Writing Feedback / IELTS Task 2 : MOVING THE INDUSTRIAL CENTER TO SUBURBS AREAS [3]

In some countries, governments are encouraging industries and businesses to move to regional areas outside the big cities. Do the advantages of this trend outweigh the disadvantages?

The government in several nations around the world prompt the companies in the metropolitan city to move their business activities in suburban areas. Although this decision can affect the local environment in suburbs areas, I believe this notion brings the benefit such as the economic growth and the availability of occupation for the occupants in a countryside.

The threat of the manufacture activities toward the natural environment is the possible drawbacks that should be taken into account when government decide to relocate the industrial city to countryside areas. This is because the waste productions of the certain industries which contain chemical are generally dumped into surroundings. For example, in 2008 in Indonesia, lots of industry centers are moved to the outskirts areas with consideration to unravel congestion in the capital city, but the production activities of those firms are not environmentally and even bring detrimental effect to the surrounding, such as river water pollution. However, I strongly believe that this issues basically cannot be happened if the companies maintain the regulation as well as the government supervise the industrial activities.

In reverse, the improvement of the local economy in the countryside is the obvious advantages when business and industrial sectors are relocated. This consideration can provide the job opportunity for many occupants because a great number of companies compulsorily involve and employ the local citizens in their firms. For instance, the data from The Indonesian ministry of industry and trade reveals that the rate of economic growth in the area around the industrial areas increased dramatically during 2011 by approximately 6.83% from the previous year. In this way, local governments will be able to reduce the number of unemployed in the region. Besides, the presence of these companies in the countryside will improve the quality and skills of human resources in the surrounding area. This is because the company need well-trained employees to cooperate in their company.

To sum up, despite the fact that the relocation of industrial centres to the suburbs can possibly threaten the natural surrounding due to the detrimental waste production, I firmly believe that the available of work opportunity and the improvement of the economy sector in outskirts are the merits that outweigh the demerit.

Writing Feedback / Common for a great number of children in lots of nations to involve in different kind of occupations [2]

In many countries, children are engaged in some kind of paid work. Some people regard this as completely wrong while others consider it as valuable work experience. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

It is becoming increasingly common for a great number of children in lots of nations to involve in several sort of occupation. Whilst few people argue that this trend is obviously inappropriate for the young generation, the others think that it is such a priceless experience. In my opinion, even though the decision to work gives merit such as job experience and additional income to the children, I extremely believe that they necessarily pay more attention to their education and enjoy their childhood properly.

Some people assume that job experience is the precious benefit for children who consider working at the early age that should be taken into account. Job experience is extremely advantageous as a consideration when children enrol in a more well-paid. This is because the experienced children are assumed more qualified and responsible for performing work. A recent survey in Jakarta reveals that 78% of companies set job experience as a primary job qualification. However, labour in certain job apparently makes the children neglecting their study because they have enjoyed the salary that they earn and it results in the unqualified generations.

In reverse, the majority of people assume that it clearly cannot be justified for children labour in their early age as they necessarily focus on their education or spend their childhood by playing with their peers. Moreover, work in a certain company could disrupt their physical, mental and social development. For instance, a recent study by the team psychologist at the University of Indonesia found that children who work part-time or full-time in certain occupation experience a difficulty their personal and social relationship as well as there is a decline of accomplishment in their study. Therefore, I firmly believe that the young generation should enrich their knowledge in their early age before they involve in a real job because the worker with a lack of insight will not obtain a well-paid occupation.

To conclude, in spite of the statement that the job experience is a real benefit which can be obtained by the youngster, I strongly believe that it will better for children if they spend their childhood properly by focusing on their study and play with their pals.

Writing Feedback / Put addicts to jail or rehabilitate? What have to be done to prevent them from using drugs? [3]

Should drug addicts be jailed or rehabilitated? Discuss both views and give your opinions.

It is true that narcotics and other addictive substances are a detrimental threat in human being lives particularly for the young generation. Some individuals argue that the narcotics addicts is compulsorily imprisoned since they have broken the law, while the others believe that as a matter of fact they are a victim that necessarily get a rehabilitation in order to be escape from their addiction. Although getting the illegal drug user into the jail is a simple way, but I strongly believe that recover them from their addiction is more essential in order to make them aware of the dire impact of narcotics.

