تصحیح رایگان رایتینگ آیلتس

cambridge 10/ Test 1/ Task 2

It is important for children t learn the difference between right and wrong at an early age. Punishment is necessary to help them learn this distinction.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

What sort of punishment should parents and teachers be allowed to use to teach good behavior to children?

It is considered that offspring should have to be to distinguish the right and wrong things in their childhood. And it is believed that some sorts of punishment have to consider to learn this difference. I certainly disagree with this given statement, which is about making the child behave well by beating them.

To my mind, the answer to the question depends on the age of the scion. In the case of a very young child, punishing is both fully and wrong because an infant will not understand what is happening, or why he or she is being punished. Once the age of reason is reached, parents and teachers should reward heirs for behaving well or discourage them from bad things. Therefore, these kind but firm rules of penalizing children may have a great influence on them.

There are some efficient ways for teachers and parents to discipline offspring. Firstly, children should be aware of the consequence of a awful action. As an illustration, in some families, teenagers may steal money from their caregivers’ pockets. Parents first and most should make the child know that borrowing money from others without their permission is a quite disappointing act. Secondly, caretakers and teachers should be good role models themselves, for instance, do not throw the rubbish away on the ground, or argue with violence with someone about skin color. These may make an heir more likely to behave well because of the developed responsibility.

In conclusion, in my opinion, suffering a child without considering their age is absolutely a wrong way of teaching them the distinction between right and wrong. Teachers and parents should be informed of the effective way of discipline scions.

Some people say that the only reason for learning a foreign language is in order to travel to or work in a foreign country. Others say that theses are not the only reasons why someone should learn a foreign language.
Discuss both theses views and give your own opinion.

There are a number of people putting emphasis on the importance of learning a foreign language. Some of them state working or traveling abroad is the only reason for learning a foreign language; however, others, including me, believe that there are other purposes in learning a foreign language.
One of the significant reasons for learning a foreign language is its widespread use in various scientific fields. Numerous students studying at universities and other academic people in some parts of the world, especially in my country, are in need of learning a foreign language in order to benefit from some references or attend special events. Therefore, they can read articles which are not written in their mother tongue or take part in conferences or seminars set up in an international language. Learning a foreign language also helps people to be aware of Ward’s news and expand their knowledge. People can pursue the most recent news with watching some foreign TV channels or Reading newspapers if they are familiar with their language. Hence learning a foreign language is vital item to broaden people’s horizons.
However, there are some people who argue that learning a foreign language is only useful for working in or travelling to other countries. They believe that people going abroad are able to have a better understanding of local traditions and customs if they have learnt their language. Consequently, they can adopt to the local culture and lifestyle. It is also state that individuals seeking a job in a foreign country would receive a better offer during overseas job applications. Companies have a preference to recruit employees who know their language. Thus learning a foreign language can provide significant superiority for a job seeker among other applicants.
In conclusion, learning a foreign language would be beneficial and practical in some purposes. People can benefit from it to develop their academic knowledge and boost their awareness of the latest world’s news.

In some countries, many more people are choosing to live alone nowadays than in the past.
Do you think this is a positive or negative development?

It is true that more people tend to live alone instead of living with family members. In my opinion, living alone has both positive and negative effects.

On the one hand, there are many positive aspects to defend the idea of living alone. Firstly, people can be more concentrated on their works, and will be able to gain new skills. For example, I myself, learnt to play new music instrument by living alone. Secondly, you will be able to do whatever you want freely without disturbing others. You would not have any difficulties with watching your favorite movies or programs as people in a shared house have, or you can dress in a way that you are convenient. Finally, I have known many international students studying abroad, and they got prepared to live miles away from their hometown by living alone at their home country.

On the other hand, living alone may bring some difficulties. First of all, it is hard to pay the rent and bills alone. Housing is becoming more expensive each year at metropolitan areas, and unshared houses would not be a reasonable idea for people earning mid-range salaries. In addition, since it is tough to work in and out of house, people living alone always complain about difficulties that be brought by it. For instance, you need to cook dinner every night, and therefore wash the dishes yourself. Besides, although it can contribute people to be focused on their jobs, it also may lead to major depressions and anxieties in some cases.

