Writing Feedback / IELTS> 'strict policies' - urbanisation - benefits and drawbacks [16]

Many people leave the countryside for the greater opportunities which are offered by cities. This move is not without disadvantages for both people and the environment. What are some benefits and drawbacks of urbanisation?

Nowadays, the issue of urbanization is more frequently discussed than ever before due to its increasing impacts on lives and on the environment. The advantages of urbanization could be better economy and education and also less land to be used for agricultural purposes. In contrast, this phenomenon could result in poor living and working conditions and some negative effects on the air quality.

First, many people hope that if they move to live in a big city they could have higher-income jobs and better education. For example, Beijing is believed to be a dream land to many Chinese citizens. This is where many domestic and foreign companies are located so many young people from the rural areas of the country have moved to this city to look for occupation. These people wish to earn some money and send them to their struggling families. Other people, however, want their children to have the best education they can have. Often high-ranked schools or universities with well-trained teachers are in this city. Moreover, since the youth of the country sides have gone, there are not many people left to do the agricultural works so there will be less land to be exploited to produce agriculture products. This can be argued a good impact on the environment.

However, the critics of urbanization argue that as too many people move to major cities in recent years, there is greater competition for jobs. This means only people with greatest ability can remain staying in these cities. Often they have to work the jobs that they have to exert themselves so hard, such as the works in construction sites, and are often in dangers which can cause death to them. Big cities nowadays are facing the problems of overpopulation and the most obvious is the lack of space for people to live. Often, people from poor villages when they move to an urban area they have no choice but to live in the places which have no electricity and clean drink water. Some people even have to live under a bridge or in a park. Moreover, the expansion of city often leads to trees have to be cut off for buildings to rise. The reduced amount of trees can be easily linked to a rapid fall in the quality of air which can severely damage the health of many people.

In conclusion, after considering both sides of urbanization, more bad is felt to be resulted from this phenomenon than good. As such, the rapid increasing trend in the number of city life should be carefully managed by strict policies.

Please correct my writing. Thank you guys in anticipation.

Writing Feedback / Tourism could be very important for the development of many countries [6]

The costs of international travel are decreasing and tourism is growing. What are the advantages and disadvantages of increasing tourism activity in different countries?

Nowadays more and more people are becoming aware of the decrease in the expenses of travelling and hence tourism is booming. Although many may see this as a positive phenomenon, it is not a trend without drawbacks. Both the pros and cons of the rapidly growing tourism activity will be discussed in this essay.

It is believed that tourism is playing an important part in the economy of different countries and it also helps to open the minds of both visitors as well as domestic people. Firstly, a host country will receive a huge amount of foreign currency in form of the money visitors bring to this country. Actually, many of today societies, especially those of developing countries, have to depend on tourism to develop. Secondly, international travelling is a way to exchange cultures between different countries and bring news to many places. For example, in rural areas and mountainous regions of Cambodia, not so far from now, people used to be self-sufficient and their lives so relied on agriculture. If the rice grows well, they have enough food to eat and to store; but if the rice does not grow well due to bad weather, then the people may starve to death. Thing is not hard as it used to now because the people can have another source of income which comes from tourism. Locals started making souvenirs and sell them to visitors and have money to buy food and other necessary stuff that they can not produce. Also, from the activity the local people do in their everyday life, tourists can learn a lot about their culture which is the greatest benefit from tourism.

However, many people often criticize tourism for its negative impacts on the environment and on the nature of the places. Take my hometown for instance, it used to be well-known for its beautiful and extensive beaches and people like to go swimming in the sea and enjoy seafood at some restaurants near the beaches. However, because many tourists carelessly throw rubbishes like plastic bags into the sea, many jellyfishes and other marine creatures have died and the place is not as clean as it used to be. We have lost our beautiful coastlines and also have less amount of tourist each year. This clearly shows that tourism can cause many bad effects on the environment and on the value of the places.

In conclusion, tourism could be very important for the development of many countries, however, the increasing tourism activities could damage the environment and cause the value or the nature of different places to be vanished.

