جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Euthanasia Today, whereas passive euthanasia has been recently is legal under some restrict strict circumstances in many countries, there are many moral, ethical and legal issues about active euthanasia. In the other words, termination of life by a doctor at the request of the patient is one of the most divisive public controversies. Nowadays, there are some social movement activities about legalization of voluntary euthanasia and its recognition of it as one of the human rights. They argue that not only must the "right to die" for that kind of patients, for example, those who are suffering from an incurable painful illness be taken into account, but also intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and agony should not be considered typical suicide or murder, owing tosince it will happen under both some conditions and strict rules which have been laid down by the government. Moreover, it will be decided by councillors and professional doctors. Additionally, is it right, due to some disagreements, that many patients bear such insufferable afflictions? On the other hand, the intent of killing a sick person whether (it is) requested by himself because of relieving his intensely unbearable pain or not, can be prosecuted perceived as a crime in some countries. These societies believe that if euthanasia has beenis recognized officially, it can lead to a slippery slope to legalized homicide, although governments establish the legislations. Furthermore, there is an idea in these countries that weren't they not strict about euthanasia, it could be now about a further request such as right of decision about life or death for individuals even when they do not have any sickness. In summary, while there are some risks inon physician-assisted suicide, it can be legalized to deliberately put an end to a persistent pain especially under restricted conditions to avoid from abuse when there is no cure to get rid of that situation.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Euthanasia, or mercy killing, has been in the news more and more recently. Many people are strongly against such a practice, but there is a growing demand to have it legalized. Do you agree or disagree with euthanasia being made legal? The law in many countries regarding 'euthanasia' differs because the majority of people believe that helping somebody to kill themselves is murder and everyone needs a chance to live along,. However, I have to disagree almost entirely with them. To begin with, legislation of euthanasia prevents expenditure of huge amounts of money, which are being spent on sustaining many patients which/that are diagnosed with incurable diseases and they are alive with the help of sophisticated medical equipment. They would go through all kind of medical procedures which means their life would be extended and leads to slow death. Furthermore, the hospital's beds will be occupied by terminally ill people who are unlikely to recover, as we know there are always limitations to the number of beds. Moreover, if the patient is an organ donatordonor, it may save up several lives, because they will die eventually regardless of how much many medical resources they would use. Euthanasia is primarily is an opportunity to end the life of people who are engaged with prolonged illness. In addition, the process is done in such a way that patients they would not suffer. Additionally, the patientsthey have common grounds on their decision regarding this issue,. they assume this action would give them dignity and the choice to die whilst they are still in their best shape/appearance. By way of conclusion, euthanasia should be legally permissible for general public who are mentally competent, but it is necessary that they do not have any feelings of guilt emotionally and financially toward their family and do not consider themselves as being to be a burden. In my opinion, the decision should fully rest with the patients. It is much kinder to spare them this suffering and allow them to end their life comfortably.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Some people think that the teenage years are the happiest of our lives, while others believe that adult life brings more happiness. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. Happiness is difficult to define and it varies from person to person. Many believe happiness is related to richness and the social life level, while others think that it is linked to age. The second group debate which years of everybody's life is are the happiest time, teen ages or adulthood. I will discuss both views and draw my one own conclusion. Those who believe the most pleasure pleasant time of each person happens in his or her teens have their own logical reasons. They say Teenagers have less responsibility and more freedom. They usually contribute to family decisions, but if the outcome goes wrong, they are not the one who is responsible for that. Adoldscents Adolescents spend most of their time hanging out with their friends and make having enjoyable dreams of their near future. On the one hand, many believe that people have more financial freedom in their adulthood. Furthermore, grown-up people/grown-ups face the reality of life and know what exactly they want. Because of this, their goals are drawn along their own abilities and also they are pleased by the life process. In other words, stability is a significant feature for being happy in adulthood. In addition, adults also keep in touch with their friends who are loyal and long-lasting friends and fill most of their leisure time. Moreover, they spend time with their own family that jof of this matterthe joy of which is unimaginable for teenagers. After looking at these two opposite views, I think being happy is a state of mind. I mean, how we look at our life in deep down shapes our happiness. I believe if we consider that life is not a bowl of cherries, we can be happy in every age of our life.