#Essay
Nowadays we are producing more and more rubbish. Why do you think this is happening? What can governments do to help reduce the amount of rubbish produced?
In recent times, there is a constant growth in the amount of the waste we produce. Nevertheless, this discourse delves into the rationale behind this and subsequently, put forward the measures that can be taken by the authorities to thwart this worrying trend.
According to a school of thought, the most common ratiocination behind overproduction of rubbish is probably due to the fact that industries manufacture more disposable items nowadays. In this respect, most of the items that were reused in the past are recently discarded after a single use; thus, building up more waste in the surrounding. For instance, according to the Vanguard newspaper in 2015, disposable items accounted for almost 50% of waste products in London. In addition to this, another reason could be lack of interest in recycling waste. Put differently, people are relunctant about sorting their waste products and sending them to recycling companies. This; therefore,add up to the amount of refuse in our environs.
On the other side of the coin, could there be any panacea to this worrisome development? Certainly, it follows that the authorities should make laws that will oblige the masses to recycle their refuse, failure of which should attract penalties. Additionally, the government can also regulate the production of disposables by limiting it to necessary items such as medical equipment.
In conclusion, having explored both perspectives, it is evident that the rise in the manufacture of disposables and lackadaisical attitude of people towards recycling are the reasons for the growth in environmental waste. However, the government can arrest this menace by creating laws to recycle refuse and reduce the amount of disposables produced.
#Assessment
...put [puts] forward...or will subsequently put forward
...most of the items that were...are [were] recently discarded...
TA = 7.5
CC = 7.5
LR = 7.5
GRA = 6.5
BS = 7.5
Good job!
@IELTSmates
Nowadays we are producing more and more rubbish. Why do you think this is happening? What can governments do to help reduce the amount of rubbish produced?
In recent times, there is a constant growth in the amount of the waste we produce. Nevertheless, this discourse delves into the rationale behind this and subsequently, put forward the measures that can be taken by the authorities to thwart this worrying trend.
According to a school of thought, the most common ratiocination behind overproduction of rubbish is probably due to the fact that industries manufacture more disposable items nowadays. In this respect, most of the items that were reused in the past are recently discarded after a single use; thus, building up more waste in the surrounding. For instance, according to the Vanguard newspaper in 2015, disposable items accounted for almost 50% of waste products in London. In addition to this, another reason could be lack of interest in recycling waste. Put differently, people are relunctant about sorting their waste products and sending them to recycling companies. This; therefore,add up to the amount of refuse in our environs.
On the other side of the coin, could there be any panacea to this worrisome development? Certainly, it follows that the authorities should make laws that will oblige the masses to recycle their refuse, failure of which should attract penalties. Additionally, the government can also regulate the production of disposables by limiting it to necessary items such as medical equipment.
In conclusion, having explored both perspectives, it is evident that the rise in the manufacture of disposables and lackadaisical attitude of people towards recycling are the reasons for the growth in environmental waste. However, the government can arrest this menace by creating laws to recycle refuse and reduce the amount of disposables produced.
#Assessment
...put [puts] forward...or will subsequently put forward
...most of the items that were...are [were] recently discarded...
TA = 7.5
CC = 7.5
LR = 7.5
GRA = 6.5
BS = 7.5
Good job!
@IELTSmates
#sample #essay #writing
In some countries young people are encouraged to work or travel for a year between finishing high school and starting university studies. Discuss the advantages and disadvantage of young people who decide to do this.
In some parts of the world, youngsters are advised that either work or travel for a year after college before furthering their education in the university. Nevertheless, this discourse looks into the boons and pitfalls associated with this trend, accordingly.
According to a school of thought, the major plus point of taking a break after high school to either get a job or migrate to a different location is probably to earn money in order to take care of their financial needs when they start studies in the high institution. Put differently, students work and save money to help life some financial burden off their parents. In addition to this, another reason could likely be to acquire soft skills. In this respect, scholars volunteer to work in organizations where they learn important life skills such as interpersonal skills, which sets them apart and increase their chances of getting admitted into the school of their choice. To illustrate this, out of the myriad of students that apply each year at the Cambridge university, about 10% are chosen based on their extracurricular qualities, according to Vanguard newspaper,2012.
