As countries develop, more and more people buy cars.
Do the advantages of this outweigh disadvantages?
With the development of countries, people’s living standards improve as well, allowing them to purchase automobiles increasingly more. In my opinion, this tendency does more harm than good.
Looking firstly at the positives of cars, the two main benefits are that they provide independence and are helpful in emergencies. With regards to the former, having a car allows people to commute to work, studies and run other errands no matter time how distant their destination is. Unlike with other means of transport like buses, trains and subway, car owners are free from the hustles of waiting, following strict schedules and, oftentimes, being late. As for the latter, humans may become ill or an emergency might happen at any unexpected time. On these occasions, having a personal automobile can be a matter of life and death.
In spite of the benefits above, I do feel that having a car presents serious drawbacks, the most obvious of which is the risk of fatal accidents. Instead of saving a human life, driving recklessly, not following the speed limit or obeying road signs, can be a cause of many people’s death. Not only this, but the environment is also severely damaged by excessive amounts of carbon dioxide discharged by those cars. If we do not care about providing the future generation with a cleaner environment and fresher air by driving less, then who does? Of course, that is not to claim that owning a car should completely be banned. It is suggested that private cars be used only during emergencies, ill-health and other vital concerns, but not for insignificant reasons.
In conclusion, although people buying more cars might be considered beneficial for both regular and critical conditions, they are outweighed by the negatives of lethal accidents damage to the environment.
#task2
⚡️@alisherposts ⚡️
Do the advantages of this outweigh disadvantages?
With the development of countries, people’s living standards improve as well, allowing them to purchase automobiles increasingly more. In my opinion, this tendency does more harm than good.
Looking firstly at the positives of cars, the two main benefits are that they provide independence and are helpful in emergencies. With regards to the former, having a car allows people to commute to work, studies and run other errands no matter time how distant their destination is. Unlike with other means of transport like buses, trains and subway, car owners are free from the hustles of waiting, following strict schedules and, oftentimes, being late. As for the latter, humans may become ill or an emergency might happen at any unexpected time. On these occasions, having a personal automobile can be a matter of life and death.
In spite of the benefits above, I do feel that having a car presents serious drawbacks, the most obvious of which is the risk of fatal accidents. Instead of saving a human life, driving recklessly, not following the speed limit or obeying road signs, can be a cause of many people’s death. Not only this, but the environment is also severely damaged by excessive amounts of carbon dioxide discharged by those cars. If we do not care about providing the future generation with a cleaner environment and fresher air by driving less, then who does? Of course, that is not to claim that owning a car should completely be banned. It is suggested that private cars be used only during emergencies, ill-health and other vital concerns, but not for insignificant reasons.
In conclusion, although people buying more cars might be considered beneficial for both regular and critical conditions, they are outweighed by the negatives of lethal accidents damage to the environment.
#task2
⚡️@alisherposts ⚡️
👍6🌚1
An essay question:
Computers can now help people translate things immediately so there is no need for people to learn other languages. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
⚡️@alisherposts ⚡️
Computers can now help people translate things immediately so there is no need for people to learn other languages. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
⚡️@alisherposts ⚡️
⚡1
Essay A
The development of technology, in recent years, has enabled people translate everything in no time. This, in turn, leaves no need to master foreign languages. I completely disagree with this statement for two principal reasons.
With regards to the former, technology is evolving and we are yet to conclude that artificial intelligence software, such as Siri and Alice, which recognize voices are as intelligent and advanced as humans. This has to do with the flaws they tend to have. Human language is composed of elements of grammar, speed, emotion and tone, all of which can be difficult tasks for a robot to interpret and understand. Simply using Siri software in a language other than English speaking faster than usual is a clear case in point which proves their limited capabilities in comprehending humans, let alone translating. If technology is advanced enough that can supersede humans in translation, then why there is still a high demand for synchronous translators?
As for the latter, the possibilities of utilizing technology in written text is limited too. From my personal experience, when writing university assignments, I had to use Google Translator to translate my thoughts and ideas to English. However, for the sake of checking reliability of this piece of software, I had done the reverse translation, and the outcome was different. It is true that technology lends people a helping hand in most situations when translation needed. Nevertheless, to claim that there is no requirement to learn foreign languages is to ignore mistakes and inability of technology in certain situations.
Technology of translation has advanced considerably, but it still has a long way to go. Its limit both in written and oral forms of communication discussed above leads us to a conclusion that people still an urge to learn foreign languages to be able to translate and not completely rely on technology for this purpose.
