People won’t always say what they truly feel about you.
But there are three moments when their real thoughts slip out:
When they’re drunk — that’s when they mention the things they never dared to say to your face.
When problems hit — that’s when you see who actually cares, and who never did.
When they’re angry — that’s when they say everything they’ve been holding inside… even the things that break you.
The truth about you doesn’t come in calm moments…
It comes in the ones that hurt the most.
The truth is bitter… but it’s still the truth.
But there are three moments when their real thoughts slip out:
When they’re drunk — that’s when they mention the things they never dared to say to your face.
When problems hit — that’s when you see who actually cares, and who never did.
When they’re angry — that’s when they say everything they’ve been holding inside… even the things that break you.
The truth about you doesn’t come in calm moments…
It comes in the ones that hurt the most.
The truth is bitter… but it’s still the truth.
🤝3
The society would benefit from a ban on all forms of advertising because it serves no useful purpose, and can even be damaging.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
It has been said that imposing a ban on advertisement would be beneficial for human beings as it does not provide any value. Although there are some people who advocate against this view, I believe that advertisement can be very harmful for health.
On the one hand, I believe that advertising has benefits for economy of the country. Nowadays, there are a lot of businessmen who advertise their products to increase sales and have more customers for their products. Also, it helps find new jobs and there will be less people who do not work. Research shows that if a company does not advertise its products, their sales will decrease and lose potential customers as well as the current ones.
All these arguments notwithstanding, I believe that disadvantages of advertising outweigh its advantages. It will create an unnecessary need for the products that do not benefit them at all. This leads to overconsumption and financial stress. For instance, each person spends about one thousand dollars every year on things influenced by advertisements.
Another drawback is that many products in advertisement are unhealthy and this can lead people to choose things that are not good for them. Advertisement also shows perfect bodies and happy lives that are not real. When young people see these images all the time, they may feel bad about themselves. They might think they must look or live the same way, which can hurt their confidence. This can make them feel sad and confused. Research shows that every year, on average, about 1,000 people in the USA die because of the influence of these ads.
In conclusion, promotions have some benefits for the economy of a country. I, however, believe that promotions cause more harm to the younger generation.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
It has been said that imposing a ban on advertisement would be beneficial for human beings as it does not provide any value. Although there are some people who advocate against this view, I believe that advertisement can be very harmful for health.
On the one hand, I believe that advertising has benefits for economy of the country. Nowadays, there are a lot of businessmen who advertise their products to increase sales and have more customers for their products. Also, it helps find new jobs and there will be less people who do not work. Research shows that if a company does not advertise its products, their sales will decrease and lose potential customers as well as the current ones.
All these arguments notwithstanding, I believe that disadvantages of advertising outweigh its advantages. It will create an unnecessary need for the products that do not benefit them at all. This leads to overconsumption and financial stress. For instance, each person spends about one thousand dollars every year on things influenced by advertisements.
Another drawback is that many products in advertisement are unhealthy and this can lead people to choose things that are not good for them. Advertisement also shows perfect bodies and happy lives that are not real. When young people see these images all the time, they may feel bad about themselves. They might think they must look or live the same way, which can hurt their confidence. This can make them feel sad and confused. Research shows that every year, on average, about 1,000 people in the USA die because of the influence of these ads.
In conclusion, promotions have some benefits for the economy of a country. I, however, believe that promotions cause more harm to the younger generation.
🔥2
👍4
Some people believe that inventing one new language for all countries would improve international communication. While idea has some benefits, I, however, believe that disadvantages outweigh advantages.
One advantage of a new international language is clear communication. People from different countries could speak easily without translators. This would make business, travel, and online communication simpler. Students only need to learn one language, which could save time and money. It can also reduce misunderstanding and help countries cooperate better, leading to stronger relationships and smoother communication around the world.
On the other hand, there are many disadvantages. Learning a new language would be hard, especially for adults. Governments would need to spend a lot of money to change school systems and books. Local languages are important for culture and tradition, so using one new language may cause people to lose their national identity. Some people may refuse to use it, which would make learning and teaching more difficult.
In my opinion, there are more disadvantages of this issue than its advantages. Although better communication is helpful, the problems are very serious. Many people would feel stressed when learning a new language, especially adults. Traditional and cultural languages might slowly disappear. It is better for people to continue learning existing international languages while protecting their own native languages.
In conclusion, inventing a new international language has both positive and negative sides. Although it could improve global communication, the disadvantages are stronger. High expenses, learning difficulties, and loss of culture make this idea difficult.
(251 words)
💯✍️
One advantage of a new international language is clear communication. People from different countries could speak easily without translators. This would make business, travel, and online communication simpler. Students only need to learn one language, which could save time and money. It can also reduce misunderstanding and help countries cooperate better, leading to stronger relationships and smoother communication around the world.
On the other hand, there are many disadvantages. Learning a new language would be hard, especially for adults. Governments would need to spend a lot of money to change school systems and books. Local languages are important for culture and tradition, so using one new language may cause people to lose their national identity. Some people may refuse to use it, which would make learning and teaching more difficult.
In my opinion, there are more disadvantages of this issue than its advantages. Although better communication is helpful, the problems are very serious. Many people would feel stressed when learning a new language, especially adults. Traditional and cultural languages might slowly disappear. It is better for people to continue learning existing international languages while protecting their own native languages.
