Writing Feedback / Does advertising make people be the same? [3]

Please help me correct it. Thanks to all of you!
Some people argue that advertising is discouraging people from being different individuals and makes people to be or seem to be the same . Do you agree or disagree?

Perhaps no subject in the world is as likely to give rise to so much controversy as advertising does. One of the main critisms against advertisement is that it eliminates individual sense of identity, making people become indistinguishable from each other. Below are arguments against this allegation.

First of all, advertising has been supposed to be very sucessful in creating peer pressure. By tempting messages and persuasive arguments, advertisers can draw public attention, cajoling consumers, especially adult adolesents, into buying their newly-marketed products merely on the ground that his or her peers are possessing it. What is purchased might be not their actual demands. However, it is natural that each individual definitely has identity distinguish from others. Though temporarily buyers favour the same goods as it is the the latest fad, sooner or later they will discern that it is a huge waste of time and money to spend on something that is not really appropriate for them. It is, thus, arguable to contend that under no circumstances would advertisers be incapable of setting a prevailing trend in the society.

Another main strategy embraced by advertisers is to associate their products with well-known celebrities who could be cited as the quintessence of always being the owners of up-to-the-minute and high-end products in the world. In the hope of being alike their idols, people from all walks of life are inclined to purchase the same goods that famous stars use and thereby become similar to each other. Nonetheless, there are a number of certain factors consumers would take into consideration, including their income levels, physical state or circumsatances, before buying something. For instance, when it comes to luxury goods, solely a marginal number of purchasers can afford the financial cost. Therefore, no matter how attractive and pursuasive an advertisement is, never can it tempt people to make the same purchase.

From what has been analysed above, it is concluded that by dint of distinctive characteristics and different material wealth, hardly can advertisers make any products or services dominant the market as well as make consumers share uniform taste on merchandise purchased.

Writing Feedback / Should violent films that have adverse effects be controlled? [4]

Please help me to check it, thanks to all of you!

The government should control the amount of violence in films and on television in order to control violent crimes in society. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The violent contents broadcasted by the mass media have been singled out in recent years as a matter of urgent public concern. Some believe that so as to curb the threats of violence and crimes in society, the government should impose strict limitations on the amount of violent and action movies. I totally subscribe to this view for the following rationales.

First of all, some in favour of violent films contend that violence is considered as an inevitable part of reality, whether one acknowledges it or not. It is, thus, legitimate for television programme producers to reflect the real world in movies. Addtionally, in most cases, for the purpose of promoting justice or self-defence, the act of using violence is acceptable. This may sound true to a certain extent; nonetheless, the fact is that in pursuit of a high audience rating, movie producers normally tend to put strong emphasis on the extraodinary heroism which is far from easy to capture in reality. This might coax audiences, especially younger generations, into a fantastic world and automatically simulating violent behaviours in a belief that those actions would be deeply respected and reaped applause from others. In other words, the massive coverage of violence in the news media could exert profound impacts on viewers and lead them to undesiable behaviours.

Opponents of curbing violence on television argue against any forms of censorship. They believe that adult viewers are adequate mature to make their own decisions on what programme is harmful for them. As for chilrden, with intensive supervision of their parents, they would be kept under control and therefore would be unable to access violent scenes. However, facts have shown that dominant entertainment media is so successful in cajoling millions of audiences every single day into watching their action productions, regardless of age. So prudent are producers that they can make their products sound attractive and then audiences, including adults, could not escape from them. Generally, there is no point in denying the fact that tight constraints on curbing violence in the media is essential.

From what has been analysed above, it is concluded that violence in the mass media could have adverse effects on audiences regardless of age, even resulting in crimes in the society. It is high time the government took actions and tackled such a problem. Censorship definitely prove to be one of the most effective panaceas for the time being.

Writing Feedback / Should restrict detailed descriptions of crime reports? [NEW]

Some people suggest that there should be restrictions on a detailed description of crimes in the newspapers and on television. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The violence contents broadcasted by the mass media have been singled out in recent years as a matter of urgent public concern. It has been argued that a detailed description of crimes should be restricted. I totally concur with this view for the following justifications.

First of all, it is believed that thanks to a wide variety of daily crime news broadcasted in the media, ranging from pickpocketing, shoplifting, burglary to homicide or murder, viewers could have a deep-rooted understanding of the criminal underworld, assisting them with a prevention strategy or even teaching them how to resolve problems while unfortunately being in these hazardous situations. Nonetheless, facts have shown that in accompany with merits is the possibility of viewers involved in offenses. In pursuit of a high audiences rating, TV programme producers are likely to go into detail as much as possible in crime reports. Some of them can go so far as to present the whole procedure for a law-offending practice. Not surprisingly, those reports turn out to be free courses from which prospective criminals can learn sophisticated technique to carry out their brutal crimes. Those instead make a significant contribution to the rise in crime rates in the whole society.

