This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
You think you have a perfect speaking
Also you:
Also you:
😁5👍1
Some people think phones and computers have a negative effect on the young people's reading and writing skills.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Many people believe that using phones and computers can harm young people’s reading and writing skills. People think technology makes students lazy and less interested in books. It is true that devices can cause some problems, but I believe advantages outweigh drawbacks.
On the one hand, it is undeniable that phones and computers are always bad for reading and writing. Many students read articles, stories, and news online every day. They also write emails, messages, and homework on computers. These activities help them practice reading and writing more often. In addition, there are many learning apps that teach grammar and vocabulary in a fun and easy way.
On the other hand, I believe that technology can have negative effects if it is overused. Young people often spend too much time on games and social media. As a result, they read fewer books and write less carefully. They may use short forms and wrong spelling in messages, which can harm their writing skills in school and exams.
Another problem is that phones reduce attention span. When students read on screens, they are distracted by notifications and videos. This makes it hard for them to understand long texts. Also, many young people prefer watching videos instead of reading books. This habit can break their reading ability and limit their vocabulary in the long run.
In conclusion, although phones and computers have some benefits for learning, their disadvantages outweigh advantages. Using too much gadgets makes young people lazy, easily distracted and less interested in reading books. It also affects their writing skills because they use short forms and wrong spelling. For these reasons, technology should be use carefully, especially by young people, to protect their reading and writing abilities.®
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Many people believe that using phones and computers can harm young people’s reading and writing skills. People think technology makes students lazy and less interested in books. It is true that devices can cause some problems, but I believe advantages outweigh drawbacks.
On the one hand, it is undeniable that phones and computers are always bad for reading and writing. Many students read articles, stories, and news online every day. They also write emails, messages, and homework on computers. These activities help them practice reading and writing more often. In addition, there are many learning apps that teach grammar and vocabulary in a fun and easy way.
On the other hand, I believe that technology can have negative effects if it is overused. Young people often spend too much time on games and social media. As a result, they read fewer books and write less carefully. They may use short forms and wrong spelling in messages, which can harm their writing skills in school and exams.
Another problem is that phones reduce attention span. When students read on screens, they are distracted by notifications and videos. This makes it hard for them to understand long texts. Also, many young people prefer watching videos instead of reading books. This habit can break their reading ability and limit their vocabulary in the long run.
In conclusion, although phones and computers have some benefits for learning, their disadvantages outweigh advantages. Using too much gadgets makes young people lazy, easily distracted and less interested in reading books. It also affects their writing skills because they use short forms and wrong spelling. For these reasons, technology should be use carefully, especially by young people, to protect their reading and writing abilities.®
🔥3
Task two
Some people believe that when elderly people cannot take care of themselves physically, mentally, or financially, their younger family members should be required by law to help them.While there are some benefits to making family support a legal duty, I believe this responsibility should not always be forced by law.
On the one hand, people believe that younger family members should always be legally responsible for supporting old people. Not all families have a good relationship, and some young people may already face money problems. Forcing them by law could create stress and conflict. In addition, some elderly people may prefer nursing home instead of relying on their family.
On the other hand, making family members responsible can ensure that old people are not left alone without care. Family members usually know the needs and habits of their elders better than strangers. Legal responsibility can also encourage children to show respect and care for their parents, which is an important value in many cultures.
Another reason is that family support can reduce pressure on the government. If families help their elderly members, the government will spend less money on healthcare and social services. This can help society at all. Also, emotional support from family can improve the mental health and happiness of elderly people.
In conclusion, although family support for elderly people has many advantages, I do not fully agree that it should always be in a law level. Families have different situations, and the government should help with this responsibility. A balanced system with both family care and public support is the best solution.
Some people believe that when elderly people cannot take care of themselves physically, mentally, or financially, their younger family members should be required by law to help them.While there are some benefits to making family support a legal duty, I believe this responsibility should not always be forced by law.
On the one hand, people believe that younger family members should always be legally responsible for supporting old people. Not all families have a good relationship, and some young people may already face money problems. Forcing them by law could create stress and conflict. In addition, some elderly people may prefer nursing home instead of relying on their family.
On the other hand, making family members responsible can ensure that old people are not left alone without care. Family members usually know the needs and habits of their elders better than strangers. Legal responsibility can also encourage children to show respect and care for their parents, which is an important value in many cultures.
Another reason is that family support can reduce pressure on the government. If families help their elderly members, the government will spend less money on healthcare and social services. This can help society at all. Also, emotional support from family can improve the mental health and happiness of elderly people.
