جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Individuals can do nothing to change society. Any new developments can only be brought about by governments and large institutions. How far do you agree or disagree? Perhaps the majority of people would agree that huge changes are caused by the governments and large organizations. However, from my perspective, the individuals can influence on society and they can lead to drastic changes. The first and perhaps the most significant reason is that affluent individuals set up a new foundation for deprived people in deprived areas and the obvious advantages of this behavior Which motivates other peers to do this merciful action. Furthermore, the doctors who try to make find new a treatments/cure for needy people without any payment . This activity have has a positive side effects on society's behavior and their beliefs. The next positive aspect I would like to consider is that the governments need their nations' support to develop their countries and infrastructures. For instance, constructing and developing railway systems, motorways, public institutions and hospitals require financially support by private backers/sponsors and investors. Hence, this bidirectional participation is compulsory. For an overall outlook, the individuals are capable of bringing crucial trends and can effect changes the same as the officials and public corporations.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

In some large cities, people have to pay a fee when they drive their cars into the city center, in a policy to reduce the number of cars in the city. Give reasons in support of and opposing this policy, and give your own opinion. For better or worse, in order to diminishing the air pollution in metropolitan cities, individuals should take into account that as to whether to utilize their own vehicles with extra charge payment or by means of public transportations for due to commutinge to the city center. First and foremost, dwelling in the large conurbation necessitates commuting between throughways in order to access the city center by utilizing both private and public vehicles. Although private conveyance facilitates access to the city center in megalopolises, it givesing rise to both traffic congestion and air pollution. In other words, deriving a benefit from using their own cars, individuals have to reimburse the government for the expenses of dealing with taking a stand against of both air pollution and traffic jams. For example, these extra charges contribute to employing new methods opposing air pollution by enhancing either the fuel quality or the motor's technology bywith the government. Therefore, enjoying gaining private transportation in the metropolitan cities, people should be included in paying for extra charges. On the other hand, it seems that exclusion of private cars from extra charges in crowded areas contravenes all the rule of equity in the large cities. It means that, all city dwellers have equal rights as to how to apply city infrastructures and facilities. By way of illustration, when some citizens utilize their own vehicles in the city center it contributesd to some difficulties of public transition used by other people. Hence, they have to be obliged to pay extra fee due to reach the city center in by their own vehicles/private transport. To put it in a nut shell, not only do is paying a fee for private vehicles in accessing the a city center is necessary for individuals, but also it is vital to facilitate public transportation in these areas by the government.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Many people believe that it is the school's responsibility to teach children not to eat junk food. Others believe parents should do this. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. There are different views about who is in charge of educating children to avoid eating fast food. In my view, schools and parents both (who?) have a crucial role in to encouraginge kids to eat healthilyy which needs full co-operations to get an effectively positive result. On the one hand, the eating pattern of children forms in the families due to the majority of their time at home. In at an early age, the children do not have any choice of what to eat and if the members usually follow a healthy diet, they will get used to those foods and later they tend to continue the same path. For instance, if the mother cooks a delicious meal at home, the child will be enthusiastic to eat it, hence, this creates makes a healthy habit for the child. By contrast, if the parents are full-time employees with less time for preparing food and they usually go to the restaurants or buy some prepared foods, the child will be reluctant to consume simple healthy diet. On the other hand, some parents believe that the children should learn every aspect of life at schools such as avoiding the detrimental food. They conceive since the majority of children's time is spending spent at schools with their peers. Hence, the teachers have a wonderful time to educate them even in terms of nutritious and fresh food as they typically accept all their saying. They can show some videos about the positive effects of healthy foods and their functionality to our body. The teachers may encourage them to keep away from junk foods by setting a reward in a month. In addition, the children typically desire to buy some snacks at schools. If the schools provide some fresh fruits as a snack in their access, they will use them too. In conclusion, however hard the is encouraging kids to eat healthy food is, it is feasible with the cooperation of both their parents and teachers in schools. In my view, the parents play a crucial role in feeding them at home and the schools are able to inspire them to recognize the drawbacks of fast foods to keep away.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Protecting the Environment is the responsibility of the government. Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion. There is no doubt that environmental protection is one of the most significant challenges of the global community. Also, this problematic issue has been is growing rapidly, in recent decades. Therefore, there is an ongoing debate about the role of governments among the experts and alsoas well as people. To some extent, I agree with the opinion which emphasizes on government role importance more than the community. I believe that the government can intervene via being leadership of the citizens and NGOs. For example, authorities can raise make concern by increasing public awareness through teaching environmental protection solutions at schools, regulating rules and fines about overconsumption of resources or industrial and individual recycling of wastes. On the other hand, the government, itself is responsible for resource management,. for example, it should control and plan for construction of dams and roads which can affect on ecosystems and make create loss of biodiversity, vastly. However, it is not an illogical opinion that the main action should start from individuals. It is believed that we can make a difference because everyday choices and acts of everyone has have a great impact on society and the world. For example, refusing to take plastic bags from shops by consumers forces industries to change the way of producing and packaging. So overall, I believe that both the government and individuals are responsible for environmental protection while the best result will occur by cooperating. Of course, the government duty about this issue is more fundamental and also without the guidance of government a lot of energy and time will be wasted. Mona Meschi

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Some companies sponsor sports as a way to advertise themselves. Some people think it is good, while others think there are disadvantages to this. Discuss both sides and give your opinion. The basic goal of any advertiser is to find a way and place to present the aimed products as much as possible. The more they could present, the more chance they will have to sellsale. Therefore, what an advertising company is chasing the most is an occasion which could absorb enormous numbers of visitors. In this case, what would be greater than a ubiquitous sport match? Many producers believe in in-game advertising for showing of themselves (their products?), in other words, first of all, when the people huddle together for a sport event, the producers could use this crowd for achieving their business purposes. Besides, sometimes they use a famous professional athlete to publicize their products. Obviously, when a well-known sportsman endorses some goods, it would have undeniable influence on the purchasing decisions of his fans. In contrastry/on the contrary, some people share the concern that about overdoing sport marketing could tarnish an athlete's sportsmanship, particularly it seems that they misuse theiry reputation with pure monetary intention. Furthermore, although, when an athlete wins a championship or breaks a record, (then) any associated items could gains instant visibility, the dark side of the story could also adversely affect negatively on sales growth. For example, if the sponsored athlete gets involved in a scandal or his performance suffers (drop down) , the recommended product will also suffer. In conclusion, sport marketing is one of the most successful methods in its own business area, which plays a serious role in the advertising advertisement industry and In in my opinion, using sport events as an omnipresent situation is fine and useful, but when a producer binds the whole brand's future up to one person, which I definitely disagree with, he must be aware of the fact that he is putting the entire product market on at risk through all common ups and downs that any personal life could experience.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Some people think that parents should teach children how to be good members of society. Others, however, believe that school is the place to learn this. Discuss both views and give your opinion. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. The importance of teaching the children to be an effective person in society is obvious and it needs to be observed closely. It is a widely held benefit that the teaching process should be started from family. However, there is a strong counter-argument against this view which says 'school is a the right place for children to be taught.' Firstly, to some extent, the family institution takes priority in guiding children to deal with society. Moreover, the former people whom interact with them are parents, so in early childhood the parental tasks are extremely important. To put it in perspective, children learn how to treat or behave in on various occasions with friends, relatives, neighbors and even strangers by imitating their parents' activities. Therefore, parents' acts or behavior are testament to children's personality and characteristics. Secondly, there is an opposite opinion in this regard which talks about teachers' role for on students in learning valuable qualities. This view emerges since these days both the fathers and mothers are employeesrs and spend take a considerable amount of time in their offices and therefore, school is a place where children spend significant time with teachers and peers. In addition, not only do they receive learning education, but also do children gain receive guidances about being a valuable member of society. All in all, it is a evident from the whole all discussion that even though some believe that education should start from home, school on the other hand, have has a significant impact on children. However, I am of the opinion that either family and or school are both are equally essential in teaching children the valuable qualities and they should spare no effort to lead them in being a good/efficient person in society.