Another rationale opposed to detailed descriptions of crime reports is to give peple a basic belief in a peaceful and secure life. It should be recognised that aiming to draw attention of the desired audiences, the news media tend to put strong emphasis on serious crimes or vastly exaggerate the magnitude of the real threat; for example, consequences of a terrotism attack could be repeatedly highlight in the media. It would end up with causing panic amongst population and lead them to doubt seriously about surroundings. Mutal belief amongst humans, as a result, would be destructive. From this perspective, there is no point in denying that full depictions of crime reports should be restrained.

As analysed above, it is concluded that the government should impose constraints on detailed descriptions of offence reports so as to minimise opportunities for criminals to learn tricks and reinforce human belief in a serene and credible world. It is expected that in the future there will be no need for any forms of those reports as the dismissal of criminals in the society.

Writing Feedback / Should artists be given total freedom? [4]

Creative artists should be given freedom to express their ideas through words, pictures, music or films. Some people nevertheless think that the government should restrict artist's freedom of expression. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

"Give me Liberty or give me Death" , says, Pattrick Henry, the world-renowed artist in the American history. The matter of whether artists should be given total freedom to voice their own opinions through their works of art and meanwhile devote more great masterpices to human life is always in dispute. My view is that the government should draw the line at the freedom of expression for them.

First of all, unarguably, each citizen in society have the right to express their own opinions, known as the freedom of speech. This right is properly protected by law. Nonetheless, it should be acknowledged that not any statements or messages could be conveyed to viewers, regardless of content, particularly in the realm of politics or racial attitudes. Also artists are parts of the society and thus can not be an exception. Moreover, as a rule, artists are considered as trend-makers whose behaviors and lifestyles often draw public's attention. Considering such profound influences their ways of life exert on normal people, the government should impose constraints on what can be made available to the public and what not.

Secondly, it is thought that freedom is a source of inspiration in creating arts. Artists, if so obsessed by censorship or prosecution, would become unable to compose any great masterworks as being inhibited. Our lives would go hand in hand with monotony and humans might fail to establish their distinct cultural identity through artworks. This may sound true to a certain extent; however, the truth is that in an effort to yield enormous profits for themselves there are, nowadays, a number of artists who are likely to abuse their sole prerogative to cross the line, producing sex-arousing imagines, bias-provoking novels or obsence movies in disguise of the artworks. What is so-called true arts, as a result, might be put on the verge of extinction. The aesthetic taste of humanity, likewise, would be misleaded, easpecially that of the younger generation. In such cases, restraints definitely prove to be pivotal.

As analysed above, one can come to conclusion that the artists should be given restrict freedom on composing arts. Hopefully in the future, there is no need for censorship by dint of artists' self-consciousness, but in the meantime, this prescription probably remains essential so as to preserve the true aesthetic beauty of arts.

Writing Feedback / [IELTS task 2 essay] Should we first explore our own countries? Discuss? [6]

It is said that travel broadens the mind. What can we learn by travelling to other countries? Should we first explore our own countries? Discuss?

Living in the globalisation age, people nowadays are becoming familiar with an accelerating trend in transnational travel. The argument that travellers, before spending time on exploring other countries, initially should discover their own countries has been embraced by more and more people. Others, however, claim this allegation is flawed as many outstanding merits offered by foreign travel. My essay will analyse advantages of both domestic and overseas travel, then the preference is shared.

There are several excuses in favour of domestic travel first. The principle argument might be to demonstrate a great honour for the homeland. To the land where people were born and bred or even experience most of the lifetime, a fully comprehensive understanding is essential. Perhaps no shame is more deep than the act of standing silently by while receiving a few nation-related questions from a foreigner notwithstanding a vast source of knowledge about other different countries you possess. What is so-called ethnic conscicousness? Admittedly, each individual is a citizen of the globe but first and foremost they are derived from their motherland. That is, they better should genuinely perceive their own national geography and culture first. Plus, only when indigenous inhabitants deeply know about their countries, as an initial way to denote the ethnic pride, do they get high respect from foreginers. Believing that this can assist to boost their beloved nations to a new position in the international arena in terms of multi-fields.

On the contrary, some people tend to prefer transnational travel for many redeeming features. Firstly, as there goes a saying "Travelling forms a young man", oversea travelling is of great educational value. There are precious lessons that people would never get if they travel around their countries solely. For example, only by setting foot on other countries, did Minh Tri absorb the crème de la crème of those and thus find out the way to reform Japanese education. The second overwhelming advantage to note is a sense of the real experience. As technology booms at a staggering speed, it is believed that with just one click of the mouse, everyone can easily access to a wide variety of places worldwide, seeing lively pictures and diving in vivid sounds. Nonetheless, seeing is believing, right at home how can you truly immerse yourself in the myth of London fog or savour all the grandeur of the Great Wall in China? In other words, overseas travel bestow upon us some outstanding merits that domestic one could not.