In conclusion, inventing a new international language has both positive and negative sides. Although it could improve global communication, the disadvantages are stronger. High expenses, learning difficulties, and loss of culture make this idea difficult.
(251 words)
💯✍️
❤2👍2
IELTS & Beyond 🌌
Some people believe that inventing one new language for all countries would improve international communication. While idea has some benefits, I, however, believe that disadvantages outweigh advantages. One advantage of a new international language is clear…
TR - 7.0 (if the examiner is strict, it might be reduced to 6)
CC - 8.0
LR - 7.0
GR - 7.0
Overall, 7.0
Checked by teacher
CC - 8.0
LR - 7.0
GR - 7.0
Overall, 7.0
Checked by teacher
👍3❤1
Some people think more public money should be spent on roads and motorways than the public transport system.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Here is an essay written in easy words and the exact structure you asked for.
Some people believe that the government should spend more public money on building roads and motorways instead of improving public transport. While good roads are important for cars and business, public transport is also necessary for the environment and daily travel.
On the one hand, I believe that more money should only be spent on roads. Public transport helps many people travel cheaply and easily, especially those who cannot afford cars. Buses and trains also reduce traffic jams and air pollution. If governments ignore public transport, cities may become more crowded and unhealthy. So, public transport should not receive less money than roads.
On the other hand, I agree that roads and motorways need strong financial support. Many people use cars for work, travel, and moving goods. Good roads make travel faster and safer. Businesses also depend on motorways to transport products. Without well-built roads, accidents may increase and the economy could fall down.
Another argument which can reinforce former, roads are very important in rural areas where public transport is limited. People in villages often rely on cars to reach schools, hospitals, and markets. Spending money on roads can improve their quality of life. Better roads also help emergency services reach people quickly, which can save lives.
In conclusion, although roads and motorways are important and need investment, public transport should not be ignored. I believe governments should spend money on both systems to create safe, clean, and efficient transport for everyone.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Here is an essay written in easy words and the exact structure you asked for.
Some people believe that the government should spend more public money on building roads and motorways instead of improving public transport. While good roads are important for cars and business, public transport is also necessary for the environment and daily travel.
On the one hand, I believe that more money should only be spent on roads. Public transport helps many people travel cheaply and easily, especially those who cannot afford cars. Buses and trains also reduce traffic jams and air pollution. If governments ignore public transport, cities may become more crowded and unhealthy. So, public transport should not receive less money than roads.
On the other hand, I agree that roads and motorways need strong financial support. Many people use cars for work, travel, and moving goods. Good roads make travel faster and safer. Businesses also depend on motorways to transport products. Without well-built roads, accidents may increase and the economy could fall down.
Another argument which can reinforce former, roads are very important in rural areas where public transport is limited. People in villages often rely on cars to reach schools, hospitals, and markets. Spending money on roads can improve their quality of life. Better roads also help emergency services reach people quickly, which can save lives.
In conclusion, although roads and motorways are important and need investment, public transport should not be ignored. I believe governments should spend money on both systems to create safe, clean, and efficient transport for everyone.
🔥2
Some people believe that libraries play an important role in society by giving access to books and information. However, others think that with the rapid development of computers and the internet, libraries are no longer necessary and only waste money and resources.
Many people think libraries are important because they provide free access to books, newspapers, and study materials. Libraries are quiet places where students can focus on reading and learning. They are also helpful for people who cannot afford books or computers. Also, libraries offer a safe place for children and adults to improve their knowledge and reading skills.
On the other hand, some people believe libraries are unnecessary because computers and the internet make information easy to find. Today, people can read books online, search for information quickly, and study at home as libraries costs a lot of money for buildings, staff, and books. For this reason, they think this money should be spent on improving technology instead of keeping libraries open.
In my opinion, libraries are still useful even in the modern life. Not everyone has access to computers or the internet, especially poor people and students. Libraries support learning and encourage reading habits. Although technology is important, it cannot fully replace the environment and educational support that libraries provide to society.
In conclusion, while some people believe libraries are not useful because of new technology, others think that library is a valuable places for learning and access to information. I believe that libraries should continue to exist because they have benefit for people of all ages.
Many people think libraries are important because they provide free access to books, newspapers, and study materials. Libraries are quiet places where students can focus on reading and learning. They are also helpful for people who cannot afford books or computers. Also, libraries offer a safe place for children and adults to improve their knowledge and reading skills.
On the other hand, some people believe libraries are unnecessary because computers and the internet make information easy to find. Today, people can read books online, search for information quickly, and study at home as libraries costs a lot of money for buildings, staff, and books. For this reason, they think this money should be spent on improving technology instead of keeping libraries open.
In my opinion, libraries are still useful even in the modern life. Not everyone has access to computers or the internet, especially poor people and students. Libraries support learning and encourage reading habits. Although technology is important, it cannot fully replace the environment and educational support that libraries provide to society.
In conclusion, while some people believe libraries are not useful because of new technology, others think that library is a valuable places for learning and access to information. I believe that libraries should continue to exist because they have benefit for people of all ages.
👍2❤1👾1
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