On the flip side, could there be a downside related to this scenario? Certainly, it follows that one of the main drawback to this trend is probably that students lose interest in their academic pursuit during this period. Students tend to concentrate on their newly found interest when they are out of school for a long time especially when it gives them financial freedom. For instance, according to a survey carried out at the institute of information, university of London (2013), about 60% of students who took a break to either work or travel, never returned to school.
In conclusion, despite the plus points of earning a living and developing skills, working or traveling after secondary education before beginning university studies has a negative effect of students losing focus in their academic ambition.
#Assessment
... youngsters are advised that [to] either...
[Always endeavour to re-read your work as many times as possible in order to be able to fix lapses/slips of this kind.]
...in the high [higher] institution
...to help life some financial burden off their parents. [Construction not quite clear... A bit awkward.]
TA = 8
CC = 7
LR = 8
GRA = 6.5
BS = 7.5
Fantastic job! Keep it up!
Meanwhile, diligently effect the corrections, and further explore some other correlative conjunctions (such as "both/and, not only/but also, as [well] as, neither/nor, etc.,) in order to boost your grammar range.
Join and share⬇️
@IELTSmates
In some countries young people are encouraged to work or travel for a year between finishing high school and starting university studies. Discuss the advantages and disadvantage of young people who decide to do this.
In some parts of the world, youngsters are advised that either work or travel for a year after college before furthering their education in the university. Nevertheless, this discourse looks into the boons and pitfalls associated with this trend, accordingly.
According to a school of thought, the major plus point of taking a break after high school to either get a job or migrate to a different location is probably to earn money in order to take care of their financial needs when they start studies in the high institution. Put differently, students work and save money to help life some financial burden off their parents. In addition to this, another reason could likely be to acquire soft skills. In this respect, scholars volunteer to work in organizations where they learn important life skills such as interpersonal skills, which sets them apart and increase their chances of getting admitted into the school of their choice. To illustrate this, out of the myriad of students that apply each year at the Cambridge university, about 10% are chosen based on their extracurricular qualities, according to Vanguard newspaper,2012.
On the flip side, could there be a downside related to this scenario? Certainly, it follows that one of the main drawback to this trend is probably that students lose interest in their academic pursuit during this period. Students tend to concentrate on their newly found interest when they are out of school for a long time especially when it gives them financial freedom. For instance, according to a survey carried out at the institute of information, university of London (2013), about 60% of students who took a break to either work or travel, never returned to school.
In conclusion, despite the plus points of earning a living and developing skills, working or traveling after secondary education before beginning university studies has a negative effect of students losing focus in their academic ambition.
#Assessment
... youngsters are advised that [to] either...
[Always endeavour to re-read your work as many times as possible in order to be able to fix lapses/slips of this kind.]
...in the high [higher] institution
...to help life some financial burden off their parents. [Construction not quite clear... A bit awkward.]
TA = 8
CC = 7
LR = 8
GRA = 6.5
BS = 7.5
Fantastic job! Keep it up!
Meanwhile, diligently effect the corrections, and further explore some other correlative conjunctions (such as "both/and, not only/but also, as [well] as, neither/nor, etc.,) in order to boost your grammar range.
Join and share⬇️
@IELTSmates
#Health #essay #sample
"Prevention is better than cure." Out of a country's health budget, a large proportion should be diverted from treatment to spending on health education and preventative measures.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? .
The prophylactic initiatives have been playing a superior role to protect people against diseases rather than finding remedies for them since the ancient time. The argument whether a nation's financial blueprint should be deflected towards the protective steps from medicaments – has become a moot point. Notwithstanding, this disquisition delves into these both standpoints, and subsequently will explore my own perspective, accordingly.
Apparently, the exponents that postulate that pre-emptive operations must get a substantial part of the forecast, and should be carried out by the authorities to abbreviate the ailment – have their justification. The rationalization behind their argument might due to the fact that public edification by arranging awareness campaigns can proliferate the importance of hygienic practice in communities; hence, the chances of outbreaks of the deadliest illnesses can be diminished to a great degree. Additionally, researching methods for therapy may take years of practice and experiments to find its positive effects; nonetheless, it may not able to find medical care at all. To epitomize, human science has been investigating a perfect therapeutics for malignant illnesses, such as cancer, and autoimmune disorders, from past many decades, but still there are no successful drugs available in the market that can cure the disease completely. Thus, the vindication for precautionary measures.