In conclusion, although family support for elderly people has many advantages, I do not fully agree that it should always be in a law level. Families have different situations, and the government should help with this responsibility. A balanced system with both family care and public support is the best solution.
❤1
IELTS & Beyond 🌌
Task two Some people believe that when elderly people cannot take care of themselves physically, mentally, or financially, their younger family members should be required by law to help them.While there are some benefits to making family support a legal duty…
TR - 6.0
CC - 7.0
LR - 6.0
GR - 6.0
Overall, 6.0
CC - 7.0
LR - 6.0
GR - 6.0
Overall, 6.0
11❤3🔥1🤩1
Some people believe that governments should control people’s diet by making laws about nutrition and food choices. Others argue that what people eat should be a personal decision. I agree with the latter view.
On the one hand, many people think governments should make rules about food because it can improve overall well-being of the public. Nowadays, many people eat fast food and food high in sugar and fat, which can cause serious health problems such as obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. If governments control food quality, for example by limiting sugar in drinks or banning unhealthy food in schools, people may develop better eating habits. This can also reduce medical costs and help people live longer and healthier lives.
On the other hand, some people believe that food choice should be left to individuals. They argue that everyone has different tastes, cultures, and lifestyles, so one set of rules cannot suit everyone. People also feel that adults should be responsible for their own health. Too much government control may take away personal freedom and make people feel forced to eat certain foods, which could lead to dissatisfaction.
In my opinion, governments should have some control over nutrition, but they should not fully decide what people eat. It is important for people to have freedom of choice, but the government should protect citizens by setting basic rules and providing clear information about healthy food. Education is better than strict control.
In conclusion, although personal choice is important, government involvement in food and nutrition can help improve public health. A balanced control is the best solution.
On the one hand, many people think governments should make rules about food because it can improve overall well-being of the public. Nowadays, many people eat fast food and food high in sugar and fat, which can cause serious health problems such as obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. If governments control food quality, for example by limiting sugar in drinks or banning unhealthy food in schools, people may develop better eating habits. This can also reduce medical costs and help people live longer and healthier lives.
On the other hand, some people believe that food choice should be left to individuals. They argue that everyone has different tastes, cultures, and lifestyles, so one set of rules cannot suit everyone. People also feel that adults should be responsible for their own health. Too much government control may take away personal freedom and make people feel forced to eat certain foods, which could lead to dissatisfaction.
In my opinion, governments should have some control over nutrition, but they should not fully decide what people eat. It is important for people to have freedom of choice, but the government should protect citizens by setting basic rules and providing clear information about healthy food. Education is better than strict control.
In conclusion, although personal choice is important, government involvement in food and nutrition can help improve public health. A balanced control is the best solution.
🔥3⚡2
IELTS & Beyond 🌌
Some people believe that governments should control people’s diet by making laws about nutrition and food choices. Others argue that what people eat should be a personal decision. I agree with the latter view. On the one hand, many people think governments…
TR - 8
CC - 8
LR - 7
GR - 7
Overall, 7.5
CC - 8
LR - 7
GR - 7
Overall, 7.5
👍3🤡2
Forwarded from Masrur Bey
Some people believe that cyclists should take a test before they are allowed to use public roads in order to improve road safety. This idea is often compared to driving tests for car users. While this rule may help reduce accidents, I agree with this view. (nice)
On the one hand,I disagree that cyclists should be forced to pass a test before riding on public roads. some people believe that cyclists should not be forced to pass a test before riding on public transport. Firstly, cycling is a simple activity that many people learn at a young age. Making tests for money (What do you mean?) could stop children, elderly people, or low-income individuals from using bicycles. Also, bicycles are eco-friendly and help reduce traffic and pollution. If strict rules are added, fewer people may choose to cycle, which could harm public health and the environment. In addition, organizing tests for millions of cyclists would cost a lot of money and time for governments.
On the other hand, Iagree believe that basic testing for cyclists can improve road safety. Many cyclists do not fully understand traffic signs, road rules, or how to share the road with cars. As a result, accidents may happen, especially in busy cities. A simple test could teach cyclists important safety rules, such as using lights at night or wearing helmets. (nice explanation) This would help protect both cyclists and drivers. Also, a test could be especially useful for new or young cyclists. If people learn correct riding skills early, they are more likely to follow the rules in the future. Some countries already offer short safety courses, and these programs have helped reduce road accidents. (not a decent example) Therefore, testing does not need to be difficult it can be short and useful. (Overall, nice body 2)
In conclusion, although making cycling tests may reduce the number of people who cycle, I believe that basic and simple testing can improve road safety. Therefore, I partly agree with this idea, as long as the test is easy, affordable, and focuses on safety rather than punishment.