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Some people say that in all levels of education, from primary school to universities, too much time is spent on learning facts and not enough on learning practical skills. Agree or disagree? Theory or practice? Answering this question has been always a concern of experts over the education history. Looking for the best optimal learning method, they developed different educational systems ranging from those which have the least focus on theory to the ones with strong theory orientation. Although I am of this belief that, however, too much attention on to theory is not necessary, there are still convincing reasons for spending enough time on teaching facts before going to practice. Recently there is has been a trend in society that rejects the old scheme of education in which compels students to expend major time in classrooms and learn materials that they might never know how to apply them in their daily life. They, actually, offer the a wide variety of other types of systems where students are more exposed to pragmatic issues making them deal with subjects in a sensible practical way instead of strictly following a set of ideas. A common example (of that) is the environmental schools that are prevalent these days and increasing the number of parents show interest toward in it day by day. They are willing to send their children to these schools to learn the subjects by experiencing and practicing in a real environment. By contrast, still the old method of learning has its' large number of advocates. Many scholars assert that students don't learn the necessary subjects in practice. They need to spend adequate time for learning fundamental/basic sciences such as mathematics or physics since they are the basics of other majors and also many of them are abstract knowledge which cannot be taught in practice. Strengthening individuals' knowledge of pure sciences is extremely important in their future success, hence the essential necessity of strong attention. In conclusion, while the educational system must allocate enough time to providinge pupils with the required practical experiences, they need to invest enough money, time and energy to make sure that students are equipped with principal knowledge, the prerequisite of other sciences or arts.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Some people thinks that it is necessary to travel to another country to learn about it. Others argue that all the information is available on TV and the Internet. Discuss both the views and give your own opinion. Traveling to different countries for a variety of reasons has become became so popular these days. Regardless of the ones who travel for business or leisure activities, some people go to different destinations to getting to know different cultures. This definitely costs a lot of money, energy and time. On the other hand, there are so many who prefer to sit in front of TV and watch documentary programs about people and places around the world. (This) For sure the latter does not demand a lot of time and money, but I think there are so many details that will not be recognized by documentary programs. There is no doubt that traveling is a favorable activity for most people, but when it comes to traveling for a specific purpose the story completely changes. By traveling to a country, the passenger can spend time with people from different social classes, and this leads to a deep understanding of their way of thinking and customs they follow. The traveler can taste their dishes, and learn about the local recipes. However, these valuable data information are not achievable by anything but traveling. Nevertheless, we do not forget the fact that traveling to all parts of the world is not feasible. That sitting on a sofa in our cozy living room watching a documentary about a far country or castaway/remote/far-flung/off the charts island is more comfortable is an undeniable fact, and people who are against the abovementioned idea claim that due to the limited time and budget ordinary people have they cannot travel to many countries, so it is more logical to read and watch about countries than spending their time and money on such travels. In other words, they think with the advent of by entrance of the Internet people can have a virtual journey to every part of the world they wish to by only clicking on their mouse. Live cameras, and HD documentaries have paved the way for curious people. In conclusion, I must confess that not only do I think traveling to countries teaches the passenger priceless lessons but it also gives him a deep understanding of details. I think TV and the Internet can be used as an good effective/useful resource for entertainment, and traveling for cultural purposes in is irreplaceable.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

News stories on TV and newspapers are very often accompanied by pictures. Some people say that these pictures are more effective than words. What is your opinion? Nowadays, lots of mediums media make an/every effort to create more interesting stories by employing pictures in their news. This could result in attracting more readers and this will leading the media to grow and be more successful. From my point of view, taking advantage of shots in news would be helpful, but expressions are more effective in transmitting information. The first advantage of words in comparison of pictures is that expressions could carry more details. Every picture is a snapshot of a moment and cannot say much about what happened before or after that moment. In contrast, expressions can explain every little details about the story. By exploiting words we can describe the news from the beginning to the end without any ambiguity. The next benefit that words can provide us is the power of analysis. Although pictures can bring us useful information about a topic, they cannot analyseis it. But probing through the topic is only accessible by employing statements. So, not only do words provide more details, but also they present more information for readers by analyzing the news. On the other hand, pictures are more capable of carrying emotions and sensations. Emotions can be described better and easier through pictures rather than words. For example, explaining the grieve grief of someone by words requires at least a paragraph and this may bore you, meanwhile while/whereas only one shot can show you the depth of sadness. In conclusion, using both pictures and words in news is more preferable, because each of them have has benefits of their own. But due to the importance of information that words bring us, such as analyzing the news, words cannot be disreplaced by pictures.