Compulsory study. Young people should be forced to stay in full-time education until they are 18.

full-time education should be compulsory for the youth

It is sometimes argued that full-time education should be compulsory for the youth until they reach eighteen. From my point of view, I am completely in agreement with this view.

One could easily suppose that education in high schools is non-essential since the knowledge obtained from school are not practical and applicable for learners when they go to work. Therefore, it would be a waste of time for students to devote their time on high school. However, I regard this as a short-sighted view. It is indisputable fact that there are a number of knowledge in terms of moral lessons about the society, civil obligations and rights and general law that are taught in high school when students are above 16 and thus have developed fully enough to absorb more complicated aspects like those. This is necessary since regardless of what kind of occupations students pursue in the future, they should be entirely oblivious of the rules and regulations of the country, their obligations and rights to the society in order to become a decent citizen with high discipline.

Moreover, high schools offers students the opportunity to explore their desire of the future career, which is not ussually experienced in secondary school. In fact, non-high school education concentates on academic knowledge mostly and little attention for career orientation. Meanwhile, high schools involve in a variety of career workshops and activities in an attempt to help students understand more about certain occupations and find out their desire for their career path. As a result, if students do not know what they could do once graduating, it is likely that they pursue the wrong path, leading demotivation at work and thus causing inefficient labour force for the society.

In conclusion, I hold a strong conviction that education in high school should be mandatory.

Is it not necessary to use an emotional and measured response in this discussion. The discussion does not call for it specifically. It only asks for a simple response statement. While the writer will still be scored for his response, the emotional presentation where not required will not add to the scoring potential of the statement. What would have added to the score, was the reasoning sentence that would have given a simple explanation of the writer's opinion. This reason would increase the score due to the clear reasoning requirement for his opinion. It is a scoring consideration.

The writer has written convincing reasoning paragraphs. He has created discussion points that prove his opinion to be true. These will result in the C+C section being highly scored. However, there are spelling and grammar errors that will result in deduction points in these specific areas. The writer should have focused less on the length of the essay and more on the perfection of the presentation.

Less errors are made when paragraphs are shortened. Errors can be corrected if the writing time is not solely devoted to writing as well. He should leave at least 5 minutes for proof reading and correcting his work. The idea is to limit the number of deductions in the presentation to preserve the overall score.

I think "knowledge" is an uncountable noun so you should use "is" instead of "are in that sentence. Another thing is in this sentence: "... for students to devote their time on high school.", I suppose you should you "dedicate their time on" instead of "devote" because "devote" is used when you want to show your love to someone or something that you set your heart on.

I hope this helps you.