While some individuals believe in free circulation of information in academic or bussiness worlds, others hold the view that some informations are way too expensive to be shared without charge. Pesronally, I can understand both sides of the debate, but in final analyses, I consider the former as a more pragmatic attitude.

Unlike other sources such as finance or human workers, knowledg is infinite; in contrast, total accumulation of datum will sharply increase when freely transfered. Sharing data, not only help small business owners and young researchers, but also may cause progress for the primary owner of the information. For example, if a company let some information spread around the globe, it would not cause him any shortage. Quite the opposite, the doors of company will be open to new trends and as a result errors and bugs can be explored and fixed faster and company's overall performance will be improved quickly.

On the other hand, some would argue that certain information should be protected inside the assossiation in order to serve merely their own interests. This is understandable, as sometimes this kind of information is used as a source of income. But this approach have potential dangers. Limitation of circulation of data always have the risk of falling behind new trends and being unable to distinguish possible defections. Additionally, unnecessary censorship will avoid transparency and provide fraud opportunities. Of cours this context dose not include classified data which is essential and must be protected. For instance, a Drinking factory can not declare its products formulation, but info in some technologies used in mass production or costumers tasts statistics would not harm the company.

In my opinion, general information is better to be circulated freely in order to boost speed of advancement and adment of new experts wether in science or commerce areas. Other than classified data, everything should be clear and transparent.

Writing Task 2
Cambridge Book 14-Test 1
Some people believe that it is best to accept a bad situation, such as an unsatisfactory job or shortage of money. Others argue that it is better to try and improve such situations.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
While some people believe in acceptance of difficult situation, like dissatisfaction of job or lack of money, others have argument that acceptance is not the best solution, and it is relevant to try to enhance situations. In my opinion, it is much better to implement the strategy of latter group.

Generally, taking action in different situation is better than being sedentary. When doing something to solve a problem, people experience more satisfaction compared to others who just act like a victim. If the action does not lead to a better condition, at least it will provide a sense of pleasant, and if it be led to a good consequence, so other people also would benefit from this. For instance, being in a poor condition with a job that just a person is tolerating because of no other option, the person can try to find another job that suits his or her talent and skills or even investing in gaining more ability to have a better job and earning more money. This will develop not only the individual's life, but also will foster to have a better society.

On the other hand, there are some situations that action would not work at all. All in all, acceptance has its own significance, and in some situation the importance of accepting will be highlighted. when there is no control over a circumstances, it is better to accept it. For example, when a person has some physical disability, and it is not easy to overcome this issue to have a high level job position, so the best way might be acceptance.

In conclusion, however, in some occasions it is hard to take action that leads to a better situation, overall taking actions would provide more positive result irrespective of situation, because that will benefit both person and society ideally, or at least it will satisfy people's desire of not being a victim.

It has been debated-whether in academic or business sections-sharing data could be more beneficial to the newest achievement,whereas opponents admit to keep the hard earned information by their own.I think sharing the information could be more profitable and I try to explain it in detail with evidence.

Publicizing data among scientist can be more efficient than detrimental. As for recent advances in technology, scientist have more came to an agreement that it is rational to take our planet as a unit creature which all of us must corporate not only in improving it's life quality but also shedding the light on new scientific or economic discoveries that are hidden in our surroundings.Take International Environment Organisation.This institution is purposed to suggest practical ways to tackle with challenges in terms of environmental and cost involved investigations through the world.

Secondly,over the past few decades,many labs or companies had focused particularly on team works that showed astonishing outcomes with created much more precious findings in the long run rather than taking their own way to destination.For example,in Covid-19 pandemic, many scientists came together and started to write a short review paper from the vast number of recent published data reports related to this deadly disease. This proceeding facilitated and even accelerated to invent a proper vaccine in order to prevent human casualties as soon as possible.However, opponents believe that our world has not ready yet to freely collaborations and anyone are following their own gains and communalizing databases would cause to further vandalisms.

To sum up,I think publicizing information should be seen as a positive policy, even though in some cases it would result to abuse by governments.Humans must track an unit aim to be able to getting more happiness.

There is an argument between people who believed that it is more efficient to pay for significant and valuable data, and people who are in favor of reaching a large variety of different information about academic, scientific and similar majors freely. I agree with this view as the importance of authentic information.

On the one hand, some people hold the view that valuable content should not be released for free because it may be underestimated, additionally important documents may be neglected on free media and loses their target aspect in plenty of information. For instance purchasing a course makes people to pay more attention and obsession on that subject at least for the money they spend. Although this has been proven psychologically. The more you pay, the more you value to something like data.

On the other hand, the world of data and Internet becomes drastically intricate as result of the availability of information dissemination. Consequently, it is so imperative to establish sufficient data and help people in any grade to distinguish efficient documents. Moreover, this action could be very effective to enhance general knowledge of society. First aid is a notable example of this approach which should be taken more serious and make people aware of this subject freely is necessary. I agree with this view as true information and knowledgeable individuals is determine of valuable society.

In conclusion, valuing important information is good, but I agree with the opinion that useful and accurate information should be provided to people for free

Cambridge15 Test1
In some countries, owing a home rather than renting one is very important for people.
Why might this be the case?
Do you think this is a positive or negative situation?

It is an undeniable fact that in some regions people tend to have their own houses and they do not like to live in a rental house, while it is good for some people to be in a rental house but I suppose that owning a house is a better idea.

There are many reasons why we should have a house for ourselves, for example, if we have a house, it will not be necessary to pay a deposit or money each month to the person who has the house. Meanwhile, we are not to live in a house with some rules that may do not like to perform them or the worst thing is that we are annoyed by these rules. Furthermore, some people like to change the decoration of the house and in some rental houses, it is not available or allowed. In addition, if a person had a house for herself, he would rent some part of this, therefore make money in this way, some of the eldery people speacially are made money by renting their own house.

In my opinion, living in a rental house is not ideal, but it might has some benefits, for example, it is not essential to worry about the properties of the home or if something destroyed, it would not relate to you and the owner should fix it anyway. Another reason that being in a rental house is good due to tax, the owner should pay tax of the house every year and you should not be concerned about it. What is more, a rental house includes some disadvantages for example, you are not in a stable situation and your house would be changed in some duration if the owner wanted his house.

In a word, buying a house is an important issue for some people all over the world due to owning a house is made life situation more convenient.