TR - 7.0 (some points are ambiguous, not a reliable example)
CC - 7.0 (smooth and easy to read, try to use less linking words next time)
LR - 6.0 - 7.0 (depending on examiner)
GR - 6.0 - 7.0 (depending on examiner)
Overall, 6.5 - 7.0
On the one hand,
On the other hand, I
In conclusion, although making cycling tests may reduce the number of people who cycle, I believe that basic and simple testing can improve road safety. Therefore, I partly agree with this idea, as long as the test is easy, affordable, and focuses on safety rather than punishment.
TR - 7.0 (some points are ambiguous, not a reliable example)
CC - 7.0 (smooth and easy to read, try to use less linking words next time)
LR - 6.0 - 7.0 (depending on examiner)
GR - 6.0 - 7.0 (depending on examiner)
Overall, 6.5 - 7.0
1🤩3👍1
Hi everyone, English legends 😎
You opened this channel — congratulations 🎉
That means your English just leveled up (even if you didn’t study yet) 😂📚🔥
You opened this channel — congratulations 🎉
That means your English just leveled up (even if you didn’t study yet) 😂📚🔥
🔥5
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
My reaction when I think I’ve finished…
but it’s only Passage 1 💀📖
but it’s only Passage 1 💀📖
😁4😱1
Today, many people depend on cars in their everyday life. Cars make traveling easier and faster, especially for going to work, school, and shopping. However, using cars too much can create many serious problems.
One big problem of using cars too much is pollution. Cars release dirty gases into the air. These gases make the air unhealthy to breathe and harm the environment. In large cities, air pollution is very common because there are too many cars. This can cause health problems such as coughing, asthma, and other breathing difficulties. Also, pollution from cars makes the earth warmer, which leads to climate change.
Another problem is traffic congestion. When many people drive cars at the same time, roads become crowded. This causes traffic jams, and people waste a lot of time on the road. Drivers often feel tired and stressed because of heavy traffic. In addition, using cars all the time makes people less active. People walk less and do not exercise enough, which can cause weight gain and poor health.
To reduce these problems, people should be discouraged from using their cars too often. Governments can make public transport better, such as buses and trains. If public transport is cheap, clean, and easy to use, more people will choose it instead of driving. This can help reduce the number of cars on the road.
Another solution is to encourage other ways of traveling. People can walk or ride bicycles for short distances. Cities should build safe roads for cyclists and pedestrians. Car sharing is also helpful because fewer cars will be used. These ideas can reduce pollution and make people healthier.
In conclusion, using cars without limits causes many problems, such as pollution, traffic jams, and health issues. To solve these problems, people should use cars less and choose other ways to travel. This will help create cleaner and healthier cities for everyone.
TR - 8.0
CC - 8.0
LR - 7.0
GR - 7.0
Overall, 7.5
One big problem of using cars too much is pollution. Cars release dirty gases into the air. These gases make the air unhealthy to breathe and harm the environment. In large cities, air pollution is very common because there are too many cars. This can cause health problems such as coughing, asthma, and other breathing difficulties. Also, pollution from cars makes the earth warmer, which leads to climate change.
Another problem is traffic congestion. When many people drive cars at the same time, roads become crowded. This causes traffic jams, and people waste a lot of time on the road. Drivers often feel tired and stressed because of heavy traffic. In addition, using cars all the time makes people less active. People walk less and do not exercise enough, which can cause weight gain and poor health.
To reduce these problems, people should be discouraged from using their cars too often. Governments can make public transport better, such as buses and trains. If public transport is cheap, clean, and easy to use, more people will choose it instead of driving. This can help reduce the number of cars on the road.
Another solution is to encourage other ways of traveling. People can walk or ride bicycles for short distances. Cities should build safe roads for cyclists and pedestrians. Car sharing is also helpful because fewer cars will be used. These ideas can reduce pollution and make people healthier.
In conclusion, using cars without limits causes many problems, such as pollution, traffic jams, and health issues. To solve these problems, people should use cars less and choose other ways to travel. This will help create cleaner and healthier cities for everyone.
TR - 8.0
CC - 8.0
LR - 7.0
GR - 7.0
Overall, 7.5
1🏆3🤩2⚡1
Some people argue that zoos are unkind places for animals and should no longer exist. However, others believe that zoos play an important role in saving and protecting wild species.
