Writing Feedback / IELTS; How Television impact on cultural development? [3]

Television has had a significant influence on the culture of many societies. To what extend do you think television has positively or negatively affected cultural development?

Recent years have witnessed the boom of television and people today still has mixed views on whether it has a positive or a negative influence on culture. As for me, it damages culture.

There is no denying that television, a form of mass media, is playing an increasingly important indispensable role in disseminating cultures and values due to its easily accessibility and availability. People of all backgrounds like to watch television. Besides, no matter ranging from advertisements to various television series, numerous cultural values embedded behind them. Learning and acquisition of culture worldwide can be done by watching vivid image provided on television without going out. It is television that makes the globe village closer.

However, the negative impacts on culture that brought by TV can also be justified. Those cultures from stronger countries can easily erode those cultures in less wealthy countries, because they have a strong financial position to assert their own culture by producing more programmes that are shown widely around the world. This makes the indigenous cultures in those less developed countries are on the brink of extinction, since they are less spread and recognized. Furthermore, cultural assimilation is inevitable happening. The good example illustrates this point is in the present days, Western cultures such as British and US culture are preferable and acceptable among the younger generations.

In conclusion, TV assumes a critical culture-spreader role, we should keep in mind while enjoying appreciating other cultures, we should not let it drain our own culture.

Writing Feedback / IETLS;What are the causes & solutions for decreasing quality of life in large cities? [2]

TodayïźŒthe quality of life in large cities is decreasing . What are the causes and solutions?

Recent years have witnessed the increasingly deteriorating quality of cities. Population explosion and pollution are attributed to this phenomenon. The corresponding solutions are needed to put forward.

Cities' quality largely depends on two main factors, the living environment and the sense of happiness achieved by its inhabitants. The boom of population in modern cities constitutes the major factor of polluting air quality. With the soaring population, a vast amount of carbon footprints left by massive traffic, which poses a threat to citizens' physical well-being. Besides, in the modern competitive society, office workers are suffering overwhelming competition from the peers. For securing their jobs and in pursuing their career success, they tend to lay excessive energy on working, thus, it results a lack of leisure time left for relaxing and socializing. As a result, a sense of alienation and isolation created that prevents them to achieve mental soundness.

The severity of this situation highlights the urgency of the efforts made by governments. In terms of combating damaged living environment resulted from over population, the administrative organs should allocate funds to the construction of infrastructure in the countryside, in order to facilitate the process of urbanization. Only in this way can the pressure of living space be released. Moreover, regarding to the population problem, governments should employ the influence of the media to lift society' environmental awareness and legislate stringent laws to restrict the number of vehicles. In addition, the authorities could fund heavily on environmentally friendly researches to invent a greener alternative energy to replace petrol.

In conclusion, the worsening living environment and related pollution emphasized the critical role played by the authorities to tackle these disturbing issues.

Thank you for your contribution, thanks in advance

Writing Feedback / How would Public Funds be spent? IELTS [6]

Public money should be spent on promoting healthy lifestyle rather than treating illnesses. Do you agree or disagree?

Accompanied by the fast-paced lifestyle, modern citizens find it inevitable to suffer from various diseases. The health problem is an issue of broad interest to the general public. Where the public fund should be allocated has sparked a heated debate. Some individuals believe this money can be utilized to advocate a healthy lifestyle. Nevertheless, others insist those funds should be allocated to curb illness instead. From my observation, both of them are worthy public funding.

To begin with, having a healthy lifestyle is the fundamental solution for preventing the illness. A healthy lifestyle includes such factors as non-smoking, a balanced diet, regular physical exercises, and psychological well-being. It is the radical method to resolve illness. Without it, more diseases will follow. In light of this, a healthy lifestyle lays a solid foundation for preventing illness and eliminating its associated medical treatments. Therefore, elevating the awareness of a sound lifestyle deserves more public wealth.