As illuminated above, either domestic or transnational travel has its own beauties. Nevertheless, I take my own stance that foreign travel should take a back seat. Knowing well about your home country first, you will have a solid foundation and strong confidence to step outside the world.

Writing Feedback / Should or should not following local culture when travelling? [2]

Please help me check this essay. Thank you so much :)

Some people believe that visitors to other countries should follow local customs and behavior. Others disagree and think that the host countries should welcome cultural differences. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion?

As there is little room for doubt that tourism is one of the most fastest- growing industries in the world, people in recent years have witnessed an increasing number in transnational travel. However, this trend still remains a source of constant debate whether visitors should respect indigenous conventions when travelling or local areas should adopt the cultural diversity. This essay will illuminate both sides of the issue before my own perspective is stated.

The initial reason why locals should accept different culture is absolutely to show their great hospitality. Travellers, if receiving a warm welcome from original inhabitants, will feel much more fascinated to explore numerous interesting things about these countries: ancient history, cultural traits, or even time-honoured customs, to name but a few. Their families and friends thus will be shared the precious experience in the local culture once they come back home, assisting native countries to promote their tourist attractions. As utilizing this free word-of-mouth marketing, the considerable worldwide fame could be promptly attained, thereby gaining more employment opportunities in the tourism industry as well as yielding high income for locals. In addition, as for most visitors, normally they pay a visit to the other land over short period. This means that it is not adequate time for them to merge into local traditions; hence, with this acceptable reason, they should be sympathized by indigenous inhabitants albeit little unexpected displeasure.

On the other hand, there is another pool of thought contending that visitors should blend into religious traditions in regard to several rationales. Firstly, as there goes a saying " When in Rome, do as the Romans do", travellers would preclude some unexpected embarrassement or unwanted things coming about once following indigenous customs. By way of illustration, driving on the right side of the road as they do in their motherland when visiting Britain that is a left-hand traffic country, what will happen to Vietnamese people? The second justification that should be noted is that to most travellers, their prime purpose when travelling is to learn different culture and to sample various ways of life. Only by adopting local conventions can visitors immerse themselves in native environment and well savour the local culture.

All things considered, I take my own stance that indigenous inhabitants should welcome the cultural diversity in their homeland for either economic stimulation or promoting their country to the rest of the world. It is, nonetheless, of paramount importance that visitors should respect native long-standing traditions as much as possible so as to acculturate to the native environement, simultaneously co-build a harmonious multi-cultural community throughout the world.

Writing Feedback / My essay about transport-related foods [4]

Food is transported thousands of miles from the farm to the market. Is it possitive or negative trend?

The mobile trend in the food allocation has become more and more prevalent around the globe. In recent times, the question whether it is a curse or a blessing has sparked an intense debate. On the one hand there is an army of people convinced that transport-related foods bestow many merits upon humankind. On the other, a host of progressives protest that this tendency brings our lives a wide variety of adverse effects. I totally support the later view for the following reasons.

It is, first, argued that the trading of food between countries could be considered as evidence of cultural amalgamation, which possibly contributes to enhancing mutual understanding amongst different nations in the time of globalisation. Take Japanese sushi, for example. In the past, this cuisine used to be regarded as something of an oddity in many countries. Thanks to the trading of foodstuff, today people all over the world could taste the dish that characterizes Japan even when staying at home. However, in terms of environment, there are more pains than gains if people continue choosing this type of food. Not only does transporting food comsume a great deal of alternative energy, it also emits harmful gases such as carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. These things are perhaps one of fundamental explanations for the exhausted energy issue and the world's acute environmental pollution facing mankind in this day and age. If people do not avoid purchasing overseas foostuffs, our ecosystem might be under threat and the future generations would not have adequate natural resources in order to survive. As this has shown, locally produced food proves the best choice for minimizing pollutants and preserving the habitat of human beings.

The second advantage of this trend is claimed that by exchanging food among nations, more benefits are offered to the native land and strengthening the local economy. Vietnam is a typical example of this. Global demand for coffee has allowed Vietnam to take advantage of its tropical geography as well as contributing to significantly reducing the proportion of unemployment in the Tay Nguyen area. Nevertheless, there is a widespread belief that the act of using produce imported from abroad might lead to serious consequences for our health and it would be foolish to ignore it. Foodstuff is transported from one side to another side of the world throughout a long period of time before reaching consumers, it is uncertain whether it can be kept fresh and pasteurize without the support of harmful antioxidant, not to mention preservatives. The detrimental effects may be reflected in high rates of people suffering from serious diseases such as cancer due to absorbing toxic chemicals in food. Such severe damage is far greater than economic benefits attained. Thus, the drawbacks that come from foodstuffs traversing thousands of miles before consumption can clearly be seen.

All things considered, I strongly hold onto the view that there are more pains than gains realized in this scenario with regard to long-term well-being of humankind and environmental safeguards. In order to ensure a superior life for people, government should impose the laws to curb the consumption of overseas food.