Drugs become a major scourge around the world. There is an old paradigm that the drug users necessarily be set in the prison. This regulation is assumed can possibly bring deterrent effect for the trespasser. However, as per Anang Iskandar as the Head of the National Narcotics Agency (BNN) said that imprisoned abusers would actually increase their demand for those illicit goods because drugs is still easy to purchase in prison. Besides, According to BNN, about 75% of drug distribution is controlled from inside the prison. Furthermore, in my opinion, most of the drug addicted who have been imprisoned get back to use the narcotics after they are divested from the jail.

In reverse, the policy to set the narcotics trespasser into the rehabilitation centre is one of the best ways to reduce their dependency on narcotics gradually. This is because in rehabilitation, abusers and drug addicts get a medical treatment to recover their addicted on drugs as well as a step to suppress their demand of illegal drugs. Based on research of Indonesian National Narcotics Agency (BNN) reveals that every day virtually 40 until 50 Indonesian young generations pass away because of drugs. Fortunately, through the rehabilitation centre, almost 60% of drug addicts can survive and even be exempted the addiction. Therefore, I firmly believe that a step for rehabilitating the abusers and drug addicts is the wisest decision because this way enables the narcotics trespasser recover from their addiction.

To sum up, even though sentencing the narcotics trespasser into jail can possibly make feeling guilty of them, but it does not mean that they have free from the dependency on illegal drug. Hence, recover them from their addiction through rehabilitation centre is a proper way that the government can take.

Writing Feedback / IELTS Task 2 : SHOULD PARENTS RELY THEIR CHILDREN ON CHILDCARE OR RELATIVES? [2]

Some parents think that childcare centers provide the best services for children of pre-school age. Other working parents think that family members such as grandparents will be better cares for their kids. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

In this sophisticated era, the majority of parents particularly in a metropolitan city now both have to work. Therefore, most of them tend to look after their children to childcare centre since this such place provide the optimum services with a trusted licence, while other parents consider relying on their closest family like grandparents for nurturing their children. In spite, the day care centre offers a pre-eminent service for the children, I firmly believe that looking after the child through the other family member is a wiser decision in order to maintain the emotional relationship between the children and the kinsfolk.

The childcare centre ensures the parents with the fully-trained staff for treating their children. This is because all of the childminders have involved and have a legal certificate of parenting training. For instance, in the UK, there has been a patent regulation that guarantees the parent to entrust their child to the Childcare with the excellent services. Hence, the day-care is generally assumed as the best place for looking after the children, while the parents are on duty. However, on another side, the children lack the emotional relationship with their own family.

In reverse, most of the busy parents tend to entrust their children to their closest relatives such as grandparents. They assume that their family is much more reliable and trustworthy. In my local area, the majority of working parents decide to rely their children on their kinsfolk for looking after their children, while they are going to work. Personally, The consideration to look after a child trough the family members like grandparents is a wise decision since beside the grandparent nurture the children, a personal emotion with their grandchild is also established tightly.

To sum up, although the childcare centre guarantees the parents with the trained staff for nurturing their children, but the child less attention from their own family is the drawback that should be taken into consideration. Hence, rely the children on the kin is more advantageous.

Writing Feedback / Forcing children mastering certain skill that they are not talented and interested is a vain effort. [2]

It is pointless making children who lack artistic talent learn painting and drawing in Art classes at school. Instead, they should concentrate on other creative and practical subjects which they may have more aptitude. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some would assume that giving an art class in formal education to the children who do not have sufficient artistic skills is a useless decision. They argue that it will be better if the children pay more attention to the other attitudes that children might have. While this is acceptable to some extent, I would also agree that such a way provides an extensive chance for children to develop their talents.

Needless to say, forcing children mastering certain skill like drawing and painting that they are basically not talented and interested is such a vain effort. It is because those arts require a natural skill that children have had since they were born and those who lack that skills may not get anything. For instance, in my personal experience, when I was in primary school my family insist me to be a singer, but it is useless as I do not have an aptitude for singing. Despite this, many parents would still stand on the argument that talent can be created as long as the children can compromise.

In reverse, children are necessarily directed to their own passion and talent to expand their aptitude properly. Basically, the talent that children have is really valuable if the parent concern on it. For instance, Rose Mini, a well-known psychologist in Indonesia said that the majority of successful children in their early age, because their parents lead their young generation to the natural talent that children have. Therefore, there is no doubt that the children's skill can be a valuable possession as long as their parents are aware of developing it.

To sum up, it is true that making children study a certain artistic subject that they are basically lack of that is a pointless consideration, thus, the parents necessarily concern on the skills that children may have.

Writing Feedback / The predominant reason why most employees are fond of working is the given salary. [3]

Do you agree that money is the only motivation at work why people prefer working in the same company for many years?