In conclusion, while there are many positive and negative developments in it, it completely depends on individual’s personal qualities to choose their path to live alone or not.

Living constant life without any charge is preferred by some people, while, others consider changes a positive decision. In my opinion, people should not follow a continual way of life and they should create new events in their own life.

On the one hand, it is maintained by some that people should be adventurous in their life and I agree. To start with, changes not only make men brave but also open doors for them. To put it another way, changes give chance to human being to flourish their talents. Also, they will be capable of grasping various skills which support them in their job prospects. By way of illustration, employers tend to recruit new job seekers who have been heavily loaded with different domains, irrespective of their nationalities and races. Furthermore, some people embrace new lifestyle, fashion and diet. These variations turn into updated one and it helps them to live with prospect and love. Therefore, these individuals will be successful in their entire life.

On the other hand, it may be claimed by others that changes are neither a positive matter nor a useful decision. To begin, many people create comfort zone at workplace, also, their position have not changed for over ten years. This group believes that if they stay in their career for long time, they obtain state-of-the-art techniques and even they keep abreast of latest skills in that occupation. Moreover, some people have offspring who study either in elementary schools or secondary schools. These people might not change their occupations and their cities at expense of their children’s academic failure. For this reason, relocation of residence has a devastating impact on children’s lessons ranging from 7 to 11 years old.

The main conclusion to be drawn from this discussion is that although, the group of people enable constant life with no serious changes, I believe that it is an essential approach to revolutionize our life.

The table below shows the percentage of journey by different means in 4 countries and the bar
graph shows the reasons for Canadian people to use a car to reach their workplace.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make
comparisons where relevant.
———

The given table compares the percentage of different transport means in four countries, and the
bar chart shows the reason behind the fact that why commuters prefer to use cars as the most
common way of transport.
As can be viewed from the table, the private vehicle stands at the top of preferences. Car usage,
as the most popular one, varies between 90 % for Canada users and 47% for Netherland users.
According to the presented data, Nederland has the most bicycle riders than in other cases. 26%
of people would rather bicycle while this figure for others is less than 3 %.
The bar chart shows that the lack of alternative transport facilities is the conspicuous reason for
the high rate of car usage, and the second one can be defined as the need for reaching the
workplace. About 22% believe that using cars would be more convenient than other ways of
transport.

Today we are going to analyze Japanese tourists travelling abroad between 1985 to 1995 and compare how many of these tourists went to Australia.
First chart is exhibiting numbers of Japanese traveled abroad. As you see there is an increasing in slope which means by passing time,  Japanese travel growth and in 1995 most traveler by 16 millions in a year.
The second chart is exhibiting percentage of Japanese passenger who traveled to Australia. This chart has almost increasing slope except of two years in 1988 and 1993 that has a lesser amount of Japanese traveler to Australia compare to their last year. The range of this chart is between 2 to a bite more than 6 percentage, starting on 2 percent and ending on exact 6 percent.
Although Japanese abroad passenger increase in 1989 compare to 1988 but number of travel to Australia decreased.
The end I appreciate for your attention.

book14-test3
Some people say that music is a good way of bringing people of different cultures and ages together

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

By and large, it is heard and asserted that the Musical world is more likely to unify diverse individuals who have different tastes either in terms of believes and costumes or ages. Similarly, I strongly agree with this view and I will explain some reasons in the following.

Desiring to experience a similar music genre, which is being led by a famous group, might bring a vast majority of people in the same way together. That is to say, playing a special kind of music, renowned group who is followed by a myriad of individuals broadcast live music on social media such as Instagram. Seeing these fascinating kinds of music on Instagram, the people are bound to pursue and listen to a similar music band so as to show their sense of support. Take Shajaryan who is a popular traditional singer as an example; once he posts a short clip of himself and his majestic group, his followers, worshiping him, are highly likely to imitate him by buying an interesting in the same way, thus, resulting in following him by people of different cultures and ages.

