IELTS essays by ngoc bach

Answer: It is true that cell phones and computers play crucial roles in our lives.. Secondly, because of extreme focusing on cell phones or computers, people no longer want to spend time

08/11/2014

Some people believe that a crime is a result of social problems and poverty, others think that crime is a result of bad person’s nature Discuss both views and give your opinion

ANSWER

Many people consider that innate characteristics are responsible for the fact that some people choose to turn to a career of crime However, I would argue that crime is a consequence of social issues and poverty

There is a belief that a person’s nature determines whether or not they become a criminal

Firstly, they argue that an individual who is cruel turns to crime more easily than a kind person For instance, a child bullying other boys or girls at school may turn into a violent criminal in the future Secondly, bad characteristics such as laziness or selfishness could also breed future offenders, who seek to acquire easy money without working for it A number of youngsters choose to steal from others, instead of working hard to make an honest living These are strong reasons for thinking that those who have an inborn bad nature are more likely to break the law

Nevertheless, it seems to me that social issues and poverty are the main causes behind crime There are many problems in society which might lead to an increase in the crime rate For example, unemployment pushes people intoresorting to crime because they simply cannot find a job As a consequence, the number of offenders has climbed in many countries over recent decades Another reason is that, more broadly, poverty in general leads to a rise in crime If people do not have enough money to make ends meet, they will be tempted to pursue illegal activities just to support themselves and their families

In conclusion, while a number of people think that a person's nature is the primary cause of crimes, I would argue that they are the results of social issues and poverty

291 words

Question in 11/10/2014:

Today more and more people are using mobile phones and computers Thus, people are losing the ability to communicate face to face To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Answer:

It is true that cell phones and computers play crucial roles in our lives Some people claim that this is the reason for declining communication skills While I accept that modern technologies make our lives more convenient, I believe that they have some negative effects on our communication ability

On the one hand, there are several advantages of using these electronic devices The biggest advantage is that cell phones and computers allow people to communicate with each other more quickly and conveniently For example, thanks to the Internet, managers can utilize computers to contact their partners from other countries As a result, they can save more time and money to do other vital work of their business Furthermore, many mobile phones and computers now have Skype and therefore we can talk to friends and family who are far away We can actually see them, whereas before we had to rely on expensive long-distance calls or letters which took ages to arrive

On the other hand, this trend may have some drawbacks Firstly, although people can make many new friends via the Internet easily, they rarely meet and talk directly with each other This will let people be under illusions about their acquaintances in the virtual world Secondly, because of extreme focusing on cell phones or computers, people no longer want to spend time with their true friends and their families My close friend, for instance, is so addicted to chatting and playing games on her smart phone that she ignores everyone when we gather and talk about funny stories together

In conclusion, although modern technologies bring us numerous benefits, it is true that the communication ability of people will be improved if they restrict their usage of mobile phones and computers

Đề 12/07/2014

Nowadays more and more young people hold the important positions in the government Some people think that is a good thing while others argue that it is not suitable Discuss both view and give your opinion

Answer:

It is true that the number of young people who hold the fundamental posts in the government is growing While some people believe are opposed to this idea, I would argue that this trend is beneficial at present

On the one hand, this trend also carries some remarkable drawbacks The main issue is that it is really hard for the young to make older people accept their leadership, especially in some Eastern nations Young leaders are always thought to have inefficient capabilities to manage In addition, all of them are short of real experience If they have not faced many challenges in their career, they could easily make mistakes, which can affect the lives of many people

On the other hand, it seems to me that young people are becoming an increasingly important part

of the government and bring a lot of benefits One reason is that their youth is a huge advantage which allows them to be creative and up-to-date This is likely to result in many new

breakthrough policies and styles of management Furthermore, the young have a very long period of time to contribute to their nations For example, with the same abilities and

qualifications, a younger candidate is more likely to be elected than an older counterpart in some countries because of his longer time of devotion in the future

In conclusion, I believe that more and more young people should be chosen to play some vital roles in the government although this trend is disadvantageous to some extent

(254 words)

IELTS Writing task 2 Vietnam 16/8/2014

Topic: In some countries, governments are encouraging industries and business to move out of the large cities and into the regional areas

Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

ANSWER:

It is true that the governments of some countries are supporting the idea of moving many industrial factories and business companies from large urban areas to the countryside In my opinion, this has more benefits than drawbacks

On the one hand, the industrialization in local/rural areas will have some disadvantages The main disadvantage is that traditional work will be lost For example, in many villages of

Vietnam, most people are farmers In order to build many factories, companies need more land

As a result, if farmers do not have enough land to plant rice fields, they will have to change their

jobs to support their family Another issue is that the environment in regional areas will be

affected Many industrial factories will release hazardous waste into the river or the environment Consequently, the air and the river in local areas will be polluted

On the other hand, I believe that there are more benefits in the industrialization of local areas than disadvantages The first reason is that the living standards of local citizens will increase

They will have more chance to get higher salary jobs This may lead to parents having more

money to support their families and encouraging their children to pursue higher education The second reason is that modernization will occur Governments are willing to build a lot of new

public transportation and buildings Thus people will have more access to new technologies and their life will be more comfortable

In conclusion, although the industrialization in local areas creates several disadvantages, it seems to me that the benefits of it are higher

264 words

Corrected by Ngoc Bach

(band~8.0)

NOTE:

We need a noun or noun phrase after 'lead to', not a verb

So, here are some some ways that you could rewrite the sentences:

1 Consumerism can lead to a more successful economy

2 Tourism can lead to the destruction of natural habitats

3 A competitive atmosphere in lessons motivates students

Notice that in sentence 3 it is better to keep the verb 'motivates' and miss out 'leads to'

(210315) Some people believe famous people's support towards international aid organizations draws attention to problems Others think celebrities make the problems less important Discuss both views and give your opinion