Conversely, could the contenders that opine that ministrations only the best option to make the world healthy, be absolutely right? Certainly, it follows that some fatal ailments like heart disorder and stroke need spontaneous treatment than allocating on protection. Moreover, if a large share of the budget will be designated to find a cure than in a short period of time, a country would have the best control on these kinds of diseases. According to one survey by the Chronicle Journal, in 2009, 5% of indigenous people in the rural part of Canada died due to lack of emergency facilities in a hospital, where the government could not provide it.
To conclude, having explored both vantage points, I am in perfect alignment with the school of thought that maintains that obstructive actions ought to be given priority to enlighten civilians, for the sake of lessening outspread of disease, and to improve the quality of healthy environment; however, enough statement should be devoted to pivotal treatments for emergency situations as well.
#Assessment
...has [no doubt/unarguably] become a moot point.
[Or ...has metamorphosised/transmuted into a moot point.]
[Note that it makes sense to incorporate these 'filters' in order to avoid the tendency to over-generalize.]
... might [be] due to... [Always re-read your work.]
Conversely, ...ministrations [of what?] ... [is?] only the best option...[Again, another vague construction... Kindly further simplify to clarify things.]
...by Chronicle Journal in 2019, ...[take note of where the comma is placed]
obstructive actions [precautionary, preemptive, preventative, inhibitory actions]
See PRECISION in vocabulary.
TA = 7.5
CC = 6.5
LR = 7 [Although the lexical resources explored mostly sound quite unnatural and/or not way too skilfully managed, it follows that they are largely less common (rare) constructions.]
GRA = 6.5
BS = 7
Quite impressed that this actually achieved 7 this time.
Credits: IELTSGrammarPoint
Join and share⬇️
@IELTSmates
"Prevention is better than cure." Out of a country's health budget, a large proportion should be diverted from treatment to spending on health education and preventative measures.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? .
The prophylactic initiatives have been playing a superior role to protect people against diseases rather than finding remedies for them since the ancient time. The argument whether a nation's financial blueprint should be deflected towards the protective steps from medicaments – has become a moot point. Notwithstanding, this disquisition delves into these both standpoints, and subsequently will explore my own perspective, accordingly.
Apparently, the exponents that postulate that pre-emptive operations must get a substantial part of the forecast, and should be carried out by the authorities to abbreviate the ailment – have their justification. The rationalization behind their argument might due to the fact that public edification by arranging awareness campaigns can proliferate the importance of hygienic practice in communities; hence, the chances of outbreaks of the deadliest illnesses can be diminished to a great degree. Additionally, researching methods for therapy may take years of practice and experiments to find its positive effects; nonetheless, it may not able to find medical care at all. To epitomize, human science has been investigating a perfect therapeutics for malignant illnesses, such as cancer, and autoimmune disorders, from past many decades, but still there are no successful drugs available in the market that can cure the disease completely. Thus, the vindication for precautionary measures.
Conversely, could the contenders that opine that ministrations only the best option to make the world healthy, be absolutely right? Certainly, it follows that some fatal ailments like heart disorder and stroke need spontaneous treatment than allocating on protection. Moreover, if a large share of the budget will be designated to find a cure than in a short period of time, a country would have the best control on these kinds of diseases. According to one survey by the Chronicle Journal, in 2009, 5% of indigenous people in the rural part of Canada died due to lack of emergency facilities in a hospital, where the government could not provide it.
To conclude, having explored both vantage points, I am in perfect alignment with the school of thought that maintains that obstructive actions ought to be given priority to enlighten civilians, for the sake of lessening outspread of disease, and to improve the quality of healthy environment; however, enough statement should be devoted to pivotal treatments for emergency situations as well.
#Assessment
...has [no doubt/unarguably] become a moot point.
[Or ...has metamorphosised/transmuted into a moot point.]
[Note that it makes sense to incorporate these 'filters' in order to avoid the tendency to over-generalize.]
... might [be] due to... [Always re-read your work.]
Conversely, ...ministrations [of what?] ... [is?] only the best option...[Again, another vague construction... Kindly further simplify to clarify things.]
...by Chronicle Journal in 2019, ...[take note of where the comma is placed]
obstructive actions [precautionary, preemptive, preventative, inhibitory actions]
See PRECISION in vocabulary.