Furthermore, the psychological aspects of music in gathering people within different festivals and ceremonies should not be by no means neglected. almost all people, from their early ages of youth, have experienced a wedding ceremony in which a number of different pieces of music played which it is more likely to attract different tastes. In other words, within such spectacular event people of different cultures and ages are brought together, as a costume, in order to not only congratulate to bride and groom but also to have some nice and happy time for dancing and listening. Meanwhile, although people of different tastes are out there, listening and dancing with music being played might make the majority of those diversities eliminated or at least reduced. having said that, this trend and idea will probably have a domino effect on everyone, resulting in unifying individuals.

In conclusion, I strongly believe music world play a significant role in gathering people of different cultures and ages in the same way on the basis of desiring to experience a similar music genre and its psychological nature.

Some people say that the main environmental problem of our time is the loss of particular species of plants and animals. Others say that there are more important environmental problems.

Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Today, due to industrialization and overpopulation, all nations have to struggle with a lot of issues from concern about the extinction of specific flora and fauna to some others like pollution or even congestion. While it is argued that the former would be the most vital problem, others say we should consider other important phenomena which more related to humankind. Personally speaking, both views have something to concern. In this essay, I will explain how those issues would have nearly the same consequences.

To begin with, the main reason why environmentalists try to raise awareness of people about the extinction of some species is that mankind like any creature has a unique place in the food chain. Primarily, the food chain is all about the interconnectedness between hunters and prey. What this means is that, if some animals did not exist in the cycle, everything could go wrong. For example, the existence of humans heavily depends on crops and meats. Largely thanks to insects, crops can grow and breed. As well as this, many livestock is fed with vegetables. Because of this cycle, fresh commodities and meats can be produced for society’s need.

On the other hand, some people more often say that many cities already have a demanding problem with their traffic congestion and air pollution. Moreover, they say if we were not able to tackle such a problematic situation, the world slid into emptiness. Mainly this trend traced back to overpopulation and consumerism. Nowadays, people tend to, for instance, use their cars rather than using public transport. In addition to that, because of consumerism, household cast-offs have been increasing dramatically over the last decades.

In conclusion, although it is thought losing species would affect humankind’s existence, it is also argued pollution in megacities would be harmful than the distinction of animals. To my mind, the probability of the existence of man equally relies on both views.
[Cambridge Ielts 14 Academic, Test 2, Task 2]

Cambridge 12 – General – Test 8

Local stores appear to be less trendy in recent years as many prefer shopping in huge, fancy malls and shopping centers. I believe that this is a negative trend and the principal reasons for this argument are as follows.

Local shops have been supplying needs of neighborhoods for years and many of them have turned into family businesses which are managed by immediate members of a family – in some occasions- for several generations. These newly boomed malls are acting as a hamper for them to gain profit which would lead to be bankrupted, and consequently many families could lose their job and business. This unemployment does not merely impact individuals or families, but also it is detrimental for the whole society since it may bring societal issues as well as economic challenges.

Another reason is that this approach to shopping requires driving for miles which seems to be highly disadvantageous. First of all, it adds millions tonnes of carbon to atmosphere aiding destruction of Ozone layer and exacerbating global warming. Secondly, it causes traffic congestion s resulting in wasting huge amount of people’s time and energy – that could be spent on efficient activities – and burning fuel to exceed. Finally, it would uplift sedentary lifestyle among families which is considered to be source of various health issues such as obesity and cardiovascular ailments. While they used to walk a distance to purchase their needs, now they merely sit and drive to the shopping center.

By way of conclusion, I once again, reaffirm my position that disappearing of local businesses and retail outlets is an inappropriate development given the fact that it fosters many issues such as unemployment and poor health.

levels of youth crime are increasing rapidly in most cities around the world. what are the reasons for this and suggest some solutions.

In various cities around the world, levels of youth crime are rising. While some advocate view that need seriously attention to reasons for why occur this problem, the other insist that find significantly solutions are more important than reasons. This assay will examine both sides of the debate.

