Writing Feedback / [IELST TASK 1] visitors to and from the UK from 1979 to 1999 [NEW]

The line graph shows visits to and from the UK from 1979 to 1999, and the bar graph shows the most popular countries visited by UK residents in 1999.

Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant.

The line graph illustrates the number of visitors from to the UK in the timeframe between 1979 and 1999 measured in millions; meanwhile, the bar chart gives information about 5 countries most visited by UK tourists. In general, in the first graph, the amount of UK residents visiting other countries was far higher than that of visitors to UK. Moreover, in the second graph, France was the most popular country of UK tourists among Turkey, Greece, USA, Spain, and France.

In detail, the number of visitors from UK and to UK increased throughout the timescale. However, while the amount of UK residents traveling abroad rose dramatically, from over 10 millions in 1979 to eventually peaked at over 50 millions in 1999, oversea UK visitors' one increased more gradually from 10 millions in 1979 to about 28 millions in 1999.

The second chart indicates that France was the most popular country of UK residents with over 10 millions visitors from UK in 1999, followed by Spain with approximately 9 millions tourists. Among three other countries, Turkey was the country which was not UK people's favourite choice with merely around 2 millions UK travelers, nearly 1 million less than those taking tour to Greece and 2 millions less than those to USA.

• 
  
  

Writing Feedback / [IELST TASK 1] The average number of hours per week that men and women spend doing houseworks [NEW]

The bar chart shows the average number of hours per week that men and women spend doing activities around the home.

The bar chart compares the amount of time spent by people of two different genders, male and female, when they are home. Generally , a noticeable fact in this graph is that women spend most of their time at home on household chores such as cooking, cleaning the house, washing up, and gardening, whereas men prefer to spend their time at home on recreations.

Overall, women spend more time doing housework than men do. The house chore that take women's time most is cooking, in which women spend 15 hours per week, as nearly twice as the average hours of men. Similarly, 5 hours per week are the time that women spend on cleaning the house, approximately one and per half time more than men do. In term of washing clothes, it takes men 5 hours in a week to do, around 3 hours less than those of women. However, unlike the others, the number of hours that men spend on gardening slightly more than women's one, about 2.5 hours and 1.5 hours respectively.

On the contrary, the number of hours spent on recreations of men is far higher than that of women as a whole. Besides reading, in which it takes men a little bit less time than women to do, suffering the Internet and watching television are both activities that men exceptionally prefer more than women do. Suffering the Internet is the most typical example, in which the average hours spent by men, around 13 hours per week, are over three times more than those of women, approximately 4 hours per week.

• 
  
  

Writing Feedback / IELTS: In this modern time, there are numerous people who have to work continuously in a long time [2]

People tend to work longer hours nowadays. Working long hours has a negative effect on themselves, their families and the society, so working hours should be restricted. Do you agree or disagree?

In this modern time, there are numerous people who have to work continuously in a long time, which causes negative impacts not only on workers but also on society as a whole. From my point of view, as a advocate, it is reasonable for the governments to limit working hours in companies and corporations.

One of the first and foremost problems of working long hours is that this would lead to the deterioration in health. To keep working continually could cause extended stress, culminating in workers' sufferance from severe depression. According to a report released by World Health Organization, the ratio of depression in people who have to work more than eight hours per day is as three times higher than those who work less than eight hours per day. There are variety of dangers result from grave depression, such as accidental murder or harming others in unconsciousness. Moreover, working extra time may worsen physical conditions of job holders, which would directly decrease working effectiveness.

Furthermore, to work with extension hours may exacerbate people's social relationships, ranging from family, lovers, to friends. Workers would not have adequate time for their family, especially their children, which might be significantly dangerous. For example, in this Internet developing time, children without the observation of parents could be easily lured to be involved to different kinds of juvenile crime like cocaine addiction and sexual abuse. One more difficulty of working long hours is that because people spend too much time in working, they could not take part in social activities, so they might be isolated from society.

On the other hand, there are plenty of people have to work overtime perfunctorily because they need more money to pay for their essential daily products. These workers are usually the ones who migrate from rural sides to urban area to find jobs, so their basic salaries may be lower than urban dwellers. Therefore, in order to discourage working with extension hours, the government should devise remedies which could help them with solving financial problems.

In conclusion, on account of various difficulties of working long hours, this should be considered to be impeded, in my opinion. However, the government should have policies to support poor people who have to work extra hours to earn money.

Writing Feedback / Many linguistic specialists justified the phenomenon of kids' learning a foreign language very early [2]

Some experts believe that it is better for children to begin learning a foreign language at primary school rather than secondary school.
Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?

That children should learn a new language in primary level instead of secondary schools is considered justified by plenty of linguistic specialists. Although this has some difficulties, from my point of view, overall there are various positive impacts.

One of the first and foremost reasons for children to learn another language early is that it would be easy for them to acquire new knowledge in the age from four to nine years old. According to a new research released by Vietnam Ministry of Education, the ability to acknowledge language of children in these ages is as twice higher than older people. This is the result from their carefree mind as well as their astounding mimetic ability.

Secondly, students who expose themselves to a new language in primary schools would have more time to master it. To access to a second language early, children might be able to listen or watch television programs in this language, so they could horn their listening skill. Furthermore, they might have more opportunities to use foreign language in variety of practical circumstances; for example, primary school students could communicate with people from other countries, which helps to sharpen up their speaking ability.