Nevertheless, the reason for distributing the public saving on curing disease can be justified. A consistent and great amount of money is requested to conduct scientific researches and explore the unknown medication areas in order to combat thorny illness. By living a healthy lifestyle is only effective for the prevention of diseases but not for curing the exist one. Thus, some proportion of money needs to be spent on curbing illness.

In conclusion, both approaches to ensure the comprehensive well-being of people are productive. I believe, the public money should be spent evenly on the prevention of diseases and the treatment of the exist sick.

Writing Feedback / politicians have the greatest influence on the world. [6]

Some people think that politicians have the greatest influence on the world. Other people, however, believe that scientists have the greatest influence. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Which party has a greater influential power in the world has sparked a heated debate, with some individuals perceiving that politicians have more significant power than scientists. Nevertheless, other people are against this statement as they assert that both politicians and scientists are playing indispensable roles in changing people's everyday life.

There is no denying that politicians are the major parties in making strategic foreign policies to safeguard the national interests among the world and boost economic development of countries. Specifically, politicians, as lawmakers, are primarily responsible for utilizing their power enact international laws for maintaining social order of law-abiding citizens. A case in this point is the pressing task for them to solve the conflicts between the host countries and other countries. Apart from this, they are responsible for establishing sound economic systems and overall well beings of countries. A case in this point is deciding what financial policy should be adopted when countries are in the different stage of economic cycles. Consequently, those decisions made by representatives in the authority have a profound impact on stability not only one nation but also the whole world.

Nevertheless, technologies invented by scientists have revolutionized our life significantly. Thanks to their endeavor in the conduction massive scientific researches, exploration and experiments, our everyday life can be modernized and our living standards are lifted dramatically. Besides, technologies overcome the obstacles of time and distance, which make our life more convenient and easier. The prevalence of mobile phones, the Internet, air travel serve as convincing illustrations. Without those innovations, we would still rely on woods to light. As a result, scientists substantially impact on human society.

In brief, it is hard to tell which party is more powerful, since both politicians and scientists are crucial in terms of developing a harmonious society.

Writing Feedback / IELTS; Exterior of buildings is more important than their functions. [6]

Some people think the exterior of buildings is more important than their functions. To what extent do you agree?

These days, as more high-rise buildings have been built. Whether a structure should focus on its exterior or interior has sparked a heated debate, with some individuals perceiving that external appearance is more important than internal function.Nevertheless, others hold an opposite view. From my perspective, it depends on the purpose of the structures.

There is no denying that for a magnificent building, the appearance is vital. The unique aesthetical value embodied by these structures is of the most significance. This architecture is the landmark or a symbol of city and represents the specific cultural ethos, which in turn attracts the tourists from all over the world and raises the sense of national pride for residents. Furthermore, having designed a fascinating masterpiece, which is considered to be a visual feast for artists. The prestige of the architect is likely to be boosted.

Nevertheless, it is a broadly acknowledged that in terms of residential buildings, by only having a gorgeous appearance but lack the practical value, is deemed to be meaningless. More importance should be attached to better the internal function and safety condition. This can be best illustrated by those multi-functional facilities with a high level of securities can cater the most of the needs of the potential purchasers.

In conclusion, the dominant purpose of an architecture is the function or exterior hinges on the type of structures. If it is a piece of art, then more emphasis should be laid on appearance. On the other hand, if the building serves as residential purpose, the interior function deserves due attention.

Writing Feedback / media focus too much on celebrites [3]

More and more media attention is paid to famous people. These are the people from ordinary backgrounds and become famous in music, fashion and sports. Why do you think the public is interested in the lives of famous people? Is it right for the media to put attention on lives of famous people?

Recent years have witnessed an increasing attention is given to those celebrities by the media to cater to the taste and curiosity of the public. From my perspective, such practice exerts undesirable impacts on the daily life of celebrities to a large extent.

There is no single reason has contributed to the climbing trend of excessive exposure to the lives of famous people. First and foremost, those renowned people in music, fashion and sport areas, who came from normal backgrounds, prospered through their hard-work or talents. The news arouses the interests of ordinary people who also dream to be distinguished in the future, therefore, to get an insight of the lifestyle of their idols. Apart from this, the every day lives of normal people are generally simple and dreary. Therefore, the interesting scoop about celebrities could entertain their lives.