On the one hand, many people think zoos are cruel because animals are kept in small spaces far from their natural homes. In the wild, animals such as lions, elephants, and monkeys can move freely and live according to their instincts. In zoos, however, they often live in cages or limited areas, which can cause stress and unnatural behavior. Some animals may feel bored or depressed because they cannot hunt, explore, or live in large family groups as they would in nature. In addition, critics argue that zoos focus more on entertainment and profit than on animal . For these reasons, some people believe that keeping animals in zoos is unfair and that these facilities should be closed down.
On the other hand, many people believe that zoos are useful for protecting endangered species. Modern zoos often take part in breeding programs to increase the population of rare animals. Without zoos, some species might disappear completely due to hunting, pollution, or habitat loss. Zoos can also provide medical care and safe environments for animals that cannot survive in the wild. Also, zoos educate the public about wildlife and environmental problems. When people see animals close, they may develop a stronger interest in protecting nature.
In my opinion, zoos should not be completely closed, but they must improve the way they treat animals. While it is true that some zoos may not provide good living conditions, many modern zoos are working hard to create larger and more natural spaces. I believe that if zoos focus mainly on conservation, education, and animal welfare instead of entertainment, they can be helpful. Governments should also create strict rules to make sure animals are treated with care and respect. In this way, zoos can protect endangered species while still ensuring a good quality of life for the animals.
In conclusion, some people believe that zoos are cruel and should be shut down because animals are kept in unnatural and limited spaces. Others argue that zoos are important for protecting endangered species and educating the public.I believe zoos can be beneficial if they are properly managed and focus on conservation and animal
TR - 7.0
CC - 7.0 - 8.0
LR - 7.0
GR - 7.0
Overall, 7.0
On the one hand, many people think zoos are cruel because animals are kept in small spaces far from their natural homes. In the wild, animals such as lions, elephants, and monkeys can move freely and live according to their instincts. In zoos, however, they often live in cages or limited areas, which can cause stress and unnatural behavior. Some animals may feel bored or depressed because they cannot hunt, explore, or live in large family groups as they would in nature. In addition, critics argue that zoos focus more on entertainment and profit than on animal . For these reasons, some people believe that keeping animals in zoos is unfair and that these facilities should be closed down.
On the other hand, many people believe that zoos are useful for protecting endangered species. Modern zoos often take part in breeding programs to increase the population of rare animals. Without zoos, some species might disappear completely due to hunting, pollution, or habitat loss. Zoos can also provide medical care and safe environments for animals that cannot survive in the wild. Also, zoos educate the public about wildlife and environmental problems. When people see animals close, they may develop a stronger interest in protecting nature.
In my opinion, zoos should not be completely closed, but they must improve the way they treat animals. While it is true that some zoos may not provide good living conditions, many modern zoos are working hard to create larger and more natural spaces. I believe that if zoos focus mainly on conservation, education, and animal welfare instead of entertainment, they can be helpful. Governments should also create strict rules to make sure animals are treated with care and respect. In this way, zoos can protect endangered species while still ensuring a good quality of life for the animals.
In conclusion, some people believe that zoos are cruel and should be shut down because animals are kept in unnatural and limited spaces. Others argue that zoos are important for protecting endangered species and educating the public.I believe zoos can be beneficial if they are properly managed and focus on conservation and animal
TR - 7.0
CC - 7.0 - 8.0
LR - 7.0
GR - 7.0
Overall, 7.0
🔥5⚡1🎉1🏆1
The line graph illustrates the average time spent manufacturing cars by four companies General Motors, Ford, Toyota, and Honda—in the US from 1992 to 2005. Overall, General Motors and Ford spent more hours producing cars compared to Toyota and Honda, which required relatively fewer hours per vehicle over the period.
In 1992, General Motors spent 32 hours per vehicle. This figure gradually decreased to 22 hours by 2005. Similarly, Ford initially required 28 hours per vehicle. The production time then increased to approximately 32 hours in 2001 before declining steadily to around 22 hours at the end of the period.
Regarding the other two companies, Toyota and Honda both spent 22 hours per automobile in 1992. After that, their trends differed. Toyota’s production time increased slightly until 1999, whereas Honda’s figure decreased to 20 hours. However, Honda’s production time rose again to 24 hours in 2001. Meanwhile, Toyota experienced slight fluctuations between 2001 and 2005.