TA = 7.5
CC = 6.5
LR = 7 [Although the lexical resources explored mostly sound quite unnatural and/or not way too skilfully managed, it follows that they are largely less common (rare) constructions.]
GRA = 6.5
BS = 7
Quite impressed that this actually achieved 7 this time.
Credits: IELTSGrammarPoint
Join and share⬇️
@IELTSmates
#writing #task2 #essay #assessment
To succeed in a business, one needs to know maths.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Running an effective business "requires" some calculations which "made" [makes] some people "believe" that an entrepreneur "needs" mathematical skills...
[See verb-tense consistency rule!! Also not that "Running an effective business..." here is taken to be a singular subject which must equally agree with its singular (verb) object (i.e. "requires", "makes".]
...most entrepreneur [entrepreneurs]
[See Quantifiers.]
...in growth of a business [in "the" growth of a business or in growing a business
See Articles and Determiners.]
TA = 7.0
CC = 6.5
LR = 6.5
GRA = 6.5
BS = 6.5
Good attempt!
Join and share↙️
@IELTSmates
To succeed in a business, one needs to know maths.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Running an effective business requires some calculations which made some people believe that an entrepreneur needs mathematical skills in order to operate a successful business. Notwithstanding, this discourse delves into both point of views, and subsequently will put forward reasons why I disagree with the view.#Assessment by John Bosco
Calculation is essential in day to day activities of every establishment, and the sole purpose why most people feel that an extensive knowledge in mathematics is invaluable for any business to excel. For instance, estimating work profit and loss, quantity of goods or services required, and fixed and recurrent expenditures involves daily computation by a skilled personnel. Therefore, if the manager or owner of an investment have little or zero understanding of mathematics, there is a high possibility that the trade might collapse from mismanagement.
On the other hand, does it mean that there is a significant chance that most striving businesses might fail due to owner's incompetence in maths? Personally, I think that mathematics is undoubtedly an inconsequential skill for most determined business persons. By this I mean that some individuals, who are specialized in this vocation such as mathematicians, could be graciously employed to handle the everyday calculations needed in the job. Moreover, there are other crucial properties that most entrepreneur require to maintain a profitable merchandise. For instance, studies have shown that managerial and innovative talents are definitely substantial in building up a great business.
In conclusion, having explored both stand points, I reiterate that maths is immensely vital in growth of a business, but this skill can easily be filled by a professional. Beside, possessing other skills are equally indispensable for most excellent businessmen or women.
Running an effective business "requires" some calculations which "made" [makes] some people "believe" that an entrepreneur "needs" mathematical skills...
[See verb-tense consistency rule!! Also not that "Running an effective business..." here is taken to be a singular subject which must equally agree with its singular (verb) object (i.e. "requires", "makes".]
...most entrepreneur [entrepreneurs]
[See Quantifiers.]
...in growth of a business [in "the" growth of a business or in growing a business
See Articles and Determiners.]
TA = 7.0
CC = 6.5
LR = 6.5
GRA = 6.5
BS = 6.5
Good attempt!
Join and share↙️
@IELTSmates
Common Grammar Mistakes Essay @IELTSmates .pdf
345.3 KB
#tips #essay #writing
Common Grammar Mistakes and their fixes –Essay/Report Writing
1. How can you fix fragments/Incomplete Sentences?
2. How can you fix comma splices and run-ons?
3. Main Component’s Missing
4. Subject Verb Agreement
5. Adding the Plural (s)
6. Pronoun-Antecedent Errors
7. Dangling Modifiers
8. Repetitious sentence structure/length
9. Colourless verbs and bland adjectives
10. Lazy transitions/lack of transitions
11. Lack of proofreading
12. Contractions, abbreviations and slang
13. Incomplete sentences
14. Incorrect use of apostrophes
15. Poor Thesis Fix
16. Poor Conclusion Fix
17. Misuse of commas
18. Spelling errors/Typos
19. Punctuation problems
20. Lack of transitional phrases
21. Lack of structure
Join and share ↙️
@IELTSmates
Common Grammar Mistakes and their fixes –Essay/Report Writing
1. How can you fix fragments/Incomplete Sentences?
2. How can you fix comma splices and run-ons?
3. Main Component’s Missing
4. Subject Verb Agreement
5. Adding the Plural (s)
6. Pronoun-Antecedent Errors
7. Dangling Modifiers
8. Repetitious sentence structure/length
9. Colourless verbs and bland adjectives
10. Lazy transitions/lack of transitions
11. Lack of proofreading
12. Contractions, abbreviations and slang
13. Incomplete sentences
14. Incorrect use of apostrophes
15. Poor Thesis Fix
16. Poor Conclusion Fix
17. Misuse of commas
18. Spelling errors/Typos
19. Punctuation problems
20. Lack of transitional phrases
21. Lack of structure
Join and share ↙️
@IELTSmates
#essay #task2 #sample
Since its discovery, nuclear energy has been a controversial technology.