Please provide me some feedback on my essay (grammar, vocabulary, cohesion and task fullfilment) and as always any help is appreciated. Thanks !

Writing Feedback / Standards of zoos should be leveled up; 'KEEPING ANIMALS IN ZOOS, RIGHT OR WRONG?' [7]

Hi everyone, please comment on my piece of writing about zoos and their advantages and disadvantages.

Since the time they were introduced zoos have both been supported and criticized. Many believe that zoos could be very entertaining and ecologically important, whereas, others think that keeping animals in captivity is totally wrong. Both sides will be discussed before a reasonable conclusion is drawn.

First, critics of zoology argue that keeping animals in captivity is wrong because animals should be considered non-human persons and they should have the right of having freedom. This is so unfair for them to be taken out of their natural environment and to be kept in small enclosures. That is because, many zoos, especially the ones in developing countries, do not provide care and attention which their animals require. The animals are often undernourished and do not have sufficient quality and quantity of medical treatment. In addition, sometimes animals from hot countries have to survive in the cold winter of somewhere in Europe.

On the other hand, the advocators believe that zoos provide the public with good entertainment and also help to ensure the balance of the ecology. Many people, especially young children enjoy going to zoos and see their favorite animals, cute baby-born animals and the animals that are from the different corners of the world. Zoos provide educational information about the lives of different animals to the public. Also, zoos play an important role in reserving many breeds of animal and preventing them from being missing from life. This is due to the fact that, in zoos, animals are kept in enclosures which simulate their own habitats and also endangered animals are being protected from their predators or hunters. Thus zoos are needed to keep the nature balanced.

In conclusion, both of the arguments have strong supports, but in my own view, more good come from zoos than bad. However, it is hoped that the standards of zoos should be leveled up to ensure that the animals in zoos are provided with good care and attention.

Please correct my essay in terms of grammar, vocabulary, cohesion, and task fulfillment. As always every help is appreciated!

Writing Feedback / IELTS> Are environmental problems too big to be managed by individuals [5]

Hi everyone, please correct my writing in terms of grammar, vocabulary, cohesion and task fulfillment. Any help is always appreciated.

Topic: Nowadays environmental problems are too big to be managed by individual persons or individual countries. In other words, it is an international problem. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Most people in the world have become aware that the environment is a serious issue. In recent years, many believe that because environmental problems are too enormous for individual persons and individual nations to handle, they should be considered international problems. However, I partly agree and partly disagree with this statement.

First, critics of the idea that the environmental problems can only be solved if they are taken to an international level of activity may argue that each individual people can contribute significantly to reduce the impacts of human activities on the environment by a variety of measures. For example, by recycling more and driving or flying less, a person can reduce his personal carbon footprint which helps to curb air pollution. In addition, on a national level, each government can put taxes on carbon emissions or higher taxes on gasoline so that people and companies will have greater incentives to conserve energy and pollute less. This is believed an effective method to prevent the environment being worse.

However, on an international scale, the world governments can cooperate to fight against the environmental problems. One approach is by joining the Kyoto Protocol which is an agreement between countries that they will cut back on carbon dioxide emissions. This is also a crucial method to tackle the problems related to environment issue and has been approved by many nations around the world.

All things have been considered, in my view, although countries around the globe can joint together to reduce the impacts of human activities on the environment, but individual persons and individual countries can still make a tremendous contribution to the fight against environmental problems.

Writing Feedback / IELTS> THE PROS AND CONS OF ANIMAL TESTING [4]

Hello fellows, please provide me some feedback on my IELTS writing in regards to grammar, vocabulary, cohesion and task fulfillment. Thank you you all in advance. Here is the topic:

What are the advantages and disadvantages of using animals to test the medicines invented for human use? Discuss and state your own opinion.

My answer:

In recent years, the issue about animal right has garnered great attention from the society. Whether animal testing should be banned or not is still being debated by many people. Both the advantages and disadvantages of using animals in experiments for inventing medicines for humanity will be discussed in this essay before a reasonable conclusion is drawn.

