Writing Feedback / IELTS. Scientific research. Companies or government? [2]

In today`s world, it is private companies rather than government who pay for and carry out most on scientific research. Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

Nowadays, more private companies play an important role in scientific studies rather than the government. As far as I am concerned, there are more advantages than disadvantages of this context.

First of all, scientific studies are by nature expensive. And it is clear that countries` budgets are limited, so they can`t spend more money on the research than they have planned. Therefore, big private companies, in comparison, can pay for the high-priced studies if their investors are willing to put up the necessary amount of money.

Moreover, if corporations carry out the scientific projects the government can deal with other problems and focus on citizen`s standards of life, education, transportation and etc.

In contrast, some may argue that it is better if the government exercises the scientific researches . One reason of this is that it is easy for the government to integrate with other countries to deal with the research.

Another reason is that the government have more resources to operate with and can import the other resources that they need, such as labour and capital. For instance, they can hire foreign scientists.

In addition, private companies can sell their studies to some dangerous organizations, like terrorist groups, that can use it as a weapon. For example, many terrorists use some new secret bombs or guns to attack people and cause terror. Therefore the government should always monitor the actions of the companies to prevent such crucial mistakes.

Taking everything into account, I think that there are more valuable arguments for the private companies to carry out the scientific studies with the control of their actions by the administration.

P.S. I use the word 'government' too often do you know a synonym for it?

Writing Feedback / Charity organizations should offer help to everyone in need. [3]

Some people think that charity organizations should only offer help to people of their own country. But others believe that these organizations should give aid to people in great need wherever they live. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some people feel that charity structures should only help people of their own country. Others claim that these structures should offer help to everyone in the world in great need. Before drawing a conclusion let's first analyse both views.

There are several reasons why charity organizations should only help people of their country. First of all, the life of the citizens has a big effect on country's economy. For instance, by putting all money from charities for giving aid to poor people would raise the level of life there, which would further lead to economy growth. Secondly, these organizations may not be able to help other countries in some conditions. For example, less developed countries can hardly help their own citizens, so it is impossible to offer help to others.

On the other hand, there are also arguments to support the view that charities should also offer aid to other people in need. Firstly, highly developed countries should help less developed regions as they are not able to solve the problem of poverty and hunger. For example, African countries suffer from poverty and the government doesn't have enough resources to do anything by themselves so they can only rely on transfers from outside. Finally, by giving aid to others country can have a big influence on the country-recipient and can get some preferences for trading, commerce and etc.

All in all, there are convincing arguments to support both views, but as far as I am concerned charity organizations should offer help to everyone in need.

Writing Feedback / IELTS essay. Deforestation caused by human activity. [4]

This is my first essay here. I used no books or dictionaries. And yes, I know I'm not good at writing but I'm working on it. I'd appreciate it if you check my essay :)

Deforestation caused by human activity is happening in many parts of the world, with serious results for the environment. What do you think can be done to solve this problem?

Nowadays the deforestation- a process when trees are being removed, is one of the biggest global problems. Deforestation has a negative impact on the environment.

First of all, as we know, trees and vegetation defend the air from different emissions, so when people cut down trees for different reasons like for producing paper, books, furniture and etc. there is nothing left to deal with those pollutants. For instance, on the countryside where the nature is not touched we can notice how fresh the air is but in the cities with virtually no trees the air is pollute by cars and industries. Second, trees inhibit the soil erosion. By logging, nothing can protect the soil from the big amount of water that erode the soil. Moreover, loss of soil from action of water has a big effect for fish. For example, the vegetation along rivers help water remain steady, but removing these trees can lead to killing the fish and other aquatic creatures.

There are several solutions to deal with this problem. First, furniture and other wood objects should be recycled. If we can make new products from used and recycled ones we can save more trees from cutting down. Another solution is for people to plant more trees. Different government programs should be made, students may volunteer to help save the nature by seeding plants. For instance, planting new trees can help to get rid of imbalance of trees. Various advertisements can also be made to influence people to care more about the environment they live in. That can lead to get more volunteers to plant the trees.

All in all, there could be other way to address the problem but I strongly feel those listed above would suffice.