What are some dangers connected with nuclear energy?
In your opinion, is nuclear energy a good or bad technology?
Nuclear energy has always been a much debated technology. This essay will discuss the dangers posed by its use and decide whether it is beneficial or harmful for humanity.
There are several issues associated with nuclear energy. These problems are evidenced in its history of disasters and destruction. Once the power of the atom had been discovered, it was almost immediately weaponised and used to destroy two cities filled with civilians. Even when nuclear technology was used for peaceful means, tragedy has still been connected with its use. The Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters along with many other smaller ones show that this technology is never truly safe even in supposedly technologically advanced countries.
However, nuclear technology is the best choice in many situations. The only current realistic affordable alternative to nuclear energy is the burning of fossil fuels. Studies show that fossil fuel emissions have claimed many more lives than nuclear disasters because air pollution slowly poisons people’s throats, lungs and respiratory systems. In addition, even though some may argue that solar, wind, wave or hydroelectricity are better alternatives, some cold landlocked nations such as Switzerland do not have consistent access to sunlight, wind or flowing rivers year-round. For these countries it would appear that nuclear energy, despite its dangers, is the best option.
In conclusion, although nuclear technology is undoubtedly dangerous due to radioactivity and its proven history, I believe in some contexts it is actually the best alternative to other more harmful or unreliable energy sources.
©️Beyden Dingle (Overall 9.0, W: 8.5)
Join and share🔽
@IELTSmates_Uz
Since its discovery, nuclear energy has been a controversial technology.
What are some dangers connected with nuclear energy?
In your opinion, is nuclear energy a good or bad technology?
Nuclear energy has always been a much debated technology. This essay will discuss the dangers posed by its use and decide whether it is beneficial or harmful for humanity.
There are several issues associated with nuclear energy. These problems are evidenced in its history of disasters and destruction. Once the power of the atom had been discovered, it was almost immediately weaponised and used to destroy two cities filled with civilians. Even when nuclear technology was used for peaceful means, tragedy has still been connected with its use. The Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters along with many other smaller ones show that this technology is never truly safe even in supposedly technologically advanced countries.
However, nuclear technology is the best choice in many situations. The only current realistic affordable alternative to nuclear energy is the burning of fossil fuels. Studies show that fossil fuel emissions have claimed many more lives than nuclear disasters because air pollution slowly poisons people’s throats, lungs and respiratory systems. In addition, even though some may argue that solar, wind, wave or hydroelectricity are better alternatives, some cold landlocked nations such as Switzerland do not have consistent access to sunlight, wind or flowing rivers year-round. For these countries it would appear that nuclear energy, despite its dangers, is the best option.
In conclusion, although nuclear technology is undoubtedly dangerous due to radioactivity and its proven history, I believe in some contexts it is actually the best alternative to other more harmful or unreliable energy sources.
©️Beyden Dingle (Overall 9.0, W: 8.5)
Join and share
@IELTSmates_Uz
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
#essay #task2 #sample
Some people argue that space exploration has had more to do with national pride than international effort.
To what extent do you agree with this?
How do you think space exploration will change in the future?
It has been argued that the history of space exploration has been motivated more by nationalism than a desire to further humanity’s accomplishments. This essay will discuss this point of view and explore the new ways humanity will approach space exploration.
Although nationalism has been a factor in space exploration in the past, there are two clear reasons why humanity’s explorations of space should be considered as generally an international endeavor. Firstly, modern collaboration between countries with the international space station shows that outside the earth’s atmosphere, nations can come together to further humanity’s understanding and exploration of the universe. If space exploration were still grounded in nationalism, the very existence of the space station would be impossible. Secondly, the advent of private enterprise attempting to make humans a multiplanetary species shows that nationalism is becoming irrelevant. When companies like SpaceX finally reach Mars, it is more likely that the banner of a private company will be planted than the flag of a country.