⚡️@alisherposts ⚡️
The development of technology, in recent years, has enabled people translate everything in no time. This, in turn, leaves no need to master foreign languages. I completely disagree with this statement for two principal reasons.
With regards to the former, technology is evolving and we are yet to conclude that artificial intelligence software, such as Siri and Alice, which recognize voices are as intelligent and advanced as humans. This has to do with the flaws they tend to have. Human language is composed of elements of grammar, speed, emotion and tone, all of which can be difficult tasks for a robot to interpret and understand. Simply using Siri software in a language other than English speaking faster than usual is a clear case in point which proves their limited capabilities in comprehending humans, let alone translating. If technology is advanced enough that can supersede humans in translation, then why there is still a high demand for synchronous translators?
As for the latter, the possibilities of utilizing technology in written text is limited too. From my personal experience, when writing university assignments, I had to use Google Translator to translate my thoughts and ideas to English. However, for the sake of checking reliability of this piece of software, I had done the reverse translation, and the outcome was different. It is true that technology lends people a helping hand in most situations when translation needed. Nevertheless, to claim that there is no requirement to learn foreign languages is to ignore mistakes and inability of technology in certain situations.
Technology of translation has advanced considerably, but it still has a long way to go. Its limit both in written and oral forms of communication discussed above leads us to a conclusion that people still an urge to learn foreign languages to be able to translate and not completely rely on technology for this purpose.
⚡️@alisherposts ⚡️
👍6
Essay B
The availability of advanced translation tools on computers today might lead some people to believe that learning other languages is not as necessary as it used to be. While I find this assertion to be true to some extent, I hold the view that people should still learn other languages for several reasons.
On the one hand, it is true that computer technology involving translation functions have come a long way from the time when it could only help translate basic speech chunks of another language. Whereas in the past people could only use it to interpret individual words and phrases, today this technology could be used to perform the more sophisticated tasks such as translating long texts into as many as 120 languages. Some language software tools go all the way to recognizing human speech, detecting what language is being used and translating it into a language of one’s choice. These advances, indeed, make some people wonder if the day when learning another language will be impractical has come.
On the other hand, despite the recent updates to translation software technologies, I believe computers are not yet close to replacing the traditional practice of learning other languages. One reason to this is the fact that these tools sometimes, if not often, fail to decipher cultural cues and features encoded within languages. Japanese, for example, is a language which requires proper use of tone to convey the intended meaning of words like “husband”. If not accounted for such subtleties of the language, serious misunderstandings may arise. Besides, there is more to learning a foreign language than simply deciphering and understanding it. It is an experience that involves learning about the culture and lifestyle of the language being learned as some expressions and figures of speech may have roots in them.
In conclusion, I would like to bring us back to my initial point that language learning is not one of those things that might be rendered obsolete with the advances in technology.
⚡️@alisherposts ⚡️
The availability of advanced translation tools on computers today might lead some people to believe that learning other languages is not as necessary as it used to be. While I find this assertion to be true to some extent, I hold the view that people should still learn other languages for several reasons.
On the one hand, it is true that computer technology involving translation functions have come a long way from the time when it could only help translate basic speech chunks of another language. Whereas in the past people could only use it to interpret individual words and phrases, today this technology could be used to perform the more sophisticated tasks such as translating long texts into as many as 120 languages. Some language software tools go all the way to recognizing human speech, detecting what language is being used and translating it into a language of one’s choice. These advances, indeed, make some people wonder if the day when learning another language will be impractical has come.
On the other hand, despite the recent updates to translation software technologies, I believe computers are not yet close to replacing the traditional practice of learning other languages. One reason to this is the fact that these tools sometimes, if not often, fail to decipher cultural cues and features encoded within languages. Japanese, for example, is a language which requires proper use of tone to convey the intended meaning of words like “husband”. If not accounted for such subtleties of the language, serious misunderstandings may arise. Besides, there is more to learning a foreign language than simply deciphering and understanding it. It is an experience that involves learning about the culture and lifestyle of the language being learned as some expressions and figures of speech may have roots in them.
In conclusion, I would like to bring us back to my initial point that language learning is not one of those things that might be rendered obsolete with the advances in technology.
⚡️@alisherposts ⚡️
👍4❤1
As you can see in the comments section, there is much discussion going on around who the authors of the essays are. We will make a post revealing which essay is whose after they get 1K views each.
Stay tuned!
(You can leave your guesses down here👇)
Stay tuned!
