Writing Feedback / IELTS Cam 7 Test 2- Criminal Punishment [5]

Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime. Others, however, argue that the circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should always be taken into account when deciding on the punishment.

Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

No doubt that everyone hates criminals. Thanks to our modern society, most of them are in prison biting bitter caused by themselves. However, there still an argument about how to fix the punishment, simply judge by the type of crime or consider the motivation and the true reason behind? Emotionally, I'm more trend the latter point of view and reasons listed as below.

As not hard to find in history, varies of criminals were appear during wars and the fact is not coming without a reason. By lacking of food, many thieves appear as well as hungry prostitute and envy poor. It will be inconvenient if we really blame them committed crime. Admittedly, it should be punished for crime, but under certain circumstance civilized regulation can't beat human nature fighting for survive. Moreover, even in modern society, truth always hidden in fact. Take school teenagers as example, although hardly to claim it as crime, but bully and abuse are usually the real reason causes fight or hurt. Lastly, we have to admit laws and regulation not always right. As a certain rules of people's behavior, laws and regulations usually need to be revise and develop all the time. If we simply fix crimes according the first edition of laws and ignore the changing motivation will not convinced by judges or general public.

In conclusion, even criminals are hateful, but the motivation for committing it still cannot be ignore. Not only it could help judges fix punishment more convincible, but also the motivation could be educational to the society and avoid it as much as we can.

Writing Feedback / IELTS - Beijing example; Petrol price rising vs traffic and pollution [3]

Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems.
To what extent do you agree or disagree.
What other measures do you thing might be effective.

It is a fact that traffic and pollution becomes the major problem to modern cites. Some people thought the dramatic increasing number of private cars every year is essential reason to cause such a problem and claim the best way to solve is to raising the price of petrol. However, I tend to believe there are more and better solutions than that.

Increasing the price of petrol will defiantly help control the number of private cars but it also will cause side effect for public transportations. Not only will adding transportation company running budget but also will end it up paid by all passengers. Take Beijing as example, all passengers need pay extra 3RMB for fuel cost, but this policy didn't helped the fact of Beijing Transportation situation.

Besides rising price of petrol, other measures could be taken for this situation. First of all, public transportation system could improve and took place of private car usage. Buses, subways, taxies and even public bicycle system recently appears in many cities, people could easily go around by mature public traffic systems in stand of private cars. Moreover, for push the public and more environmental friendly vehicles, government could publish and support with many benefit regulations, such as discount price tickets and priority for public vehicles parking area etc. Last but not least, developing clean fuel is another important approach for help city pollution. In stand of petrol, solar energy, nuclear and other cutting-edge technical will solve the pollution problem in the near future.

In conclusion, even though rising petrol price will shortly help control the problem for traffic and transportation, other measures such as fuel replacement and public transportation system develop are more crucial to change this situation completely.

Writing Feedback / IELTS; High Sales Vs Power of Advertising - Discuss [6]

Topic: Today, the high sales of popular consumer goods reflect the power of advertising and not the real needs of the society in which they are sold.

To what extent you agree or disagree?

Now days, a discussion rose about goods purchasing and what extent advertisements stimulate it. Some insist people are encouraged to buy things they don't actually need, while others support the viewpoint that people buy more because their increasing income in stand of advertisements. I trend to support the latter point of view; however both of them have their own fault.

First of all, with the development of our society, the meaning of need has been redefined. In other word, people have more demands besides just food and clothes (even those are changed too). For instance, according to Tongji University last year report, car purchasing dramatically increased during the past 7 years (2005-2012) in China, based on people's needs for travel themselves and more convenient. Advertisement helped only for 5% of the total sale number. Moreover, modern lifestyle has changed for more choice. Compared with our last generation, various type of instant food and different kinds of shoes would consider as no necessary. However, it means a lot and makes our live in the quick speed metropolitan much more convenient. Advertisement is only tell us what kind choice we could have.

Although, it is not saying advertisements cause no fault. For those people who can't make clear decisions, such as toy advertisement for kids and chocolate advertisement during valentine season should played more thoughtful. Business trick and celebrity effect are truly leading reasonless consume.

In conclusion, the development of advertising industry is still reasonable, customers by goods according personal standard and needs. However, mass media and related governmental department need oversee this blooming industry to make sure it on a right and healthy path.

Writing Feedback / Talents; Born with them or not? IELTS [6]

TOPIC: It's generally believe that some people are born with certain talents, for instance for sport or music, and others are not. However, it is sometimes claimed that any child can be taught to become a good sport person or musician. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

It's not a surprise that people will argue over talent. When some superstar musician or athletes shown their great achievement on television will always bring discussion like this: Is he or she really born with talent or successes by sufficient perspiration? Emotionally, I trend to support the idea people born with certain talent. However, both of them have their own fault.

Admittedly, people with talent will have greater achievement then those people who don't have. Even with hard training and study, the difference will still shown in details. Such as the superior singer Michael Jackson, who will never be so successes without his talented voice. In addition, millions of Chinese students are forced to take extra classes for mathematics or piano. If talent could replace with hard work, China will have numbers of mathematicians and pianists right now. In contrast, take Mozart as an example, as one of the greatest musician, Mozart start to compose since he was only 4 years old and most of his great pieces were finished before 30. There should no other explanation than talent is no replaceable for the whole time.

However, it is not saying training is not important. Even though for those genius, certain training and study still requested. Especially at their early stage in the talented profession. Like some wise says: successes = 1% inspiration + 99% perspiration. Even though is a great bless to have some talent, but it will make no difference with ordinary peoples if it been ignored or abused.

Writing Feedback / Should universities provide skills for workplace? IELTS Essay [3]

Hi Tutors, please help me to check this essay, will be much appraciated! Any commends will be helpful.

TAST 2
Some people think that universities should provide graduates with the knowledge and skills needed in the workplace. Others think that the true function of a university should be give access to knowledge for its own sake, regardless of whether the course if useful to an employers.

What, in your opinion, should be the main function of a university?

It is not a news that new graduates can't easily survive in reality world nowadays, usually self-centre and lack of practical skills are make job-finding harder and harder. Someone point out: University should start workplace kills training as soon as possible. But can we really blame on college education? Even though there is something university could improve, but personally I still think students should take the responsible themselves.

The priority reason for students gathering in university is to become more professional in their major. It's doesn't request everyone becomes an expert but with professional knowledge study and practice will greatly help students at work, No one will hire a programmer without knowing how to use computer. Besides, self-learning is another essential task when students spend time in university. As an public education institute, university standard teaching structure are prepared for most students but not everyone, students needs to learn themselves according their interests and study plan; and apparently working skill learning should be included in with more propose for graduation. Students who have internship experience are usually find job easier.

However, that's doesn't means there is nothing universities could do about it. Explore more internship opportunities; open lectures to teaching students how to start self-study, invite graduated students back to school and set up panel discussion are all able to help young students find out what their need.

In conclusion, universities should still focus on academic teaching, some lecture and more internship opportunity might have some side-assistance, but workplace skill should mostly learn by students themselves.