The future holds many exciting possibilities in the exploration of our universe. It seems that the new ambition driving space technology innovation is the desire to go to Mars and live permanently beyond earth. Thus, the future of space exploration is likely to be based around planet colonization and living in harsh environments. In the more distant future, another possible change will be the desire for humans to achieve interstellar travel. Even though for now this seems impossible, with the discovery of new technology and new understandings of the nature of the universe, it is likely a matter of time before humanity will find a way to leave our solar system.
In conclusion, I believe that as a whole, humanity’s exploration of space has been driven more by shared sense of humanity than national pride, and it is no doubt true that the future of space exploration will go far beyond humanity’s current achievements.
©️Beyden Dingle (Overall 9.0, W: 8.5)
Join and share🔽
@IELTSmates_Uz
Some people argue that space exploration has had more to do with national pride than international effort.
To what extent do you agree with this?
How do you think space exploration will change in the future?
It has been argued that the history of space exploration has been motivated more by nationalism than a desire to further humanity’s accomplishments. This essay will discuss this point of view and explore the new ways humanity will approach space exploration.
Although nationalism has been a factor in space exploration in the past, there are two clear reasons why humanity’s explorations of space should be considered as generally an international endeavor. Firstly, modern collaboration between countries with the international space station shows that outside the earth’s atmosphere, nations can come together to further humanity’s understanding and exploration of the universe. If space exploration were still grounded in nationalism, the very existence of the space station would be impossible. Secondly, the advent of private enterprise attempting to make humans a multiplanetary species shows that nationalism is becoming irrelevant. When companies like SpaceX finally reach Mars, it is more likely that the banner of a private company will be planted than the flag of a country.
The future holds many exciting possibilities in the exploration of our universe. It seems that the new ambition driving space technology innovation is the desire to go to Mars and live permanently beyond earth. Thus, the future of space exploration is likely to be based around planet colonization and living in harsh environments. In the more distant future, another possible change will be the desire for humans to achieve interstellar travel. Even though for now this seems impossible, with the discovery of new technology and new understandings of the nature of the universe, it is likely a matter of time before humanity will find a way to leave our solar system.
In conclusion, I believe that as a whole, humanity’s exploration of space has been driven more by shared sense of humanity than national pride, and it is no doubt true that the future of space exploration will go far beyond humanity’s current achievements.
©️Beyden Dingle (Overall 9.0, W: 8.5)
Join and share
@IELTSmates_Uz
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
#essay #task2 #sample #opinion #balanced
Some educationalists argue that non-exam, arts-based subjects, such as music, drama, art and craft, should be compulsory in the secondary-school curriculum. They believe that activities such as these can improve overall academic performance.
To what extent do you agree or disagree.
Some education experts believe that arts subjects should be mandatory in high school due to the benefits they provide to academic outcomes. Although this approach may not be ideal every case, I am of the opinion that arts subjects should generally be a required part of the school program.
There are a number of issues associated with making arts subjects mandatory. First of all, not all schools have the resources to provide this kind of an education. In the case of schools in poor countries or on tight budgets, attention must be given to subjects that the students will need for a financially successful future as a priority. Furthermore, it is true that certain arts subjects are not a perfect match for every student. Many students are introverted and shy, so to force them to take classes like drama and performance may be counterproductive.
However, in most cases, requiring students to have at least a certain amount of exposure to arts-based subjects is the right decision. Research has shown that learning a range of skills has a positive impact on cognitive ability and intelligence. For example, when Finland began to focus their education on exposing their students to a wider variety of subjects, the academic performance of their children rose to the best in the world. In addition, arts subjects have obvious benefits beyond academics. Arts subjects have the potential to introduce young people to activities, such as playing an instrument, that they may enjoy for the rest of their lives.
In conclusion, providing extensive arts programs is not realistic for every school, and not all students should not be forced to do every kind of art class. However, I do believe that whenever realistically possible, it should be mandatory for students to have some involvement in the arts.
©️ Beyden Dingle(Overall 9.0, W:8.5)
Join and share🔽
@IELTSmates_Uz
Some educationalists argue that non-exam, arts-based subjects, such as music, drama, art and craft, should be compulsory in the secondary-school curriculum. They believe that activities such as these can improve overall academic performance.
