Fridays

Dorna, Education

2021-05-07T14:08:30+00:00

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

In many countries these days, the number of people continuing their education after school has increasesincreased, and the range of courses available at universities and colleges has also increased. Do you think this is a positive or negative development? In my opinion nowadays education has opened a new lifestyle in for people around the world. By the rapid and fast improvement in technology and its uses in people’s lives, a more educated population must have a positive impact on a country. From the point of view of the people themselves, by counting continuing their education after school in their favorite major, is also a blessing/great thing. People now study in the a vast majority range of fields and each major has its own specialists. There are more specialized courses on offer that qualify people for specialized jobs rather than subjects that they had to do because there was a less choice. In on the other hand, these different branches of a field brings a bit of complication for understanding simple things easily. This complication makes people dependent to on specialists and in my opinion, somehow this is not helpful/so good, because life is not as that simple as it used to bethe way it supposed to look life before. In addition, understanding some the needs for studying such majors it for is a bit hard and its look like silly. For instance, I have heard of people doing degrees in subjects like pop music, whichit is hard to see how useful such courses,and qualifications are, and it could look like a waste of time. In general, I think that the increase in people continuing their education after school and the increases in the range of courses available to them is are both a positive and negative development.

Global Culture

2021-05-07T14:08:14+00:00

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Due to the influence of world-wide media such as television and computers, the gap between cultures is narrowing. The introduction of this 'global culture' is of great benefit to the world. To what extent do you agree with the viewpoint The differences of cultures among countries have caused the travelers whom who are not familiar with the traditions of that of a country, a great surprise and struggle of mind set which they were brought up with. With the ubiquitous presence of the internet and the media, the people are now introducing themselves to new cultures with greater pace comparing to old days. Many cultures existing around the globe are still following the mindset of an stone age era and in the time of their confrontations with the new era many conflicts may arise. Reducing these conflicts can now easily be made by television, computers and cutting-edge cell phones. This gives people an opportunity to think about other cultures while they are still living their own and present life. They can compare and analyze the pros and cons of the other countries’ lifestyle and even unconsciously it may change some of the old-fashioned ways of thinking in their lives because what seems seemed to be rare and exotic till yesterday, now seems plausible. On the other hand, many strict minded people find this global culture unacceptable comparing to their current culture and they find it some sort of an insult. Imagine them living their whole life with a specific way of thinking and now a great load of change is being illustrated and pushed to on them. It is reasonable that some may reject it and still cling to their previous and long-lived life. I'm more inclined to agree with the first point of view. The industrial countries are improving both their financial and cultural aspects rapidly and what seems to be logical can be accepted everywhere. Better if it is introduced by high-tech inventions, giving you the chance to outweigh the advantages and disadvantages of it and accept what is logical rather than being in that situation and struggle with it in the moment when traveling there.

Niloo, Underestading the Pst to Solve Future Problem

2021-05-07T14:08:00+00:00

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

To solve present and future problems, it is necessary to understand the past. Agree or disagree? Hardly ever can anyone call into question the significant role of history in people's life. The question arises as to whether knowing past events can be effective on fixing future issues or not. I wholeheartedly adhere to this belief that being aware of the past can be beneficial for solving future dilemmas for some main reasons which I will explain at length in the subsequent paragraphs. To begin with, as the saying goes" History is a mirror of lessons" which people should learn from. In other words, by knowing the past events, mistakes will not repeated, so basically some problems will not be emerged which require to bebeing solved. From my own experience, I have allergic allergy to eggplants and Betamethasone since they cause closing (closuring) my airway, so when doctors prescribeing medicine to me or I order food from restaurants, they ask me that if I have allergic allergy to specific objects or not. In my opinion this is a kind of understanding the past which prevents the irrecoverable damage in the future which indicates it is important. Therefore, it goes without saying that being aware of what happened at in the past not only can be practical for solving future issues but also it can be a barrier for to repetitive previous failures. Another aspect which I should point out is about evaluating. In apposite words, fundamentally by understanding a past issue the weaknesses and strengthen will be sized up which is conducive to finding new ways to solve. I mean for fixing current problems it should figure out novel ways to solve them regardless instead of previous ones that have remained fruitless. In simple terms, if the problem was solved, it would not be an issue anymore. The best example is, the better therapies for HIV which havehas recently been discovered at University of Maryland, Baltimore countrycounty in onApril 23, 2020 due to researchers' efforts for many years, thereby utilizing of information they had obtained from the past to the present can achieve that end. Hence as is clear, knowing the past can be efficient for finding new ways to solve current and future problems. Last but not least, although some people believe that for fixing problems it is not essential to figure out the past, I strongly believe otherwise maintaining that this mindset is nothing but a tunnelvision which overlooks the striking point of the abovementioned facts. I believe the advantages of being aware of the past to clear up dilemmas greatly outweigh the drawbacks. In conclusion, in on the basis of the reasons which were mentioned above, I totally agree that understanding the past can have positive effect on solving problems.