Firstly, unfortunately these days young people are encouraging to find easy ways to achieve money. For example they try illegal activities like smuggling and join organized crime. By doing this, increasing crime rate between them more and more. In addition, some of them do not have appropriate opportunities to study at university and find job. This is because, in modern life style the education fee is high and the parents rarely can supporting their children to continue education. Consequently, the person without any educational and job specialty can not find legal job to support himself and even family. So leads to mugging, burglary, robbery and smuggling at night clubs or parks with another young persons.

There are two main measures. In the first place, government play important role in these cities. They have to creating new job opportunities to youth people with high salary. For example establishing society association to find their talents. As a result, occur two phenomenon: growing society economic and decreasing offence rate. A further step is declining education fee at universities and planning to give scholarship for poor persons. For example according to new survey from low crime rate countries, training system is one off the effective ways to control youth future life.

In conclusion, crime is a kind of epidemic problem in these days. Poverty, comfort and absorb easy ways to earning money are popular reasons to do. Moreover family and government have to devote more attention to education.

استاد محترم به عنوان تاپیک از سری کتای های شما به من معرفی شد ولی متاسفانه پیدا نکردم. ممنون میشم لطف کنید بررسی کنید. سپاسگزارم

Cambridge 13, test3, task 2
These days, due to the progress of technology there are an enormous of gadgets which people can select between them for watching a movie. While some people believe that we can see films on modern gadgets such as such phones, there are others who think to watch the movie in the cinema is more enjoyable, rather than other ways. In my honest opinion, I would argue that it is better to watch movies in the cinema. This essay will discuss both points of view.
On the one hand, the option to watch a film on phones and somethings like that is attractive for several reasons. Many people want to see a movie with friends and sometimes have a struggle with some sequences of the movie which is impossible in a place like cinema because it is a major disturbance for others. In this way, they can watch it at home and have some fun through it. in addition to this, in several situations, persons would see an old film. This means that those cannot go to the cinema since cinemas do not show oldies. And the last point, play a film on phones and so on means that it is possible to see a movie any time and you are not depending on the cinema’s scheduled time-table.
On the other hand, I believe that it is more enjoyable to watch a movie at the cinema. First and foremost, it is about the screen. The cinema screen is wide enough which give persons good feeling through watching the movie. Secondly, the cinema provides Dolby and stereo sound and people could easily imagine themselves in locations. this feature is just happening in the cinema hall. Finally, the cinema has an impact atmosphere and lets persons share their feeling together in some scenes of the movie. For example, when you see a funny scene, you can laugh loud with others and transfer your emotions which you could not find it in your phone or laptop.
For the reasons mentioned above, it seems to me that watching a movie in the cinema is more likely to be fascinating if you care about what you watch.

Some people buy their children a large number of toys to play with.
What are the advantages and disadvantages for the child of having a large number of toys?

One of the common elements of everyone life as a child is to play with toys. Some people believe that they should provide their children with as many playthings as possible, but whether or not it is advantageous, is a moot point. In this essay, the benefits and drawbacks of having several toys to play with will be discussed.

The main advantage is that children are entertained. This is because they have an array of options to choose from and thus never get bored to death. When children are enjoying their time, parents will also find the opportunity to spend some time on their personal interests, rather than their children. This is of vital importance because if they do not experience a joyful and ecstatic life, there will be a chance that they will start growing negative feelings towards their offspring, which may deteriorate the relationship between the members of a family.

Many psychologists have repetitively mentioned that it is crucial for young people to be in touch and interact face-to-face with their peers, whereas having access to a multitude of toys may result in the exclusion of children from social interactions with friends and families. The reason is that if we want to have better personal and professional lives in the future, we must hone our social skills when we are younger and have the luxury of trial and error, which will not be acceptable when we are grown-up. For instance, a behavior which is considered to be unacceptable in our work may result that we get fired.

