Writing Feedback / People have different views on when to let children learn a foreign language. (IELTS) [2]

Topic:
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?

Please help me correct. Thanks!

People have different views on that when to let children learn a foreign language is better for children. While some people prefer to let children learn foreign languages in secondary school rather than primary school, I believe that the advantages for children to learn in primary school far outweigh the disadvantages.

On the one hand, children of primary age maybe too young to know the importance of learning foreign languages. If we force our children to go to cram school during other students are playing in the parks, we might make them lose their enthusiasm in learning languages. Besides, practicing the same grammar repeatedly and memorizing large amount of vocabulary are the two most painful but necessary steps in learning a language. If children keep doing these boring things without knowing why they have to learn this language, it also may result in the adverse effect on their way of learning languages in the future.

However, I would argue that we should let children learn languages the earlier the better, because it's a pity if we miss the stage when they have the greatest learning ability. Younger children have better abilities of imitation and memorization, which can help them have a great pronunciation and remember grammar and vocabulary for a long time. Furthermore, if our children are ahead of other same age children at the beginning, they will also have stronger motivation to learn the language.

In conclusion, I believe that it's better to let children learn foreign languages in primary school than in secondary school.

Writing Feedback / Six categories of energy consumed / predicted to use - in the US over a period of 50 years. [4]

The graph below gives information from a 2008 report about consumption of energy in the USA since 1980 with projections until 2030.
Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

Please help me correct or make the sentence more beautiful. Thanks!

My writing:

The line graph compares six categories of energy consumed and will be consumed in the US over a period of 50 years.

It's clear that total amount of energy consumed increase considerably between 1980 and 2030. The most dramatic change was seen in petrol and oil and Coal. Petrol and oil takes the largest part of all energy consumed.

In 1980, around 35 quadrillion units come from petrol and oil. Coal and Natural gas, which are the second largest sources of energy consumed, are responsible for about 20 quadrillion units. Nuclear, Solar/Wind and Hydropower, which account for least parts, stood at around 4 quadrillion units.

By 2030, all types of energy are predicted to be consumed more. Consumption of Petrol and Oil is expected to reach over 45. Coal is also predicted to rise considerably, to over 25. Natural Gas has a small increase by 5 quadrillion units. Nuclear, Solar/Wind and Hydropower will increase within 3 quadrillion units.

• 
  TOPIC
  

Writing Feedback / Fewer languages can make communication easier, so why bother to protect them from dying out? [5]

Please help me correct. Thanks a lot!

Topic:
Every year several languages die out. Some people think that this not important because life will be easier if there are fewer languages in the world.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

My Writing:

Some people think that fewer languages can make communication easier, so it's not necessary to prevent language from dying out. I disagree with the viewpoint because I believe that language also act as other important roles in our life rather than just being a tool of communication.

First, language is a vital tool loading with people's ethnic identity and connects and relationship of people from the same hometown. For example, there are many Indigenous Taiwanese who lives in plains instead of mountains. Usually we won't take them as aboriginal people unless they show us that they can speak their aboriginal language. Even in our law, we only give subsidies to the Indigenous Taiwanese who have got the language qualification.

Second, language is one of the most identified part of a country' culture, which can't and shouldn't be deleted from people's mind. For instance, whenever we hear "bonjour" or "bon-voyage", the impression of a confident French woman may come into our brain. In addition, even though we never met European people, we imagine them to be gorgeous just from their language. Language can also represents a part of memorable history of a country.

In conclusion, it may save money if we don't preserve traditional languages and just let them die out, but in the long term this would have a negative impact on our cultural heritage. So I believe we must do something to prevent the extinction of languages.