(You can leave your guesses down here👇)
👍3
Alisher&Mukhammadali posts pinned «Yep, the poll result speaks for itself) Enjoy! #nobodysaiditisgonnabeeasy #learnEnglish #motivation #gratitude https://telegra.ph/From-0-to-85-or-GRATITUDE-11-10 🌐🌐🌐Sharing is caring: @alisherposts»
What better feeling can there be than getting stuck in traffic and one of your favorite songs coming up on the radio?
#MondayMood
#MondayMood
😁5
Alisher&Mukhammadali posts
Essay B The availability of advanced translation tools on computers today might lead some people to believe that learning other languages is not as necessary as it used to be. While I find this assertion to be true to some extent, I hold the view that people…
The essay A was written by Alisher.
The essay B was written by Muhammadali.
The essay B was written by Muhammadali.
I can see that there is still a debate going on on who the writers of the essays are even after we made it public. In this light, I would like to dispel some stereotypes and baseless labelling regarding the styles of the writers.
Just because a writer used to use certain ways to write essays, it does not mean they will stick with those ways forever. We all have room to grow (no matter how good we are), and it is so apparent from the fact that there are some grammatical and word use mistakes in both of those essays (this is because they were written under exam conditions with time constraint and no use of a dictionary). How good of an essay we can produce depends on a shed load of factors ranging from the topic to the person's mood on that day.
The idea here is not to determine whose essay is better, instead it is to identify flaws in our writing (basically from your reactions) and to try to avoid them next time we write an essay. This way, we intend to provide you with quality essays that you might refer to as a learning guide.
At the end of the end, we are all benefiting from this experience as most of you can bear witness to that.
Peace✌️
Just because a writer used to use certain ways to write essays, it does not mean they will stick with those ways forever. We all have room to grow (no matter how good we are), and it is so apparent from the fact that there are some grammatical and word use mistakes in both of those essays (this is because they were written under exam conditions with time constraint and no use of a dictionary). How good of an essay we can produce depends on a shed load of factors ranging from the topic to the person's mood on that day.
The idea here is not to determine whose essay is better, instead it is to identify flaws in our writing (basically from your reactions) and to try to avoid them next time we write an essay. This way, we intend to provide you with quality essays that you might refer to as a learning guide.
At the end of the end, we are all benefiting from this experience as most of you can bear witness to that.
Peace✌️
Firecrackers set off celebrating the opening of a Disney Land-like recreational park in Tashkent
❤2
Good morning people, I wrote an essay on a very interesting topic:
Many countries around the world are turning to renewable forms of energy to supply their power needs.
Is this a positive or negative development?
Many countries are replacing their traditional sources of energy with renewable ones to meet their needs. Although there are some drawbacks of this switch, I hold that it is an overall positive trend.
Focusing on the negatives first, perhaps the main one would be huge expenses associated with alternative sources of energy. Governments need to invest a large proportion of their budget if they are to install wind turbines, solar panels and build dams to generate hydro power. For such developing countries as Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and even Russia, where the most basic social needs of education and healthcare are not as advanced as those of developed countries, spending large sums of money on renewable energy may seem unreasonable. Secondly, because renewable energy supplies are relatively new domains of knowledge, where will these countries find expertise to help implement this change? The key to solving this is again leading us to finance, which developing countries tend to lack.
In spite of the drawbacks mentioned above, I would argue that this is a positive development for various reasons. For one, with our current fossil fuel consumption rates, we are not going far. Sooner or later, the riches of the earth will run out, leaving us no chance but to resort to alternative sources of power, so if it is certain that we turn to them, there is no point procrastinating to do so. In addition to this, it is true that the environment is suffering significantly from burning fossil fuels like coal, gas and petrol. Shifting to renewable types of power is to provide our future generations with cleaner air to breath, purer water to drink, avoiding illnesses associated with pollution from using traditional sources of power, and saving wildlife as we have seen oil spills and their concomitant consequences.
While changing our sources of power to renewable ones might seem as an insurmountable challenge financially, I maintain that we gain more than we lose from this development for personal and environmental reasons.
#task2
Expert feedback:
Wow... this was really nice... you are in the high side of 7, potentially even 8 with this. There are a few little changes I would make to some of the wording, but the changes would only be minor. Well done. Really nice. I'd personally give it a bunch of 8s.
⚡️@alisherposts ⚡️
Many countries around the world are turning to renewable forms of energy to supply their power needs.
Is this a positive or negative development?