Nevertheless, it is unethical for the media to pay too much attention to digging news about celerities, which inevitably impedes their human rights. This practice put the overall soundness of celebrities in jeopardy, in both physical and psychological. The growing incidence of celebrities' suicide served as a convicing illustration. Their death are attributed to the closely chasing of the paparazzi, who did not give them a break. In light of this, excessive reports of these famous people are considered to be wrong, as it violates the personal privacy, which is supposed to be respected and protected.

In conclusion, the reasons for the increasingly exposed the lives of celebrities are manifold. This practice has largely disturbed the lives of popular people.

Writing Feedback / Young people VS　ｇｏď˝-ď˝...ď˝'ｎｍď˝...ｎď˝" [5]

Some people think that young people are not suitable for important positions in governments of countries. Others argue that young people have new ideas in these positions. Discuss both views and give your opinion

Recently, youngsters are increasingly popular in government sectors with important responsibilities. Some people assert that the younger generations are unsuitable for those positions since they tend to be less skilled. Nevertheless, other people perceive their creativity as beneficial in resolving the difficulties encountered by the government.

There is no denying that the younger generations tend to behave in an impulsive and imprudent way to deal with controversial issues, and this is especially detrimental when it comes to handling pressing tasks in government departments. The major responsibilities for the administrative organs should be guaranteeing a harmonious society and tackling conflicts at the best interest of citizens. As distinct from the grew generation, youths are commonly perceived as inexperienced. Specifically, a lack of practical experience could result in a failure to perform their tasks efficiently, especially when they encounter unexpected events. This inevitably weakens the public image of the authority. In light of this, youths are not competent for the positions in governments.

Nevertheless, young officials' superiorities in government departments could be justified. This is primarily due to their creativity and open-mindedness. It is widely recognized that the task in the authority could be extremely complicated and troublesome while the workload is overwhelming. However, youngsters are likely to tackle issues from different angles and demonstrate more tolerance to respect people from diverse racial and cultural backgrounds. This in turn instills vitality and momentum in the working environment, thereby facilitating their work efficiency.

In brief, youngsters lack experience but have their advantages in addressing issues creatively. However, those significant positions in governments should be performed carefully by people with rich experience and down-to-earth attitude rather than job cookies like youths.

Writing Feedback / 'the aging tendency and burden on the society' - my ielts essay [4]

In many countries, the proportion of elderly people is increasing. Do you think the positive effects of this trend outweigh its negative influence on society?

Due to the enhanced living conditions among the grey population, ageing has become a commonplace in the society. Against this backdrop, some people insist on the beneficial impacts it brings to society, whereas there are other voices against it. From my perspective, the increasing proportion of the aging population is detrimental to society to a large extent.

To begin with, the climbing percentage of the ageing population poses a threat to the labor force. This would jeopardize the comprehensive economic development in the long run. Such a trend will lead to a reduction in the number of eligible workers, which impairs the productivity in the workplace and exerts an adverse impact on the overall well-being of society, since growth in GDP is highly correlated with the increase in the number of eligible young employees.

Apart from this, the aging tendency lays a heavy burden on the government and society. Specifically, superannuation and healthcare service will be chiefly needed to guarantee the demands of the grey generation. From the perspective of the authority, an adjustment to the pension system will increase the burden of financial budgets. Furthermore, this burden would be shouldered by their children and future generations, since they need to take care of their elders.

Indisputably, the benefits of an increasing percentage of the elderly could also be justified. As distinct from the younger generation, pensioners are more experienced and disciplined. They tend to be realistic and down-to-earth, therefore they could impart their knowledge to young employees, thereby facilitating their work efficiency.

In brief, despite the potential benefits of constructing a harmonious life, the downsides of the aging population outweigh its merits since it slows down the economic growth and lays a heavy burden on society.