Writing Feedback / IETLTS; High School programs should include Community Service as a compulsory part [2]

Some people believe that unpaid community service should be a compulsory part of high school programmes (for example working for a charity, improving the neighborhood or teaching sport to younger children)

To what extend do you agree or disagree?

It is controversial that whether unpaid community service should be compulsory for high school students. I would argue that it should be done because of some reasons below.

First, requiring students to do community services can make them understand about the importance of these work, which may be hidden in materialistic societies. For instance, from working for a charity students can understand that there are many other people who need their help. As e result, they can be educated to have responsibilities for whole communities and lead them to a positive life style for society.

Moreover, these work such as improving the neighborhood can help them enhance their relationship with others and promote them to socialize, as well as avoid social isolation, which generally caused by excessive use of modern technology. Besides that, it is more effective and healthy than playing games or watching TV for students to reduce stress from high-pressure studies and fell relax.

In addition, community service plays important role in building soft skills for students. Working for charities can make them enhance the ability to communicate and persuade people. These skills is essential for them to seek suitable occupations in the future.

Although in high school, the most important programmes still knowledge from subjects, unpaid community service need to be taken into account to be compulsory because of its advantages for high school students.

To be a conclusion, I absolutely agree with opinion that unpaid community service should be a compulsory part of high school programme.

Writing Feedback / IELTS: Some workers are allowed to work at home - Positive or Negative? [2]

Topic: In recent years, there are increasing in the number of organizations, some workers are allowed to work at home partial of week. Do you think it is a positive development or negative development for individuals and society?

In modern society, instead of working at office 8hours per day and 6 days per week, the employment are able to work partly at home. I would argue that this is a significantly positive development for individuals and society because some reasons.

Firstly, it is obvious that home working can help people who live so far from office not have to commute to work. As a result, they do not have to face with congestion, traffic jams and feel stress before arriving offices. It also make women, especially mothers, have more time to take care of their families so that children can be looked after more carefully.

Moreover, at home, people are not under pressure of the appearance of supervisors as long as the employers do not exercise too much control over their staff about time, performance or attitude. It brings a comfortable feeling to both of them and eventually not only improve productivity but also enhance relationship between them.

In addition, working at home would prevent congestion and traffic jams because it can help to reduce the degree of transportation, especially in peak hours. People would not have to live in overcrowding cities due to going to work regularly so that it can help reduce the pressure in cities infrastructure.

However, the lack of social access may be caused and lead to the social isolation. To solve this issue, activities such as taking part in clubs or gatherings is a effective approach which helps people socialize and reduce stress after high- pressure working hours.

To conclude, benefits of working at home predominates its drawbacks and it is a positive trends in modern society.

Writing Feedback / IELTS task 2; What is teacher's role? Should they teach academic subjects only? [2]

I will be very happy with your help :)
My topic is that: "Some people think that teachers should be responsible for teaching students to judge right and wrong and to behave well. Some say that teachers should only teach students about academic subjects. Discuss both views and give your opinion".

There is no doubt that teachers should take responsibilities for teaching students to judge right and wrong and behave well although some people is in the opposite side, concern that they should only teach academic subjects.

Nowadays, students spend almost their time on studies in school with their teachers and friends. So that, there is a huge influence of these people to their attitude and the way they behave. Moreover, students tend to admire and imitate their teachers, even sometimes, they follow their teachers' advices rather than their parents'. Besides that, thanks to the education about attitude for children, they can understand the importance of studies for their future and make more efforts to gain knowledge. In addition, educated students would behave to their friends better and it makes a positive environment for improving education quality.

In the contrast, if teachers only teach their students about academic subjects, they can have more time to concentrate on their major and improving knowledge for students. However, it is not right for students, especially who come from non- basic families or their parents are too much busy to educate children. These students, if there is not anyone teaching them, it is evident that they will not have ability to discriminate right and wrong. As a result, even they can perceive knowledge from school, tend to be naughty and harmful for society.

To be conclusion, it is admitted teachers and school plays important role in building personalities. Therefore, the contribution teaching knowledge and educate attitude should be maintained and developed more in the future.

Writing Feedback / Do you agree that the internet has transformed lives and economies? [5]

My topic is that: "The Internet has transformed lives and economies but it is turning the world into a global village. Soon everybody will think and behave in the same way.

To what extend do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
There is no doubt that the Internet bring huge innovation for whole globe, especially for lives and economies. However, some people look on the opposite site, in which they see that it is turning the world into a global village and soon everybody will think and behave in the same way.

Thanks to the invention of Internet, people all over the world are brought to be much closer than the past. Nowadays, the geographical distance is not a problem in human life with the help of the Internet and many communication applications, such as yahoo, Facebook, twitter. People are allowed to make friends everywhere, therefore, human life becomes more comfortable after high- pressure work or studies. It is obvious that the Internet plays a vital role in economies. In modern society, all of economic information is transferred by Internet with a fast rate which never had in the past, it helps businessman to make reasonable decision in right time.

However, there is a question raised by some people, whether everybody will think and behave in the same way. There is a fact that, accompanying with the decrease of geographical distance and globalization megatrend, the traditional barriers are gradually erased. Some weak nations may be affected by some strong nations' tradition. People from these countries, especially the young tend to follow trends, most of which comes from strong- economy nations. This trends may be the way of thinking, the life style, the fashion or the entertainment. As a result, the national identity is being threatened to be delete.

To conclusion, the Internet streamed our lives and economies evidently, but government should have solutions to protect national idenity while the globalization is happening rapidly now.

Many thanks!