Writing Feedback / IELTS: People do unhealthy activities. Why and give solutions. [3]

TOPIC:
Science tells us some activities are good for our health and there are some unhealthy activities. But millions of people still do those unhealthy activities. Why? What can we do to change this situation?

These days, more and more people develop unhealthy habits although science promotes healthy lifestyles. In this essay, I will explain the causes of this trend and give some suggestions to address these problems.

There are three main reasons why people are reluctant to change unhealthy habits and lifestyles. At first, many people are always busy on working day and night because of the fierce competition in work nowadays, which would lead a fast-paced lifestyle. As a result, people not only have diets dominated by junk food frequently, but also have no time to exercise regularly. Under this high working stress, people even could not keep a regular sleep schedule. Secondly, as material life is prosperous increasingly, some unhealthy social management contributes to unhealthy habits, such as smoking, hangover and high-calorie, high-cholesterol diets in parties. Thirdly, many people are likely to stay at home always at their leisure time rather than social outside or do some outdoor activities resulting from the convenience of the technological development. For instance, people could be surfing the Internet or watching TV on the bed all days, and just call some take-out fast food when they are hungry.

A range of measures could be taken to tackle these problems from people as individuals and governments of our society. It is significant that improve people health awareness that if you had no physical health, you could not do any work to make money or anything others. In other words, people would build a healthy and competitive workforce as long as they had healthy, balanced diets; made exercise a regular part of lives and kept regular sleep schedules. Also, governments should do some efforts to promote healthy lifestyles, such as installing exercise equipment in parks and publishing some health-oriented magazines and websites as well as health programs on TV.

In conclusion, three main reasons are responsible for the unhealthy activities of people. However, I believe that under the efforts of everyone and governments, people's lives would be much healthier than before in the future.

Dear all my friends at EF:
I am so sorry for a long time I have not submit my writing practice because I was access denied for a few days.
As the administrator said, maybe I have given some poor comments.
However, I want to tell you my friends, I tried my best to comment correctly at EF and gave advices which I could ensure they are right.

As you know, my English is not very well. I am not a native speaker. I still learning now. I couldn't give any advices if I were not sure, which I think is irresponsible very much.

I have learnt a lot English writing skills at EF not only from advices I received but also when I revised others' topic at EF even though they are small mistakes.

The two ways are both helpful for me.
Thank you all my friends here for comprehending me.
Yours Keely

Writing Feedback / IELTS: individuals are more and more dependent or independent. [4]

TOPIC:
Some people think individuals are more and more dependent on each other. Some people think individuals are more and more independent. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

These days, there has been much debate about whether individuals are increasingly dependent on each other or not. I tend to agree that, people would be more dependent at work or some critical times, while they would be more independent in their own personal daily lives.

Some people think that individuals are more and more dependent on each other. It seems reasonable because teamwork is significant increasingly at many work places from a small project group to a large international corporation. Brainstorming from many people in a group would create fantastic ideas, while mutual trust and cooperation of different companies like individuals could make more profit together. Moreover, not only for teamwork in jobs, but also for a united nation, people who are dependent on each other and bond together make a nation more powerful. Practically, when human race face great natural disasters, such as earthquake or tsunami, people from everywhere, even whole world, would help each other and be together to resist disasters.

In contrast, some people think that individuals are more and more independent on each other, because various electronic means of communication has increased people's mobility and independence. In other words, people could stay in touch with their families and friends at anytime and anywhere by electronic means no need to face to face. Furthermore, more and more people, especially females, are economic independence now than old days resulting from the development of economy and education worldwide. Many parents even encourage their children to make their own money by doing housework in order to teach them to be independent earlier.

In my opinion, for the reasons mentioned above, I believe that, at some crucial moments, people would like to be dependent on each other, even unite as one, while for their personal lives, people would be more and more independent.

Writing Feedback / IELTS: The qualities of life of people in big cities are worse. Give causes and measures. [2]

TOPIC:
Today, the qualities of life of people in big cities are worse. What are the causes of this problem? Any measures should be taken to solve it?

These days, it is true that the living standard in big cities decreases gradually with the increasing people living in big cities. In this essay, I will explain the causes of this trend and suggest some possible solutions.

I think there are three main reasons lead to the worse qualities of living in big cities. First of all, the space of a city is limited relative to the increasing population no matter how big the city is. As a result, traffic jams and high housing prize are the most severe problem in the big cities, which not only spend people's time in vain but also raise people's stress of money. Secondly, the resources of society are limited. Because of the shortage social resources, the fierce competition in workforce market contributes to high unemployment in some big cities, as well as scrambling for limited great educational chances for children also result in instable lives. Thirdly, another important problem in the big cities is the environmental issues such as the air pollution in Beijing China.