Railways

2021-05-07T14:07:46+00:00

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? Some people believe that countries should allocate more budget for the railways system than roads. In my opinion, trains could play an important role in carrying/transporting passengers and freights from a one city or country to another other cities or from the country to the country برون شھریwhile roads have better performance for people who journey/travel/commute/trip the inside of their city درون .شھری The fact that construction of a railways system and also allocating most of the transportation budget in to the railway system when it comes to carrying people and consignments for a long-distance could be vital cannot be denied. The benefits of this system would be that passengers and cargos could reach their destination in a determined time because of the absence of traffic. This is not to say that such a system of communication is without accidents, but it would be listed as the safest system among other transportation systems modes/ways/methods like an airplane, and ship. This safety would encourage people and companies to use it, so governments can get enough income, which would be a return on their investment and also be a lucrative source of revenue, from this system of transportation. This system, albeit expensive, gradually, would have ample merits for people who live in the isolated regions due to the revenue they can get, which some incomes could rent their house to visitors, logistic areas for cargo, and be as a tour guided tour, to name but few. However, I suppose that the roads could have a significant role for in transporting people, who want to commute/trip in the urban areas not from one city to another cities, in this case, governments should assign more money to the road than the railway. For the simple reason, it could be boring for passengers, who use the train, being stopped for a short distance in each station, in order to reach their place, while networks of roads could provide freedom for people using their private cars and also public cars such taxi to arrive at their destinations without stopping. These opportunities could not only provide an opportunity for other systems of transportation like the bus, taxi but also the rate of employment would increase. With spending more money on road networks for urban trips, in the long run, results in, cities being a symbol of modern architecture and mobility. To sum up, from my point of view, governments should spend enough budget on both roads and railway networks based on whether it would connect two long-distance points or be used for the urban journey. Allocate sth for sth Spend money on sth Inside of cities/urban journey Return on investment برگشت سرمایھ Carry = transport Consignments=cargos=freights

Sara, Government Should Levy Tax

2021-05-07T14:07:30+00:00

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Some people believe that governments should levy taxes on those producers that produce pollution. Some others believe that there are better ways. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. Some individuals think that the administration should impose taxes on those manufacturers that create contamination. Other people think that there are better ways. In this essay I will discuss both views and finally give my own opinion. Lexically / syntactically On the one hand, levying taxes can deter producers from polluting the environment. It means that when manufacturers have to pay taxes they need to pay extra expenses. Therefore, they will face financial problems, in order to cut those costs they have to cut the level of pollution that they dump into the environment. For instance, in 1980s the level of water contamination in the rivers of America was too high, so the government increased taxes by 10 percent and controlled water contamination. thus, taxing can prevent pollution of the environment. On the other hand, subsidizing producers can be a solution to limit pollution. This means that if the government assisted producers financially, they would be encouraged to use environmentally-friendly production methods. For example, although there are many manufacturers in China, air pollution is controlled in this country because the government subsidizes them and they use alternative sources of energy which . therefore, subsidizing can help producers. To conclude, after analyzing what has been elaborated above, I agree with both views because I believe that, the government should impose taxes for on those who contaminate air and water, and also subsidizing can assist producers so that they use alternative sources for their factories.

Shaghaygh, Rubbish

2021-05-07T14:07:13+00:00

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Every household should have a government-imposed limit on the amount of rubbish it can throw away. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this? It is true that the amount of household waste, which has been produced over these years, has rocketed; thus, this has given some people the idea that there should be a limitation on the level of refuse. Opinions are divided as to whether this resolution could be regarded as the most effective way. Imposing restrictions on the amount of rubbish which is produced sounds like a reasonable resolution to a huge problem when TV programs demonstrate how much rubbish is generated each year by individuals around the world. This trend, taxing, could play a crucial role not only in people being pushing pushed to create less waste but also in being more mindful of what they could recycle or compost in order to reduce this global issue. However, the majority of surveys show that forcing people to follow the specific rules always seems not attainable, and in many cases the result is adverse. On the other hand, several researches illustrate that there is a direct relationship between the amount of waste and purchase. People generate as much as they need in their lifestyle; in other words, the more they need, the more rubbish they generate/produce/make. In our daily lives, people are encouraged to constume a broad range of non-disposable facilities and throw them away in their city. For instance, when they provide fast food the amount of plastic that will return to the environment is notable. This case proves that although it forcing forces people to limit their rubbish, they produce the same amount in other ways which eventually damage the environment. In conclusion, introducing regulations on to producing the household waste could reduce them it somehow. In my opinion, reaching a suitable result calls for close cooperating among people, governments and education systems. Official figures should encourage people to compost, individuals should acquire proper knowledge how to use and reduce waste, and finally education could drive this issue properly.