Nonetheless, there are still some difficulties of learning second language in the very first grades that children would encounter. Because they are too young to be aware of the importance of learning foreign language, they may learn it perfunctorily, culminating in negative impacts on their studies. Besides, unprofessional second language teaching in some primary schools could form considerable fundamental mistakes, which would be firm to remedy, to children.

To sum up, in spite of some downsides of learning foreign languages in primary level, in my opinion as a proponent, its upsides could utterly outweigh these disadvantages. However, unflagging educational endeavours should be made to improve foreign language teaching in primary schools.

Writing Feedback / It is a controversy that children should be taught in single gender schools or mixed schools - IELTS [NEW]

Some people think that it is better to educate boys and girls in separate school. Others, however, believe that girls and boys benefit more from attending mixed schools. Discuss both views and give your own opinion

In today diverse academic environment, it is controversy that children should be taught in single gender schools or mixed schools. Plenty of people claim that to educate children of different genders in separate schools helps them to reap more benefits than in the other. However, in my opinion, sending students to mixed schools would be better choice for various reasons.

To begin with, separate schools provide children with significant positive effects. One of foremost reasons is that children, especially teenagers, could concentrate on their study. This is the culmination of the absence of opposite gender children in their academic environment which hinders them from sexual attraction. Moreover, teachers in this type of schools could add more special curriculums appropriate with separate genders to horn students' personal skills. For example, female students could be offered needlework or cooking classes, whilst males could attend to particular physical education classes.

Nonetheless, studying in mixed schools may be preferred for various upsides. First of all, to study among people of both genders gives young people chances to communicate with opposite sex, so they could develop the juvenile relation between peers; as a result, they would be more confident to join in work environment when they grow up. Furthermore, children sent to mixed schools might be self- independent because they could acknowledge astounding talents and personal skills from the other gender. For instance, if a girl participates in technical class, which is usually considered for boys, she would be able to fix electronic device at home without helps from other men years later. Last but not least, it is economical for government to build schools where both male and female acquire knowledge together. Money should be spent to provide students with modern and convenient learning facilities and programs.

To sum up, in spite of some advantages that single gender schools bring to children, from my point of view, it is more justified to send children to mixed schools. Its environments would prepare for children well to face their social relationships in the future.

Writing Feedback / Smoking is harmful for people's health, but making it illegal is not the only way to stop it [2]

Smoking is a habit which claims many lives and is a great drain on health services. One way to combat smoking would be to make it illegal.

What are the pros and cons of such a government policy? What alternative strategies can you suggest to combat smoking?

The idea of smoking causes deterioration in health, which is a burden for healthcare services, makes some people think that it should be banned. If smoking prohibition is considered as the official policy, this would bring advantages and disadvantages to government and their populace. However, this is not the only way; from my perspective, there are still other solutions could be considered to stop smoking.

The upsides of smoking prohibition are considerably various. To stop smoking helps to protect others' health, especially pregnant women and children. According to a research released by World Health Organization, people who smoke passively get lung cancer ratio three times as higher than people who smoke directly. Moreover, this policy also reduces pressure on public healthcare services because money is significantly invested in cures for lung cancer, whilst this money could be saved for other inevitable disorder medicine instead.

Nonetheless, there are also the downsides of forbidding smoking. It is true that cigarette addicted people could not give up smoking easily, so the government should empathize. If this policy was released, people who get used to smoking would feel their privacy taken, which may evoke intense rebellious responses from community to government. This could make the society unstable, culminating in politic risks for the government.

Because of these serious disadvantages, following remedies should be considered instead. First of all, mass media and realistic campaigns could be conducted to raise the awareness of crushing grave consequences of smoking; as a result, this might encourage populace to gradually give up this harmful habit. Furthermore, government might increase taxes on cigarette in order to decrease the consumption of this kind of product.

To sum up, smoking is harmful for people's health, but making it completely illegal is not the only way to stop it. Government should conduct health education campaigns about the danger of smoking to discourage people from this.

Writing Feedback / Is serving community with no financial benefits necessary for students in high schools? [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 sports to younger children).

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people claim that serving community with no financial benefit is necessary for students in high schools, so it should be forced to do. From my perspective, it is completely true that community services is important; however, to compel high school students to do these activities is unjustified.

On the one hand, the advantages of unpaid social service are undeniable. These activities would instil a sense of society into students, culminating the sympathy for other people in their neighborhood. For example, students who participate in taking care of the elders in nursing homes would understand difficulty that old people have to face in their daily life, so they would also feel sympathetic with those old people. Moreover, taking part in non benefit community services is useful activities for students in their free time, which discourage them from harmful recreations. Therefore, this could reduce the proportion of crime among young people.

On the other hand, it is unjustified to make unpaid social services compulsory. First of all, children who are forced to do these activities would not have enthusiasm toward their work, so they could not work effectively. For instance, if students are compelled to clean their neighborhood, they might do this carelessly so as they could complete their tasks as soon as possible; therefore, there is no area improvement made. Furthermore, students have many other activities to participate in besides serving community, ranging from self-study to paid jobs to spending time with their families. That children are involved in some kind of part time jobs to earn money and gain work experience supports their current lives as well as their future career, which is totally helpful for them.

To sum up, in my view, to support community through free financial services is an action students should take to dedicate to society; nonetheless, to make it a compulsory curriculum for high school students is unreasonable. Governments should conduct programs in an educational endeavour to call for students' consciousness about society instead.