To sum up, although playing with numerous toys might be useful for children as it provides them and their parents with enjoyable time, it might be detrimental to their communication skills and lack of this may have catastrophic consequences when they become adults.

Some people think that schools should select students according to their academic abilities. Others believe that it is better to have students with different abilities studying together. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

There are many students who have different abilities. Some think that schools should choose students according to their academic skills, while there are who believe that it is better students with a variety of abilities study together. In my opinion, I believe that students with different skills should be together.
On the one hand, the option to select students based on their educational abilities is attractive for several reasons. Teaching students who have an equal academic level is easier. This means that, when a group of learners has an equal range of academic skills, the teacher can easily go to the next step because all students understand the lessons as well, and there is no need to repeat lessons just for a few students and can focus on specific issues, instead of, lessons with lower importance. Another reason is when the knowledge of students is at the same level, the time of the class never wastes because of those students who cannot realize the lesson as others.
On the other hand, I believe that it is more beneficial for pupils to study together. Firstly, children who are weak, have to study more and more and improve themselves to keep up with other classmates. Secondly, this diversity of skills can be useful to students because they can learn lessons together with a common language, and in between, these children learn about teamwork and social interactions. For example, when some students could not solve mathematical problems, other classmates who are cleverer can help weaker individuals to learn and solve practices. Finally, it is a competitive atmosphere for learning and student can become a successful person.
In conclusion, for the reasons mentioned above, it seems to me that students are more likely to be successful in their educational life and follow their career in the future if they study in schools where there are all kinds of students with different talents and skills.

It is evident that there are many academic
subjects which are represented in educational system all around the world. While some people often argue that history should be considered as the most magnificent academic field for teaching students, other people have different views toward this mater. Although I believe that history is unavoidable course, other academic fields would be certainly more beneficial for students.
On the one hand, history has a key role to play in education system, as some people assert that it should be necessary for schools and education ministry to pay more attention to this matter. Firstly, history is a basic element and identity for each country. Student could be familiar with information about their ancestors and culture that assist them in improving their country. Pupils are likely to acquire knowledge by studying many events which took place in the past, and they would take the best approach to handle some national crises due to their experience. Secondly, understanding of country’s historical background could be an effective tool to grow many positive characteristics inside teenagers. For example, students could learn kindness, unity, avoiding any tension from previous domestic wars between local people and various dynasties which these cause a country to lag behind the rest of the globe.
On the other hand, in my personal view, the needs of people and diversity in their life styles have led to they have to study updated and state of the art subjects, especially in our fast changing universe. Each society needs many experts with different levels and widespread professional knowledge who could improve political, social and international status of their countries. In addition, there is a global competition between nations in all dimensions, therefore, science and technology based subject and teaching in schools and universities will pave the way of achieving prospects.
In conclusion, although history course should not be eliminated from education schedules among schools or tertiary education, learning of other subjects are more vital.
Cambridge13-test3

Cambridge 11.Test 2,Task 2.
Some people say that in all level of education, from primary
schools to universities, too much time is spent on learning facts and not enough to learning practical skills.
Do you agree or disagree?

Some people believe that educational system dedicated much time to theoretical lessons compared with practical trainings. In my opinion, this is right idea and this system needs to be reformed.

I agree that students have to spend most of their educational time just on studying lessons. The first reason is that, a glance at education curriculums in schools and universities shows that a sizable time of these programs are theories and practical trainings have just a small portion. I remember, when I was a teenager, I had to learn many lessons such as mathematics and physics in class and there were not any practical education for them. So for most part of our studying we just kept in mind complicated formulas without using them in our daily life or ever having information about what they can be used in life.

One the other hand, young people have to work as an apprentice after obtaining qualifications. It reveals that their knowledge can not meet the expectations of work market. When a new graduated person is in search of finding a job in their major will cope with questions about their practical skills. This is a serious barrier to find a decent job. Therefore, lacking of sufficient applicable experiences completely is clear.

To sum up, I think we can observe that students in all grades of education are forced to spend much time of their education to learn factual information. In the other words they have not educated enough for their futur life and work.