Many countries are replacing their traditional sources of energy with renewable ones to meet their needs. Although there are some drawbacks of this switch, I hold that it is an overall positive trend.
Focusing on the negatives first, perhaps the main one would be huge expenses associated with alternative sources of energy. Governments need to invest a large proportion of their budget if they are to install wind turbines, solar panels and build dams to generate hydro power. For such developing countries as Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and even Russia, where the most basic social needs of education and healthcare are not as advanced as those of developed countries, spending large sums of money on renewable energy may seem unreasonable. Secondly, because renewable energy supplies are relatively new domains of knowledge, where will these countries find expertise to help implement this change? The key to solving this is again leading us to finance, which developing countries tend to lack.
In spite of the drawbacks mentioned above, I would argue that this is a positive development for various reasons. For one, with our current fossil fuel consumption rates, we are not going far. Sooner or later, the riches of the earth will run out, leaving us no chance but to resort to alternative sources of power, so if it is certain that we turn to them, there is no point procrastinating to do so. In addition to this, it is true that the environment is suffering significantly from burning fossil fuels like coal, gas and petrol. Shifting to renewable types of power is to provide our future generations with cleaner air to breath, purer water to drink, avoiding illnesses associated with pollution from using traditional sources of power, and saving wildlife as we have seen oil spills and their concomitant consequences.
While changing our sources of power to renewable ones might seem as an insurmountable challenge financially, I maintain that we gain more than we lose from this development for personal and environmental reasons.
#task2
Expert feedback:
Wow... this was really nice... you are in the high side of 7, potentially even 8 with this. There are a few little changes I would make to some of the wording, but the changes would only be minor. Well done. Really nice. I'd personally give it a bunch of 8s.
⚡️@alisherposts ⚡️
👍6😍2🥰1
Gruesome image!
To help you understand how gruesome it is, imagine being stuck with #Dovud in a room and watching an entire season of FRIENDS together. Other than the tasteless jokes of the show, you would have to put up with his unapologetic manner of untiringly correcting you.
I am just kidding, Dovud. You know we all love you.
To help you understand how gruesome it is, imagine being stuck with #Dovud in a room and watching an entire season of FRIENDS together. Other than the tasteless jokes of the show, you would have to put up with his unapologetic manner of untiringly correcting you.
I am just kidding, Dovud. You know we all love you.
❤2😁1
In recent years, more and more people are choosing to read e-books rather than paper books.
Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
It has become common to see people use e-books instead of traditional paper books. Although there are some drawbacks to this, I believe that the benefits of electronic books are more significant.
To begin with, it should be noted that e-readers come with certain downsides. When reading a book on a device, readers may not be able to interact with the book the way they would if read a paper copy of it; e-books fail to facilitate real book reading experience like flipping through the pages, bending some corners to help pick up from where they left. Another problem is the high possibility of being distracted, which is often the case with children who are easily drawn to pop-ups that appear on their devices. In addition to this, because one can easily switch from one app to another when using an e-reader, they would be more inclined to do some other activities such as playing mobile games.
Despite these drawbacks, I still believe that people can benefit from e-books in a number of ways. One feature that makes e-readers appealing to most people is the comforts they provide. They are portable in nature and take up as little as few megabytes as opposed to paper books that sometimes require bags to carry them. The idea of using an e-reader also has to do with the fact that no paper is used in its production, so people concerned about the environment would be more likely to choose them over traditional books. Finally, e-books allow users to make the most of them as they have in-built functions like highlighting, underlining, and taking screenshots.
In conclusion, regardless of the negative aspects of utilizing electronic books, I find them to be more advantageous for the reasons given above.
#task2
Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
It has become common to see people use e-books instead of traditional paper books. Although there are some drawbacks to this, I believe that the benefits of electronic books are more significant.
To begin with, it should be noted that e-readers come with certain downsides. When reading a book on a device, readers may not be able to interact with the book the way they would if read a paper copy of it; e-books fail to facilitate real book reading experience like flipping through the pages, bending some corners to help pick up from where they left. Another problem is the high possibility of being distracted, which is often the case with children who are easily drawn to pop-ups that appear on their devices. In addition to this, because one can easily switch from one app to another when using an e-reader, they would be more inclined to do some other activities such as playing mobile games.