In 1992, General Motors spent 32 hours per vehicle. This figure gradually decreased to 22 hours by 2005. Similarly, Ford initially required 28 hours per vehicle. The production time then increased to approximately 32 hours in 2001 before declining steadily to around 22 hours at the end of the period.
Regarding the other two companies, Toyota and Honda both spent 22 hours per automobile in 1992. After that, their trends differed. Toyota’s production time increased slightly until 1999, whereas Honda’s figure decreased to 20 hours. However, Honda’s production time rose again to 24 hours in 2001. Meanwhile, Toyota experienced slight fluctuations between 2001 and 2005.
❤3
The charts illustrate the percentage of men and women holding driving licences in one European country between 1976 and 2006, as well as the proportion of young drivers aged 17–20 in 1996 and 2006. Overall, it is clear that males consistently recorded a higher proportion of driving licenses holders than females throughout the entire period. Both genders experienced steady growth in licence ownership, with the gender gap narrowing considerably by 2006.
Looking first at licensed drivers, the proportion of men remained relatively stable at approximately 70% from 1976 to 1981, and then increased steadily to reach 80% in 2006. By contrast, the figure for women rose much faster overall, climbing from 30% in 1976 to exactly 60% in the final year; however, this remained significantly lower than the level recorded for men.
Turning to the 17–20 age group, around half of young men and 30% of young women held a licence in 1996. However, the proportion of males fell from 50% to 45%, while the figure for females witnessed a considerable decline, plunging from 30% to 20% a decade later.
Looking first at licensed drivers, the proportion of men remained relatively stable at approximately 70% from 1976 to 1981, and then increased steadily to reach 80% in 2006. By contrast, the figure for women rose much faster overall, climbing from 30% in 1976 to exactly 60% in the final year; however, this remained significantly lower than the level recorded for men.
Turning to the 17–20 age group, around half of young men and 30% of young women held a licence in 1996. However, the proportion of males fell from 50% to 45%, while the figure for females witnessed a considerable decline, plunging from 30% to 20% a decade later.
🔥5👏2❤1👍1
IELTS & Beyond 🌌
The charts illustrate the percentage of men and women holding driving licences in one European country between 1976 and 2006, as well as the proportion of young drivers aged 17–20 in 1996 and 2006. Overall, it is clear that males consistently recorded a higher…
TA - 7.0
CC - 7.0
LR - 7.0
GR - 7.0
Overall, 7.0
CC - 7.0
LR - 7.0
GR - 7.0
Overall, 7.0
🔥7👏3❤1
👋 Hello, everyone!
It's been a while. I hope you're all doing well.
Over the past few months, I took a short break from studying IELTS and from posting on this channel. Life doesn't always go as planned, and sometimes we need to focus on other priorities.
Right now, I'm preparing for the entrance exams to a lyceum in Tashkent, so I've been spending most of my time studying Mathematics and IQ questions.
This isn't the end of my IELTS journey—just a short pause. I'll be back soon with new English and IELTS content once I've finished this important stage.
Thank you to everyone who stayed here and supported the channel. I truly appreciate it. Wishing you all the best in your own studies and goals. See you soon! ❤️
It's been a while. I hope you're all doing well.
Over the past few months, I took a short break from studying IELTS and from posting on this channel. Life doesn't always go as planned, and sometimes we need to focus on other priorities.
Right now, I'm preparing for the entrance exams to a lyceum in Tashkent, so I've been spending most of my time studying Mathematics and IQ questions.
This isn't the end of my IELTS journey—just a short pause. I'll be back soon with new English and IELTS content once I've finished this important stage.
Thank you to everyone who stayed here and supported the channel. I truly appreciate it. Wishing you all the best in your own studies and goals. See you soon! ❤️
🔥5❤2👍2👏1
Knock, knock... 🚪 Your daily dose of English has arrived! No homework tax today. 😄
😁2👍1👏1
✨ Word of the Day
Resilient (adjective)
Meaning: Capable of recovering quickly from difficulties.
Example:
She is resilient because she persists despite making mistakes.
Synonyms: Strong • Tough • Persistent
💡 Reminder:
Making mistakes does not signify failure; it indicates a learning process.
Question of the day:
Can you construct your own sentence using the word "resilient"? 👇
Resilient (adjective)
Meaning: Capable of recovering quickly from difficulties.
Example:
She is resilient because she persists despite making mistakes.
Synonyms: Strong • Tough • Persistent
💡 Reminder:
Making mistakes does not signify failure; it indicates a learning process.
Question of the day:
Can you construct your own sentence using the word "resilient"? 👇
🔥3👍1👏1