First, the critics of the idea of using animals in testing medicines argue that non-human animals are living organisms like human and also they share the same place to live with humanity, so they should be considered as non-human persons and members of the moral community. Animals are hence believed to have the rights of not to be owned or not to be subjects in experiments. In addition, the researches that used animals as subjects to be tested are often criticized for enthanising most of the animals after experiments. They are also believed to provide out-of-date data which lead to misleading information and the medicines used on animals can not always be applied safely on human. This is therefore, animal testing is argued to have great disadvantages on both humans and animals.

On the other hand, the advocators of animal experimentation argue that using non-human animals in testing medicines has brought extreme benefits to human lives and is playing a very important role on many fields of researching. These supporters rely on the fact that virtually every discovery in the 20th century is resulted from animal testing and thousands of lives have been protected from dangerous diseases by medicines which were tested on animals. Moreover, until now even sophisticated computers are unable to model interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and the environment, making animal research necessary in many areas.

In conclusion, although animal testing has several certain drawbacks, it is believed to bring undeniably important benefits to humanity. It is hoped that there will be more awareness about the lives of animals to protect them from illegal hunting and being poorly treated.

Writing Feedback / IELTS ADVERTISING- POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE PART OF OUR LIVES [7]

Advertising is all around us; it is an unavoidable part of everyone's life. Some people say that advertising is a positive part of our lives while others say it is negative. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Hi all, the below is my answer to this question, please evaluate it in terms of grammar, good vocabulary, cohesion, and task achievement. Many thanks!

Nowadays, the use of advertisement through different forms of media such as newspapers, radio and television has become very prevalent, so it is thought to be a necessary part of today's society. Many believe that advertising has brought great benefits to lives therefore it should be considered a positive activity while others have held a complete different idea about this. Both views will be critiqued before a reasonable conclusion is drawn.

First, it is generally understood that advertising is carried out with the main purpose of promoting different products and services or encouraging people to consume more. Advertisements are, therefore, very important for many businesses to increase sales and hence profits. Also, to consumers, advertising can bring them many benefits. For example, customers of telecommunication services will have an idea about the current offers of different companies and hence they can compare them and then have a better decision in choosing their internet or mobile phone plans. From all of these, it is easy to see why the idea that advertising is a positive part of life will garner strong support.

However, it can be seen that some people have argued against advertising due to its negative impacts. Firstly, a huge amount of different advertisements could be sent automatically by a system to personal phones or email addresses, this is generally known as spam, and causes discomfort or even annoyance to many people. Secondly, advertising can be very expensive and not every advertising campaign can be done successfully and brings good results. Therefore, advertising is believed by many, a financial burden to businesses.

In conclusion, after analyzing the pros and cons of advertising, both of the views have strong support, but it is felt that more good comes from advertising than bad. Thus, the idea that advertising is a positive part of life can be more supported.

Writing Feedback / "equal abilities of both genders" - EQUAL NUMBERS OF MALE & FEMALE IN EVERY SUBJECT [4]

Hi guys, please help by providing me with your suggestions/corrections in terms of structure, vocabulary, cohesion and grammar. Any help will be appreciated.

Many believe that the numbers of male and female students should be accepted equally in all subjects by universities. I totally agree with this idea because females should be no longer treated unfairly, they can do as good as males can in every subject and the rights of both genders in the society need to be protected.

First, it has been clearly pointed out that treating unfairly to an individual or a particular group of people or gender is discrimination and hence prohibited by laws in almost every countries all over the world. This is therefore both genders must be equally accepted into universities.

In addition to this, there have been many evidences to prove that women can perform as excellent as men in almost every fields or subjects. One good example could be use is that the current prime minister of Australia is a female. This example clearly shows that even in politics, the field that is used to be dominated by men, women can definitely go to the top. As such, in every subject taught at universities, male and female students should be equally accepted.

Another reason why the statement is supported is that, in every occupation equal numbers of both genders participating are ideal. For example, in police forces both male and female officers are needed to ensure the balance between genders which is to protect the right of everyone in the society to be treated fairly and especially to avoid sexual harassment in many cases in that the offenders are females.