It is generally assumed that the predominant reason why most employees are fond of working in an enterprise for the longer period of time since they are motivated by the given income. While I believe this notion is generally true, the salary apparently not the only reason why workers are devotedly working in a certain company, the comfortable with the teamwork in the company is the another reason that should be taken into account.

A great number of employees have a tendency working loyally in a certain enterprise for the long time due to the salary earned. Most of them assume that the income that they earned is a decent salary and has been more than enough to fulfil their daily necessities. Hence, they are not interested in looking for another job. For instance, a recent poll by the workers in the 10 biggest companies in Indonesia reveals that that 69% of workers consider loyally working in certain occupation because they have obtained a satisfactorily income and even their salaries are likely becoming more and more increase annually.

Nevertheless, in any cases, the comfortable to work with either the other workers or the employer is another motivation for some people to labour loyally in a company for years. They assume that the pleasant of work environment can support them to perform their duty pleasurably and responsibly. Take my elder brother who works as a teller in a bank as a sample, he argues that working is not only about how much money that he earns but how comfortable he works with his team instead.

To conclude, despite the fact that money is the primary reason for many individuals to labour in a certain company for many years, I firmly believe that the comfortable with teamwork can possibly motivate many workers to keep on their current job.

Writing Feedback / IELTS Task 2 : IS THE INTERVIEW TEST THE BEST WAY OF SELECTING EMPLOYEES? [2]

Most employers interview candidates before hiring them. Do you think this is the best way to do it? In your opinion, what is the best method for choosing employees?

The majority of the company carry out the interview test before engaging the applicant into their company. While some parties concede this sort of test is the best method to gather information deeply regarding applicant's personality, I would argue that candidate's proficiency is quite arduous to be encompassed through this test, thus, the aptitude test is likely the best way to determine applicants who match the criteria of companies.

The predominant aim of a job interview is to offers the employer valuable insight into applicant's personality. It is pivotal for a company to comprehend the personality like responsible and trustworthy of the applicants. For instance, the Indomaret Corporation, the biggest supermarket in Indonesia, conducts the interviews to applicants based on the importance of knowing the applicant's detail information. However, this kind of test does not cover the real skill that basically candidates have.

In my point of view, the aptitude test is the most appropriate method to recruit employee that accordance with the criteria of companies' expectation. This is because the applicants are directly examined on the spot with the intent to prove the real skills that the candidates really have. Thus, there is no doubt of companies for hiring the suppliant that pass through this test. To illustrate, the garment companies are not necessary conducting interview test for hiring a new tailor. Instead, they just conduct a proficiency test to ensure the capacity of the candidates.

To sum up, despite the fact that through the interview test, the employers can possibly reveal candidate's personality which is important to be known, but it does not mean that it cover the applicant's skill that is pivotal to be considered. Thus, I personally argue that aptitude test is the best method for choosing employees.

Writing Feedback / The policy for smokers in public areas like station, office and mall center is steadily restricted [2]

In some countries it is now illegal to smoke in public places. It is only fair that people who wish to smoke should have to leave the building. Do you agree or disagree?

At these days and ages, the policy for smokers in public areas such as station, office and shopping centre is increasingly restricted in many countries. Although this notion is strongly opposed by the cigarette users, I firmly stand to agree that such a policy reduce the dire effect to the passive smoker as well as gradually reduce the smokers' dependence on cigarettes.

It is true that the presence of smokers in public spaces brings a very uncomfortable atmosphere for others around them. In fact, cigarette smoke does not only bring negative effect to the smoker's health, but even bring terrible effects for passive smokers around them. Public Health Association of Indonesia (IAKMI) revealed that around 25% of harmful substances contained in cigarette smoke enter the body, while the remaining 75% of harmful substances contained in cigarettes will be widespread in the air which can then be entered into the body of those around him. Therefore, I strongly agree with the policy to limit the space for smokers in public places.

Furthermore, the policy indirectly has a positive impact on cigarette users to gradually abandon their habits. This is because most of them who work in the public space will be limited to get a chance to smoke, thus, they incrementally begin to compromise with the situation. Take a Japan as an example, the local government supported by the citizens has established a new regulation to restrict smoking area in the public centre. This results in the improvement of fresh air and reduces air pollution caused by smoke.

To sum up, I firmly believe that making illegal to smoke in public areas is the wisest consideration in order to reduce the detrimental to others around the smokers and also encourage the smokers to leave their habit.