increasingly important in the future as the pace of life increases. However, discussions and interactions should be held via video conferencing frequently so that the joy of learning would not be diminished.

any feedback would be appreciated, especially feedback about grammar

Writing Feedback / What ways could technology be useful to old people? How to encourage them to use? [4]

question: Mobile phones and the Internet are very useful. However, it is rare for old people to use them. What ways could mobile phone and the Internet be useful to old people? How does the old people to be encouraged using this new technology?

The invention of mobile phones and the internet has brought significant changes to our lives in recent years; however, senior citizens are less likely to benefit from the booming technology simply because they have limited knowledge in using these modern facilities. In this essay, I intend to explore what benefits could be brought to old users as well as how to raise old people's interest in using these modern technologies.

From my perspective, one of the most significant advantages of mobile phones and the internet application among senior citizens is that it brings considerable conveniences to old people's everyday life. In earlier times, people used to go to the bank, standing in a line and waiting for the money to be transferred from one account to another. Nowadays, however, online banking have become the norm. Thanks to the modern technology, senior citizens are able to do the money transaction at home through the telephone line or with a click of a button. A further benefit is the colorful and vibrant retired life which is brought by the new forms of technology. Even if the elderly live alone, they are still able to communicate with other people around the world through the telephone and the more attractive internet chat programs like the MSN Messengers.

Nevertheless, some may suggest that the limited knowledge may be one of the obstacles to the wide spread use of modern technology among pensioners. Perhaps the most effective approach of solving this problem would be for government to provide financial incentives for companies to design special mobile phones and website for old people to use. Another measure would be for grandchildren who are more privileged in advanced technology to teach their grandparents to enjoy the benefits brought by the mobile phones and the internet.

In reality, this problem will become increasingly significant as the number of pensioners increases. However, I am convinced that the measures above would attract more senior citizens to be interested in modern technology.

Writing Feedback / Do modern communication technologies benefit all people? Ielts essay [3]

Question: Some people have benefited from modern communication technology, but some people have not benefited from it at all. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Modern communication technologies such as mobile phones, e-mails and internet chat programs like the MSN Messenger have brought significant changes to our lives in recent years. Yet, there remains some disagreement as to whether the overall effect of this innovation has been positive or negative. Although there are valid arguments to the contrary, it is my belief that the majority of people in the globe have benefited greatly from these powerful and effective means of modern communication.

To begin with, mobile phones and other tools of modern communication facilitate not only contact with friends and relatives in faraway places but also global business. With the click of a button, the vast amount of information can be transmitted from America to China in just a few seconds. Furthermore, it is generally felt that the access to these tools of communication is available in every corner of the world. With a mobile phone or a laptop, a person can talk or send messages online at a bus stop, in a corner shop or anywhere they could imagine. Therefore, it seems that these new forms of communication do bring a great deal of convenience to humankind.

Nevertheless, opponents of modern communications claim that only the more privileged are able to enjoy the benefits. They further point out that the wide spread use of these efficient and effective ways of communication costs a considerable amount of money. Anyone who aims to use these innovations have to not only pay for the appliances such as a mobile phone or a computer but also cover up costs for communication services. Consequently, people who live in poverty are less likely to be benefited from modern communication technologies.

By way of conclusion, I believe that modern communication technologies will benefit more people in the future as the pace of life increases; however, the have-nots cannot be ignored simply because they couldn't afford it.

Writing Feedback / ielts essay: pros and cons of developments in agriculture [2]

A matter of considerable controversy at present is the issue of whether developments in agriculture are beneficial to humankind, or rather these developments should be allowed to die out just as many inappropriate innovations have in the past. From my perspective, these developments in agricultures should be preserved for the sake of the benefits of all human beings.

To begin with, innovations in agriculture such as mechanized farming and the creations of genetic engineering foods may be the only way to feed the vast number of people in every corner of the world. Imagine the tragedies that would ensue if people lived in famine and started to eat people to survive. Therefore, governments around the world have the obligation to fund in technological developments in farming in order to make an enough production of food for its people. Another reason for applied technology in agriculture is the low-priced foods resulted from the widely used of factory farming. Thanks to the lower expenditure in food consuming, low income people now have sufficient money to cover up costs in health and education.

Nonetheless, opponents of modern technology in agriculture would argue that the proliferation of GE food and factory farming are detrimental to people's health. They further suggest that food which is genetically modified interrupts the natural balance of the ecosystem and would return to haunt us in unexpected ways. In other words, although technological developments in agriculture is beneficial in the short term, its long term negatives are significant.

In reality, of course, the wide spread use of modern technology in agriculture may be problematic in itself; however, given the seriousness of food insufficiency through out the world, I believe this would be the ultimate goal.