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Some people claim that not enough of the waste from homes is recycled. They say that the only way to increase recycling is for governments to make it a legal requirement. To what extent do you think laws are needed to make people recycle more of their waste? The question of whether the government should interfere in the recycling process by defining laws or not has emerged recently as one of the most controversial discussions of modern era. Some people believe that without forcing restrictions people would not perform the recycling process properly, which I, sort to some extent ,of agree with. Although I think it is not the only way, it has its own advantages. In this essay I will explore some of my reasons in this regard. To begin with, many environmentalists opine that recycling is one of the most important issues which could lead to many irreversible disasters if not conducted correctly. Therefore, governments must inform people about how extremely dangerous it could be if they just dumped their garbage in recycle bins without separating it carefully. There should be broad advertisements or even educational movies to warn citizens against detrimental ingredients included in their waste, which could harmfully damage the environment. Besides, governments could set some prize for those citizens who do recycle efficiently. For instance, for certain recycling items they could earn a beer orange juice or something like this. The prize does not have to be so valuable, it is more playing like a motivation role in this scenario. Finally, there could be some legal punishments for those who do not abide by the recycling rules. No matter out of their negligence or even lack of time, if they repeatedly ignored these obligations, then the government must/would have to impose some penalties on them. In conclusion, in my opinion, as the act of recycling plays an essential role in environmental health, governments must try different ways for making people obey the mandatory recycling legislations.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Disruptive school students have a negative influence on others. Students who are noisy and disobedient should be grouped together and taught separately. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for Presence of noisy and disobedient pupils in school classes seems to be inevitable. This fact may make both teachers and other students irritated. To address this issue, it has been suggested by some psychologists that these students should be segregated from the others in schools. This practice, however, may affect both groups of students negatively. Firstly, if the noisy students be/are separated from the others, they might feel isolated. This attitude probably led them to grow severe complexes, and consequently get impacted adversely in their future, and perhaps they would be a felon, criminal or addicted. In best case scenario, it may weaken their social skills which would result in less fewer job opportunities, and failure in marriage, etc. Therefore, it is recommended that, teachers take these pupils into account, and try to appreciate their contribution to the class. The separation of noisy students may cause unpleasant effects on their other classmates as well. In spite of the interruption caused by disobedient students, an adequate class most certainly needs relatively small fun which is probably brought by these naughty pupils unless . Unless the class might be boring, and no one would use it sufficiently. We must also consider that this naughtiness is emerged from the context of the adolescence ages, and if we attempt to shut this down, unrecoverable influences may invade this budding flourished generation. Thus, teachers and schools have magnificent major responsibilities for these this category of students. They must be involved in classactivities, assessments and tests as much as the other students. If this happens, it will be in all the students' interest; and both will be satisfied.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

In some countries today, there is an attitude that 'anyone can do it' in the arts-music, literature, acting, art, etc. As a result, people with no talent become rich and famous and genuine talent is not valued or appreciated. Do you agree or disagree? Note: Purple words mean I am not sure which one is correct, or whether it is correct or not. First of all, the attitude that 'anyone can do it' is such a valuable progress in human society. I have to disagree with the given statement about the devaluation of genuine talented people. Everyone is considered talented, whether is talented-born or well talented-trained. There are many types of talent in various fields such as music, art, and acting, etc. In fact, the chances that you would watch non-talented people who perform as an actor/actress in the a television show are not that high because . Because they are demanded to perform their best maximum to increase the quality of the show, yet there are few talentless-less people which who are hired by using connection or quota. On the other hand, in some fields like singing, performers are required to have the talent of singing, so even thought though they would get hired with the help of others, the chances that they may lose followers sooner or later are high since they have lack of capabilities, hence their fame would disappear soon. /hence disappearance of their fame In my opinion, the fact that today's people are able to learn tons of skills without any great effort on the Internet is such a breakthrough technology in the last decades. Now they can surf the websites and acquire enormous elearning archives of their respective area of interest, but it does not always lead to becoming prominent. The competition between the general public who share their talents online is excessive. We can take YouTube artists as an example,. they would be famous for months and disappear soon because they have got no adequate potential. To conclude, the popularity and wealth are achievable, hence as the more you persevere, the more money you are paid and the more famous you become. I believe people with talent have always been appreciated, mostly in the developed countries. I must insist there is no way that people with definitely no talent would surpass/get a head of those who have divine/natural talent so, you should have adequate skills in order to be/get recognized.