To what extent do you agree or disagree.
Some education experts believe that arts subjects should be mandatory in high school due to the benefits they provide to academic outcomes. Although this approach may not be ideal every case, I am of the opinion that arts subjects should generally be a required part of the school program.
There are a number of issues associated with making arts subjects mandatory. First of all, not all schools have the resources to provide this kind of an education. In the case of schools in poor countries or on tight budgets, attention must be given to subjects that the students will need for a financially successful future as a priority. Furthermore, it is true that certain arts subjects are not a perfect match for every student. Many students are introverted and shy, so to force them to take classes like drama and performance may be counterproductive.
However, in most cases, requiring students to have at least a certain amount of exposure to arts-based subjects is the right decision. Research has shown that learning a range of skills has a positive impact on cognitive ability and intelligence. For example, when Finland began to focus their education on exposing their students to a wider variety of subjects, the academic performance of their children rose to the best in the world. In addition, arts subjects have obvious benefits beyond academics. Arts subjects have the potential to introduce young people to activities, such as playing an instrument, that they may enjoy for the rest of their lives.
In conclusion, providing extensive arts programs is not realistic for every school, and not all students should not be forced to do every kind of art class. However, I do believe that whenever realistically possible, it should be mandatory for students to have some involvement in the arts.
©️ Beyden Dingle(Overall 9.0, W:8.5)
Join and share
@IELTSmates_Uz
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Nodirjon's IELTSmates
#writing #task2 #doublequestion I will send a Band 8.0+ essay later today, nasib. Until then, you can also give it a try and send your version to the Discussion Group of the channel by incorporating insights from the podcast and articles above. Join and…
#writing #task2 #essay #model
Nuclear energy has always been a much-debated technology. This essay will discuss the dangers posed by its use and decide whether it is beneficial or harmful for humanity.
There are several issues associated with nuclear energy. These problems are evidenced in its history of disasters and destruction. Once the power of the atom had been discovered, it was almost immediately weaponized and used to destroy two cities filled with civilians. Even when nuclear technology was used for peaceful means, tragedy has still been connected with its use. The Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters along with many other smaller ones show that this technology is never truly safe even in supposedly technologically advanced countries.
However, nuclear technology is the best choice in many situations. The only current realistic affordable alternative to nuclear energy is the burning of fossil fuels. Studies show that fossil fuel emissions have claimed many more lives than nuclear disasters because air pollution slowly poisons people’s throats, lungs and respiratory systems. In addition, even though some may argue that solar, wind, wave or hydroelectricity are better alternatives, some cold landlocked nations such as Switzerland do not have consistent access to sunlight, wind or flowing rivers year-round. For these countries it would appear that nuclear energy, despite its dangers, is the best option.
In conclusion, although nuclear technology is undoubtedly dangerous due to radioactivity and its proven history, I believe in some contexts it is actually the best alternative to other more harmful or unreliable energy sources.
247 words (Yes, it is OK)
Band 8.0+
Join and share🔽
@IELTSmates_Uz
Nuclear energy has always been a much-debated technology. This essay will discuss the dangers posed by its use and decide whether it is beneficial or harmful for humanity.
There are several issues associated with nuclear energy. These problems are evidenced in its history of disasters and destruction. Once the power of the atom had been discovered, it was almost immediately weaponized and used to destroy two cities filled with civilians. Even when nuclear technology was used for peaceful means, tragedy has still been connected with its use. The Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters along with many other smaller ones show that this technology is never truly safe even in supposedly technologically advanced countries.
However, nuclear technology is the best choice in many situations. The only current realistic affordable alternative to nuclear energy is the burning of fossil fuels. Studies show that fossil fuel emissions have claimed many more lives than nuclear disasters because air pollution slowly poisons people’s throats, lungs and respiratory systems. In addition, even though some may argue that solar, wind, wave or hydroelectricity are better alternatives, some cold landlocked nations such as Switzerland do not have consistent access to sunlight, wind or flowing rivers year-round. For these countries it would appear that nuclear energy, despite its dangers, is the best option.
In conclusion, although nuclear technology is undoubtedly dangerous due to radioactivity and its proven history, I believe in some contexts it is actually the best alternative to other more harmful or unreliable energy sources.
Band 8.0+
Join and share
@IELTSmates_Uz
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM