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 these views and give your own opinion. The question of whether children should learn sociable social abilities from their parents or it is the duty of schools, has emerged as one of the most controversial issues of modern era. Some people believe this it is the parents' responsibility to prepare their child for facing outside society, while others feel that schools are is the one who which plays this role for them. In this essay, I will explore both points of view in details and state my opinion of each. Many people feel strongly that the infrastructure of any acquisition is rooted in family. In from their point of view, parents have the first and most powerful impression on an offspring's behavior,. in other words, from the very first moment after their birth, they starting to learn different social skills by observing their parents' manners and when they want to participate in schools, their personality has already been built. Actually, I am of the opinion that this belief is faulty, because I believe that the child who enters the school in at an early age, still needs a lot to learn. On the other hand, others feel just as strongly that when children attend schools, they could feel the real society by experiencing the environment consistinged of children from different families and cultures,. therefore, there that is actually where they envelop sociable lessons. Particularly, schools are the place that not only do they teach academic subjects, but also educate children sociably. I am partially share the concerns of this view point. In conclusion, both mentioned views have their merits, but I, personally, believe that, although children acquire essential characteristics from their parents in their preschool ages, being among their peers with different types of personalities has an efficient influence in their nurture (upbringing).

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

As the world population is increasing, protein sources become lower and lower than enough amount. considering this rapid of growthing we will face lack of food. Some food experts believe inevitably man's food regime is going to revolve toward forward using more vegetables instead of meat. Some agree and some are do not. I, as one, am totally agree with veg regime. Several types of vegetarian regimes are conventional and until now there hadn't has not been any negative report or losses deaths about this style of living. Of course there are so any doctors and scientists who believe vegetables couldn't secure all needs of the human's body thus representing their own reasons which say humans are omnivorous. In on the other hand today we have a wide variety of soya beverages which vegetarians use in their daily miles meals and even they are healthier than their carnivorous counterparts. Morally the major drawback of meat-eating carnivorous in my opinion is animal butchery which optimistically could decrease or cut if veg style regimes will become very more popular than now. Another group of scientists are looking forward for a more efficient protein source replacements instead of meat by raising kinds of mushrooms and worm larvae. Although these are more nutritious in comparisone with soya, they are not in harmony rhythm with most tastes elegances especially Europeans and Americans. To sum up, it may lasts a long period until before we reach to that orient change in people's taste. And the most important reason is that food has deep roots in cultures but it change is not impossible with globalization. I am a lotquite optimistic about both animal rights and health in future which promotes the vegetarian life style.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

In many places, new homes are needed, but the only space available for building them is in the countryside. Some people believe it is more important to protect the countryside and not build new homes there. What is your opinion about this? In this rapidly changing world, that the population is increasing rapidly is indisputable, while a new issue that is has arisen and itwhich is accommodation of this large crowd that/those population. However, we have a limitation in providing that provide new buildings in the countryside, because some critics opine that it is incumbent on us to protect there for our future generation. By 2020, the population of the world will have reached reaches to seven billion, and whereas their needs are simultaneously increasing and without doubt, one of them is a place for living. In spite of the need its requires to for home, the only space for their living them is the country. Not only is it costlyrunning costs, but also it is a poorly facilitated equipped place. On the other hand, population density in metropolisestans leads people to settle on in the suburb with even basic amenities. Despite disadvantages of living in such places that I mentioned them before, people's main criticism of settlers who live in the countryside is related to the environment. In other words, they believe people gradually deplete the natural resources and all the leave behind is pollution replace various kinds of pollutions with natural resources. For instance, people are obliged to cut down the trees or destroy forests to flatten the land to build their houses and itwhich leads to soil erosion, slowly. Other than that, it is up to us to make our every effort to optimize the use of available resources for our next generations. In a nutshell, we need to take proper measures to prevent some unintended consequences of population settlements in big cities. Not only do we prevent social ills, but also we pave the wat way for protecting our environments.