To tackle these problems, there are some measures could be taken. To improve the quality of life in big cities with some concrete problems, like traffic jams, high housing price and environmental issues, governments could issue some rules to prevent those problems from deteriorate, such as limiting the use of private cars.

Furthermore, the most significant way is that governments should speed the urban development of some middle cities. Therefore, people would be willing to move to these middle cities in terms of more employment opportunities and more comfortable life styles.

In conclusion, I think space and resources limited as well as environmental issues are responsible for the worse qualities of life of people in big cities. I believe that governments could address those problems gradually by various measures including developing middle cities and encouraging people to live in middle cities.

Writing Feedback / IELTS: Is it the only effective way to reduce crime that increasing the number of police officers? [2]

TOPIC:
Some people think that increasing the number of police officers on the street is the only effective way to reduce crime. Do you agree or disagree?

These days, the increasing crime rates in some rural areas worry many citizens. Some of them believe that the only effective way to deter potential criminals from committing crimes is that our government should organize more and more police officers on the street. I tend to disagree with that because there are various methods to reduce crime.

First of all, I acknowledge that increasing the number of police officers on the street is an effective way to stop some violent crime on the street. However, I do not think it would address the root causes of crime even though our government spends much more money on employing more and more policemen.

Therefore, I believe that to reduce the crime rates from the root, the most effective ways are developing economics and popularizing education. In some rural areas, many people are still in poverty and starvation so that they may want to survival by committing crimes like robbery or thieving. Furthermore, the lower lever of education makes them do not acquire much legal knowledge to be a law-abiding citizen or a responsible worker.

In addition, I suggest that improving our judicial system and punishment mechanism are also significant to reduce crime. Some large-scale crimes and high crimes, which damage our society severely invisibly, still could not be brought to justice because of the defect of judicial system. Moreover, improper punishment mechanism contributes to people with a criminal record are treaded unfairly and lead to resentment. As a result, they are likely to re-offend perhaps.

Overall, for the reasons mentioned above, in my opinion, there is definitely not only one way we can do to reduce the crime rates. Our government should put more efforts in and spend more funds on economic and educational development to cope with the increasing crime rates fundamentally, and make further efforts to judicial system and punishment mechanism. What's more, it is essential that the increasing number of policemen could provide people with a sense of security.

Writing Feedback / IELTS: mathematics and philosophy are too difficult, so they should be made optional by students. [5]

TOPIC:
Some children think that some subjects such as mathematics and philosophy are too difficult for them to study at school, so they should be made optional rather than compulsory. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

These days, with increasing children having chances to study at school, some of them argue that some difficult subjects in school should be chosen by themselves instead of decided by government. However, I tend to agree that some foundation courses should be compulsory even they may be a little difficult for learning.

Some people believe that most students have the right to study what they really want. It seems reasonable because learning favorite subjects could increase students' motivation to study. For instance, many students could not concentrate on classes because of unattractive curriculums, which waste money of both governments and individuals, as well as the time of teachers and students. In addition, some subjects such as mathematics and philosophy that are compulsory at school may not accord with the future workforce demands any more. As a result, many people suggest the subjects of schools to be free from government interference.

In contrast, other people agree that governments should be decided the subjects for students, especially the foundation courses like mathematics and philosophy. For students as individuals, basic education could provide students with a well-rounded education when they are children. In other words, some foundation subjects may be a little difficult but they could not only provide a solid foundation for students' adult lives, but also help they to learn how to overcome difficulties. Furthermore, for governments, well-rounded individuals are demanded as good citizens of a stable society. Moreover, our society still needs specialists of mathematics or philosophy regardless of more or less.

Overall, to the reasons mentioned above, in my opinion, it is necessary that some foundation courses like mathematics and philosophy are compulsory to younger students who are immaturity perhaps. However, when they go to universities, students could be gave chances to choose what they really want to learn.

Writing Feedback / IELTS: In many countries, there are 24 -hour TV programs. Is it a positive or negative development? [2]

Nowadays, 24-hour TV programs become popular increasingly in many countries. There has much debate about whether or not 24-hour TV programs have positive effects on our lives. I tend to agree that 24-hour TV shows is a double-edged sword.

First of all, TV shows are not only important sources of entertainment, but also useful educational tools. 24-hour TV shows mean people can enjoy their leisure time with TV shows or acquire knowledge from TV at anytime that they are convenient. For instance, some people come back home late at night everyday because of their rush works. TV programs in the wee hours of the morning could help them release stress and tension. Thus, it is a positive development that 24-hour TV shows provide audience more choices. Furthermore, 24-hour TV shows must be rich in content and perfect in production in order to attracting audience at anytime. In other words, 24-hour TV programs must be abundant in both quality and quantity, which result from the artistic creativity of producers and the development of technology. Therefore, I think it is reasonable that 24-hour programs represent the progress of our society because of the causes and results mentioned above.

In contrast, some people think 24-hour TV programs have many negative effects on our society, especially on children, who may have less self-control abilities. 24-hour TV programs may cultivate children's excessive TV viewing, which would cause the diminution of vision even stifle creativity of them. Moreover, excessive TV viewing of many adults has been more and more links to obesity and the problems with attention as well as emotional health issues recently.

Overall, I think 24-hour TV program is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it enriches our lives and widens our views. On the other hand, if it were out of control, it would be a negative role in our lives.

Writing Feedback / IELTS: Does Advertising encourage people to buy in quantity rather than promoting its quality? [6]

TOPIC: Advertising encourages people to buy in quantity rather than promoting its quality. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Nowadays, increasing advertisements surrounding our lives because of material prosperity. Many people suggest that promotion of advertising prefer what in quantity to what in quality. In my opinion, there are two different styles of advertisements, which aim to different merchandise and customers.

First of all, promotion in quantity is always linking to low prize, such as "buy one get one free", or a relatively lower prize for three items. It seems reasonable because it is an effective way for sellers who want small profits and quick returns. This kind of advertising is for popular products frequently rather than competitive products. Thus, the main purpose of promotion in quantity is to attract various consumers in large numbers. Moreover, advertisements in quantity and low prize are not only beneficial to some merchants, but also cost-efficient choices for certain consumers. For instance, what makes advertising more attractive to housewives is buying daily use in large quantity and much lower prize.

By contrast, there are also many kinds of advertisements for quality of merchants like some technological products and competitive products. As promotion in quantity links to lower prize, advertising in quality may be with high cost, which is suitable for certain sellers and buyers. Some competitive products need not lower their prize to cater everyone but a few people, with promoting in high quality. As a result, merchants and their advertisements would cultivate these customers who are interested in the unique quality of products, even though the prize is not cheap any more. For customers, if people were likely to buy something special, they might concentrate on the information about the quality of the products rather than the prize.

In conclusion, for the reasons mentioned above, it is probably true that adverting encourages people to buy in quantity more frequently than promoting its quality. As the promotion in quantity is for popular daily use, it should be repeated many times. However, the advertisements in quality could decrease the explosion as long as it cultivates the fixed consumers. Therefore, I believe that, no matter what kinds of advertising, if it was not the false advertising, it could exist reasonably.

Writing Feedback / IELTS: People live in small family units rather than big family groups. Is it positive or negative? [4]

TOPIC:
As countries develop, their populations tend to live individually or in small family units. In your opinion, what is this cause and what are the effects on society.

In many countries today, people in cities either live alone or in small family units, rather than in large, extended family groups. Is this a positive or negative trend?

It is true that increasing people prefer small family units to extended family groups. In this essay, I will explain the causes of this tend and the effects on our society.

There are two main reasons why people tend to live individually or in small family units, which are objective reasons and subjective reasons respectively. Objectively, technological and scientific breakthroughs have increased people's mobility and independence. For instance, people can stay in touch with their families by various electronic means of communication quickly and effectively; even they do not live together in a big house. Furthermore, material prosperity changes people's sense of family. Whereas people would like to be economic independence from their families, the freedom and privacy of individual family members becomes more and more important. By contrast, people want to avoid family conflict subjectively. In other words, there are much more conflict in large, extended families in which generations live together, especially between the young and the old. Moreover, nowadays, the increasing divorce rate leads to many single-parent families. Therefore, many people would like to live alone or in small families.

This trend has significant effects on our society. Some people think that it is a negative trend. It seems reasonable because living small family units would weaken family bonds, which result from a lack of face-to-face communication. Particularly, elderly parents feel unwanted by their family when they live apart from their adult children, which might result in speeding up their mental aging process. In addition, children living in broken families may feel lonely and isolated which is harmful to children's psychological heath. In contrast, living in extended families not only provides opportunities to communicate with families, but also builds a sense of belong among family members. For example, if young people had no time to take care of their little children because of busy work, their retired parents could help them in a extended family.

Other people agree that living alone or in small family units has positive effects on our society. As the reasons mentioned above, it could avoid family conflict, which is likely to lead to break families. For instance, a great deal of families in China divorce because couple living with parents of husbands contributes to bad relationships between wives and the parents in law. Furthermore, living individually or in small family units would be much freer, while people have more private time to do what they really want to, such as travelling for a long distance or learning something special. Moreover, children living in small family units would be more independent, which could prepare them for their adult lives, while retired people living apart from their adult children could reduce children's burden.

Overall, I tend to agree that whether living in small family units or in extended families depends on different people of different circumstances. I believe that our society encourages people living in happiness and blessedness regardless of the types of families.