Despite these drawbacks, I still believe that people can benefit from e-books in a number of ways. One feature that makes e-readers appealing to most people is the comforts they provide. They are portable in nature and take up as little as few megabytes as opposed to paper books that sometimes require bags to carry them. The idea of using an e-reader also has to do with the fact that no paper is used in its production, so people concerned about the environment would be more likely to choose them over traditional books. Finally, e-books allow users to make the most of them as they have in-built functions like highlighting, underlining, and taking screenshots.
In conclusion, regardless of the negative aspects of utilizing electronic books, I find them to be more advantageous for the reasons given above.
#task2
👍7👏2🔥1
Yet another 7.0. I am grateful)
Sarvinoz had a solid foundation of English, but it didn’t stop her to work even harder. Congratulations on your amazing achievement👏🏻.
Don’t forget to thank your prior teachers too. Good luck 🍀. May Allah (SWT) bless you!
#results #2021
⚡ @alisherposts ⚡
Sarvinoz had a solid foundation of English, but it didn’t stop her to work even harder. Congratulations on your amazing achievement👏🏻.
Don’t forget to thank your prior teachers too. Good luck 🍀. May Allah (SWT) bless you!
#results #2021
⚡ @alisherposts ⚡
👍2
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
An answer to the IELTS speaking questions: Do you like birds?, Do you like trees? How often do you look at the sky?
Early morning at 04:17.
⚡ @alisherposts ⚡
Early morning at 04:17.
⚡ @alisherposts ⚡
Some people think that governments should give financial support to creative artists such as painters and musicians. Others believe that creative artists should be funded by alternative sources. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
It is believed that artists should be given financial help by the government while others may not share the same idea. To my mind, given the difficulty and importance of their work, artists deserve extra support from the government in addition to the money they make individually.
On the one hand, artists can make a living on their own by selling their art pieces. Today, there are quite a few ways artists can use to advertise their art products and find patrons who might be interested in buying them. The Internet is one of those places where visual artists as well as musicians have access to platforms that allow them to find prospective buyers, negotiate a price and sell their art there. A musician, for instance, is able to make a profit off their songs by uploading them onto a platform called Spotify. Although they have to agree to the terms and conditions of the platform and share in the profits, they are often left with more money than they would make otherwise.
On the other hand, in my view, there are two key reasons why government should be willing to support artists financially. The first reason lies in the idea that the artists of a country have the power to make its standing stronger in the global arena by promoting the culture and lifestyle of this region. The USA is a good example of a country where much priority is given to many forms of art such as dancing, singing, and acting, hence the country’s culture and lifestyle are spreading across the world faster than those of other countries where arts receive little attention. The second reason has to do with how supporting artists is good for the nurturing of a sense of art in people. Giving artists grants and some other privileges would show people that art is as important as other areas and that artistic qualities should be sought after for personal fulfillment. In my country, Uzbekistan, the government encourages young people to be more involved in art contests by offering large sums of money or free access to higher education as a reward in an attempt to cultivate appreciation for art in them.
In conclusion, I am in favor of financial support from the government to artists as they do much to contribute to their country’s prominence and help develop a taste for art in people.
#task2
It is believed that artists should be given financial help by the government while others may not share the same idea. To my mind, given the difficulty and importance of their work, artists deserve extra support from the government in addition to the money they make individually.
On the one hand, artists can make a living on their own by selling their art pieces. Today, there are quite a few ways artists can use to advertise their art products and find patrons who might be interested in buying them. The Internet is one of those places where visual artists as well as musicians have access to platforms that allow them to find prospective buyers, negotiate a price and sell their art there. A musician, for instance, is able to make a profit off their songs by uploading them onto a platform called Spotify. Although they have to agree to the terms and conditions of the platform and share in the profits, they are often left with more money than they would make otherwise.
On the other hand, in my view, there are two key reasons why government should be willing to support artists financially. The first reason lies in the idea that the artists of a country have the power to make its standing stronger in the global arena by promoting the culture and lifestyle of this region. The USA is a good example of a country where much priority is given to many forms of art such as dancing, singing, and acting, hence the country’s culture and lifestyle are spreading across the world faster than those of other countries where arts receive little attention. The second reason has to do with how supporting artists is good for the nurturing of a sense of art in people. Giving artists grants and some other privileges would show people that art is as important as other areas and that artistic qualities should be sought after for personal fulfillment. In my country, Uzbekistan, the government encourages young people to be more involved in art contests by offering large sums of money or free access to higher education as a reward in an attempt to cultivate appreciation for art in them.
In conclusion, I am in favor of financial support from the government to artists as they do much to contribute to their country’s prominence and help develop a taste for art in people.
#task2
👍3⚡1