The involvement of well-known people may raise the profile of a global aid organisation through increased publicity While some argue that their participation may downplay the significance of aid work, I believe that it does have a positive impact overall

On the one hand, celebrities may distract attention from the real issues In the eyes of many critics, their involvement is too often designed to enhance their own reputations In an effort to publicise themselves, it is argued that famous people have no real passion or interest in the work

of the international charity they support Also, their association may simply trivialise the serious work which the organisation is carrying out Consequently, it is true that we should question their motives for involvement

On the other hand, I strongly agree with those who think that famous people can raise support for international organisations Firstly, they have a huge number of fans who follow their activities and may be inspired by them For example, when My Tam- a Vietnamese legendary singer - took part in a project to help underprivileged children in mountainous areas, thousands of

youngsters from her fan clubs joined in this project by donating money and working as

volunteers thanks to her encouragement Secondly, celebrities are often respected by local and international communities This may promote awareness of the work of the international aid organisation with which they are linked and increase public support in terms either of

volunteering or donations

In conclusion, although there are some admitted drawbacks to the participation of celebrities in international aid organisations, I consider that they make a valuable contribution to such aid work

Đề 21/09/2014: Governments in developing countries can best improve

people’s quality of life by introducing new technology

However, others believe that free education should be offered for all

Discuss both views and give your opinion

Answer:

It is true that to make people’s lives better, governments in developing nations should invest more money in education While exemption from tuition fees brings numerous benefits for citizens, I would argue that it is better to provide new technology for them

On the one hand, it is undeniable that there are several advantages of free education

The first advantage is that a number of people in developing countries are so poor that they can hardly afford tuition fees despite their talent and deep passion for studying If the governments support them in this case, these youngsters will be encouraged to pursue their dreams Therefore, they can definitely devote their knowledge and abilities to their countries in the future In addition, education without fees attracts outstanding students from all over the world If they are treated well, they will stay and contribute to the countries’ development

On the other hand, I believe that technology is more beneficial in human life Firstly, it

helps people work more effectively For example, many companies which apply cutting-edge technology in their assembly-line can increase productivity rapidly As a result, the companies get much more profits and their employees can earn a higher salary without hard manual labor Secondly, innovative technology makes life more convenient for people The Internet allows people to stay in touch with each other regardless of the distance in recent years Consequently, people can save more time and money since they do not need to pay for transportation and to travel anymore

For the reasons mentioned above, it seems to me that although free education also

brings some pros to people, life is more likely to be improved if the governments enhance and develop new technology

31-01-2015

Some people say that too much attention and too many resources are given in the protection of wild animals and birds Do you agree or disagree about this opinion?

It is argued that protecting wild animals and birds is drawing/attracting too much concern and too many resources of society Personally, I totally agree with this point of view

There are two main reasons why I think people have paid too much attention to the protection of animals One reason is that many non-governmental organizations have been established in order

to protect animals all over the world However, they are too concerned about animal-related activities in many parts of the world For example, it is unreasonable that PETA, an an animal protection organization, accused Katy Perry of using tigers and elephants in her own music video

‘Roar’ for commercial purposes while she did not Furthermore, news about wild animals can be shared rapidly on the Internet If a bear is imprisoned somewhere, this news will be widespread

on social networks such as Facebook on a large scale immediately

In addition, people have also spent too many resources protecting wild birds Firstly, a great deal

of money is required to carry out any project to protect wild birds, in which infrastructure and research are the two most expensive The more difficult research to preserve the DNA of wild birds is, the more it costs Secondly, the expenditure for this protection is quite unnecessary to some extent While funds should be raised to improve the living standards in some regions, investment in bird protection appears to be a waste of money

In conclusion, it seems to me that both concern and resources are focused too much on the protection of wild animals and birds in this modern world

264 words

The pie charts compare the UK and the US in terms of different categories of expenditures Overall, spending on rent and food accounts for the largest proportions of expenses in both the

UK and the US In addition, the British and American expenditures on the other categories are similar

The percentage of spending on DVDs is exactly the same in both nations, 10% Likewise,

people in the UK and America spend 15% of their expenditures on transport 15% of total

expenses is how much people in the UK and the US both spend on going out (The proportion of expenditure on transport and going out is exactly the same in both countries at 15% Likewise, the percentage of spending on DVDs is also identical – 10% in the UK and the USA)

(17/01/2015)

Some people think that there should be some strict controls about noise Others think that they could just make as much noise as they want Discuss both views and give your opinion

ANSWER

It is argued that some essential meaures should be applied to control noise While some

individuals say that they have the freedom to make noise as they like, I would argue that it would be better to reduce noise

On the one hand, some people like to make as much noise as they want for various reasons Firstly, many of them feel more comfortable and free when creating noise from different

activities while working or entertaining For example, turning the volume louder to enjoy

favourite songs makes them feel relaxed after a long busy day, although it may disturb their next-door neighbours Secondly, people often consider noise as a part of the industrialization and modernization process, therefore it is unavoidable Traffic noise or engine noise seems to have become more familiar to urban citizens As a result, they feel that there are no particular reasons

to control noise

On the other hand, I believe that it is more beneficial to impose some laws to strictly control noise The first reason is that noise has harmful impacts on people‘s health For instance, some

of my friends cannot sleep at night because of intrusive sounds from a nearby industrial zone If this situation lasts for a long time, it will definitely lead to a deterioration in their mental and physical health Furthermore, the productivity of work may be reduced as a consequence of noise A lot of white-collar workers report that they cannot fully concentrate on their tasks

because of the constant noise from vehicles in the street

In conclusion, it seems to me that noise should be limited in order to have a better life, although some people insist on making a lot of noise without any consideration for others

(291 words)