In conclusion, after analyzing the areas of anti-discrimination, equal abilities of both genders to perform well in many fields as well as protecting the rights of societies' members to be treated fairly, it has been proven that universities should accepts equal numbers of male and female students in every subject is a highly supported statement.

Writing Feedback / The twenty first century experienced the significant growth of globalization. [NEW]

Should wealthy nations be required to share their wealth among poorer nations by providing such things as food and education? Or is it the responsibility of the governments of poorer nations to look after their citizens themselves?

The twenty first century experienced the significant growth of globalization. Nations around the world have come closer together than they did ever before to support each other in all means of development. Thus many have hold that richer countries should provide aids such as food and education to poorer countries. However, this is refuted by others in that the governments of less developed nations should assume the responsibility to take care of their people themselves. Both these arguments will be critiqued before a reasoned conclusion can be drawn.

First, it is felt that to protect the human rights of everyone in the world, people in poor countries should be helped by people in rich countries. For example, thousands of people in less developed African countries such as Kenya are starving and many do not have education; although there have been volunteers, such as people in charitable organizations from western countries, to go and help but it seems this is just not enough. Thus, to ensure the right to achieve at least the standard of total wellbeing, having enough food and sufficient education, of those people in poor countries, more aids are needed from wealthy nations.

On the other hand, the conservative party argues that to achieve the goal of development, governments of poorer nations should not rely on the help of wealthier nations but looking after their citizens themselves. It can be understood the reason why some people would hold this idea is because, if less-developed countries are so dependent on the aids from well-developed countries then they would probably become a more kind of colony to those wealthier nations. This is therefore it is guessed that this argument may garner some support.

In conclusion, both sides have strong support but after conducting the analysis of both camps it is felt that the argument of which richer nations should share their wealth and hence provide aids to poorer nations is more supportive. As such it is hoped that in future there will be more helps from wealthy countries to ensure that people in poor countries will have good health and education.

Writing Feedback / [IELTS TASK 2] environment problem, is it an international problem? [3]

Hi everyone, I'm new here and would be grateful if someone can give me comments on my writing. I'm practising for a high score of the IELTS test and the examiner will mark on: Grammar (correct and vary ), vocabulary, cohesion and task achievement.

Here's the topic: Nowadays environment problems are too big to be managed by individual persons or individual countries. In order words, it is an international problem. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Today the environment is considered by many groups as "the common heritage of mankind" and the environmental problems are increasingly the subject of international efforts because of their cross-border impacts and the impossibility that just an individual person or few nations can solve these problems on their own. This will be proven by analysing the impacts of globalisation on the environment and the advantages of cooperation in an attempt to solve environmental problems which lead the effort to solve these problems individually to meaningless.

First, as globalisation continues, the Earth's natural procedures transform local problems into international issues, few societies are being left untouched by major environmental problems. Take air pollution for example, it is believed to have negative impacts on human and animal lives in almost every parts of the world and a great deal of it has been proved to be caused by the consumption of a huge amount of fuel for traveling and shipping which are resulted from globalisation. The term globalisation suggests people to be more connected with each other and an open market which means commodities can be exchanged freely across boundaries, thus leading to more traveling and shipping. This example clearly shows that environment problem has become an international problem as it has worldwide range effects on human lives.

Now looking at the advantage of cross-border collaboration to solve environmental problems. The worldwide cooperation creates and spreads expert knowledge that is beneficial for the environment and society in general. For instance, in many countries, Germany in particular, the main concern is drought and there is a great need for irrigation. It has been proved that there was more technically complex than expected, however through cooperating with other partners, ideas and experiences with irrigation and water retention have been shared and this challenge has been overcome. When looking at this example, it is no doubt that it is much easier to solve environmental problems by the collaboration of many people or countries than by individual attempts.

After analysing the areas of impacts of globalisation on the environment and the advantages of worldwide cooperation in solving environmental problems, it can be concluded that environmental problems are international concerns, and not within the control of only few individual persons or countries. It is expected that the problems will be monitored and solved by the contributions of everyone and every nations through a "world environmental organisation" to coordinate international environmental policies.

Please give me some comments and corrections. Do you think the arguments are strong and logical?