جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Some people think that residents must take responsibility for cleaning and tidying up of their neighborhood. Others believe that the government should take care of it. Discuss and include your own opinion. While a wide range of people hold the idea that it is incumbent upon citizens to keep their city clean, others believe it is the government’s obligation to collect the garbage and make up the residential areas. When it comes to this notion, I maintain that only when both people and authorities cooperate together, can we have stainless cities free from dirt and untidiness. In this day and age, people play a pivotal role in managing the area they live without which authorities are doomed to fail. It goes without saying that in most part of the world officials have recognized this significantly important point, and that is why they have started to train their civilians to support them to shoulder part of the heavy responsibility of having a clean city. Undoubtedly, managing a metropolitan is so complicated that without professional facilities of municipality people are not able to handle this heavy duty. One the one hand, gone are the days when the populace could leave their civilian duties to the government, and on the other hand, had most governments failed to manage such a backbreaking job if , they would not have relied on their civilians. Not only is collecting the garbage and its disposal procedure a capital intensive task, but it is also a complicated job needing highly advanced facilities which are mainly available for governments to carry out the duty. To cut a long story short, in order to have a clean city, I argue that both people and the government have to work together. Only if both parties try together can we expect to have a civilized area to live.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Countries are becoming more and more similar because people are able to buy the same products anywhere in the world. Do you think this is a positive or negative development? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Nowadays purchasing of identical products in most countries leads to globalization that it makes countries analogous. While the idea of globalization has some negative aspects, I do postulate this trend positive progress. On the one hand, there are several negative trends. I would argue against purchasing the same products in each country. If massive international companies can sell their outputs in many countries, it causes sale reduction on small local companies products and variety of products will disappear. For instance, SANAM Company is an Iranian domestic factory, which has not progressed sufficiently because of huge companies like SAMSUNG, and SONY have sold their electronic manufactures in Iran and didn’t let it go forward. Therefore, this sale trend with no restriction of cosmopolitan companies causes hindrance and diminishes job vacancies in a domestic company. On the other hand, it is easier than ever for travelers to go abroad and find recognizable products by the brands that they used at home. For example, shops like Apple, Nike, and KFC can be found on the high streets of most major cities, and tourists are guaranteed the same quality and standard of the product wherever they are. Besides, despite the fact that product reduction due to international company manufactures quality and variety, it forces a local company to produce high quality and varies outputs if the government implements stringent laws on foreign companies. Therefore, local consumers are not trapped with the low-quality local product and they have wider freedom to procure products. In conclusion, procurement of the same products all around the world more spreading than used to be. I personally believe that it is an affirmative trend.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

45 minutes Every parent has their own way of bringing–up a child. While some parents believe that they should hand the complete freedom in making decisions over to children themselves, others are of the opinion that it should be restricted. This essay will shed some light on both views before reaching a reasoned conclusion. Many parents advocate giving their children complete freedom. They believe that children have to face the consequences of their own decisions. Therefore, children’s self-esteem would be boosted and they might become much more prepared for carrying their own burden of life. Nevertheless, researches have shown that one of the main reasons for juvenile delinquency is lack of family guidance which could jeopardize the children’s future. On the other hand, some parents limit their children’s freedom for some obvious reasons. These conservative parents suppose that the children may not be mature enough to make thoughtful decisions. For instance, many teenagers are easily influenced by peer pressure into trying dangerous activities such as drugs and smoking. However, it is advisable for parents to provide their child with enough space to opt for his own way of life under his parent’s supervision. In conclusion, from my point of view, parents should establish ground rules and code of conduct prior to handing utter freedom over to them. Moreover, it is way better for those conservative parents to act as a role model for their children instead of being a guard who is always concern about the future. Some people think that parents should give their children freedom. Others feel that parents should limit their children’s freedom. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Do you agree or disagree? In today’s s’ world, it is important to work quickly and risk making mistakes than to work slowly and make sure that everything is correct. The world has undergone fast changes in the light of developments and technology. In fact, because technology is accessible for most people, the idea is not enough to be a forerunner. You have to take actions as quickly as … and do not be afraid of failure. In the following paragraphs, I will elaborate on why speed is important. To begin with, people are taking advantage of facilities and resources such as books, education, and media. As a result, the individuals’ ideas about making a change and earning can resemble each other’s. So we can claim that the winner is the one who starts out sooner besides privileges such as capital and social network. There were many creative people having striking ideas but their competitors were more subtle than them and acted faster. Next, each plan has its own bugs and these problems will not be revealed as long as you implement them. If you implement it as soon as its major issues are resolved and it does not have any fundamental problem, you can understand what is its practical difficulties and you can correct them. This action does not allow you to have a grandiose plan which cannot be implemented. However, acting quickly does not mean taking the risk without investigation and thinking. In fact, taking risk is appreciated as long as the risk be calculated. When you read biographies of some prosperous people like Mark Zuckerberg, you see that he is not the founder of the first social media, but he is that of the best social media. In fact, his investigation and calculation were to the extent that his idea resulted at its best. Therefore, to be a pioneer you are not required to be the first one, you have to be the thoughtful one. To conclude, the speed of implementation of your ideas is so vital, but you should consider its quality besides that. To put it simply, you have to take action fast as soon as your plan is developed properly. In addition, you have to let your plan get improved through trial and error.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

In some countries it is thought advisable that children begin formal education at four years old, while in others they do not have to start school until they are seven or eight. How far do you agree with either of these views? Number of words: 336 Time duration: 60 minutes Different educational systems throughout the world, mandate different school starting ages. I believe that age is not the only factor contributing to the optimal school entry criterion and there are other parameters which are not necessarily in direct correlation with age. I opine that ‘school-readiness’ is a very important parameter which may not align with the formal schooling age. Before young children start primary school they should undertake early-school or kindergarten or some parents-based educations. That is to say, some play-based, child-directed educations teaching some basic social skills and communication with peer-group children and also educators. If a country’s educational policy set an early age for school entrance i.e. three or four, it should prepare some early childhood educations and trained educators to cope with very young children. Early childhood education is significantly different from task-based formal education and it is based on play, creativity and collaboration but if it has been delivered correctly … can soundly prepare young children to enter into a structured educational environment. However, I reckon that a higher school enrollment age might be a better solution. As an example of my own country, Iran, the mandatory primary school age is seven and generally, parents enroll their younger children of lower age in preschools or daycares and they teach the necessary educations to them and properly prepare them for starting formal education a few years later on. Therefore preschools and primary schools play their own roles correctly and children and parents benefit. In addition, parents will not feel compelled to send their young children to school at an early age. Putting in a nutshell, formal educational policy of each country may differ from others’ but the most important issue is structuring the whole educational system, meaning early-schools and primary schools properly. If the school entry age in a country is three the educational disciplines should be compatible the young child requirements and if it is higher in another one, some additional educational infrastructures like preschool and kindergarten should be prepared and in public access.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Successful sports professionals can earn a great deal more money than people in other important professions. Some people think this is fully justified while others think it is unfair. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. There are a number of key factors at play when it comes to salaries like the degree of importance to society, the amount of money involved in industry, job difficulty and the demand within society, just to name a few. While there have always been heated debates over such matters, I opine that the current salary structures are to a great extent legitimate. On the one hand, sports have become an integral part of our daily life for quite some time. Soccer, for instance, has received an overwhelming traction during the past decades. Therefore, such industry with this number of followers plus a multi-billion dollar cash flow, inherently, provides a good source of income for its workforce. Firstly, soccer players and, in fact, almost all athletes are constantly prone to unwanted injuries which, as a result, make it a challenging career for them to invest their life in. Secondly, there are no pension plans for sportspeople and people who engage in such jobs must foresee their retirement. Lastly, athletes have a considerably short professional lifespan, meaning that they ought to live on their savings for the years to come. On the other hand, some critics believe in a more moderate pay system. To cite an example, nursing is an expertise that not only requires a delicate dexterity, but it is also both a physically and mentally a challenging profession. People in favor of the aforesaid reasoning compare an athlete’s wage with that of a nurse, arguing that both should be equal. While this logic, on the surface, might look convincing, its outcome will probably be misleading. Had this ideology been practiced, it would have left us in a communist society. Weighing up both sides of the arguments, I believe that the sport industry, owing to its massive number of fans around the globe, has become a major player in our life. Having said that, the monetary aspect of sports is, thereby, inevitable. However, I am of the opinion that the role of the government in establishing a fair payment structure should not be overlooked and somecontrolling measures must be imposed in this regard to never allow for a meaningful yawning wage gap across the careers to exist.