جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Some businesses now say that no one can smoke cigarettes in any of their offices. Some governments have banned smoking in all public places. This is a good idea but it takes away some of our freedom. Do you agree or disagree? Give reason for your answer. Many private companies besides governmental authorities in many parts of the world has have introduced a lawlaws to ban smoking in public areas. Although there are certainly valid arguments to the contrary, I hold the idea that following this law is to the benefit of an overwhelming majority of people. The following short essay will elaborate on this controversial topic from different prospective. The first and perhaps the most significant effect of smoking in public places is the unintentional violation of smokers to non-smokers’ right. A variety of painstaking research conducted by wellestablished research centers conveys the fact that smoking in an indoor area not only is detrimental to the smoker person, but it also has damaging impact on the ones in the area. Many a family does not go to restaurants and cinemas only because they do not want to be exposed to tobacco smoke. Although I wholeheartedly agree with those who argue that this law can limit our freedom, I tend to vote in favor of such a health-protective piece of legislation. I believe smoking in a public area not only is a sign of selfishness, but it also reveals pure irresponsibility of such individuals. That banning smoking in public areas must be respected by people from all walks of life seems like an undeniable fact. Innocently exposed to the life-threatening effects of cigarette smoke, specifically senior citizens and young children should be protected against smokers in public places. By way of conclusion, I believe that respecting this law is one of the signs of a civilized society. I also maintain only if the authorities improve populace’s awareness, can we expect an acceptable portion of the population to respect this rule. Constraining smokers from smoking, though hard, is to the benefit to society. In the hope of a day without smoking in both private and public areas.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Dieting can change a person’s life for the better or ruin one’s health completely. What is your opinion? Avoiding obesity or eating excessively have become a contentious issue during recent decades. Some researchers assume that in this way take more advantages of their life, however, others assert that dieting could have numerous detrimental impacts on our body. From my point of view, individuals had better ask a nutritionist to formulate a balanced diet for them, and try to follow it. This short essay will elaborate on this controversial issue. First and foremost, attaching to an appropriate diet help people to keep their physical condition in a proper mood, hence their more energy. It means that if their body were in shape, they would be significantly more confident which leads to them being more prosperous in their personal life. Further and even more importantly, a great numbers of members of the public are having different foods or vegetable and fruits regularly while in the result of their blood test examination some elements are higher or lower that the normal range. It means that they do not have enough information as to what their body needs or how much they should consume them. That is why having a plan for eating is of great benefit. Considering some prominent notes in regard to preventing our body from being affected by dieting, on the one hand over weight people tending to lose weigh need to talk to a nutritionist and receive a balanced diet. In addition, not only should they be careful about their eating habbits, but they also had better put doing exercise in their daily programs. By way of conclusion, in my opinion, through going on a nutritionally balanced diet, we, in fact, transform our otherwise bored body to a fresh and powerful one. What is more, following a diet which is written by an expert person in this area of study, individuals can live healthier.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Technology has made children less creative than they were in the past. In the present era of fast life, we cannot omit the role of technology in our daily life routine. The merits and demerits of new gadgets are combined with hours of usage and user age. There is a big debate on this issue. The advocates claim that recent technologies make has made life easier for new generations. Gone are the days when students should had to carry on heavy books to school. Now a daynowadays, they use computers in their classes. Furthermore, the latest technology by using a variety of things gives more ideas and improves their creation. As they believed, this generation has more access to new ideas and thoughts so that they are more creative than past generations. On the other hand, the opponents declare that new games make children lazy. As they say in the last generations because of different games and activities they had, kids were more creative. On those days there were few toys so kids had to think about new hobbies and games. As far as they are concerned, parents spend less hours time with kids because they believe that buying more technological equipment is enough to raise children. Were I to comment on this debate, I cannot vote for any parts owing to the facts that were mentioned above. Furthermore, I assume that every innovation has its own strength and weakness, so it is related to us as to how to gain benefit from it. To make a long story short, we should bear in mind that parents should spend more time with kids in order to make them creator creative and avoid any harmful damages in their character and health.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Tpo 25 jozveh: Do u agree or disagree with the following statement? If people have the opportunity to get a secure job, they should take it right away rather than wait for a job that would be more satisfying. Finding a job is a crucial subject which individuals pay attention to. Many a person has tasks as work or searches for positions opportunities. Some people maintain that it is more suitable to find a stable situation than a changeable and risky posting. However, others claim that the main goal of a post is having satisfaction of it. In my view, sometimes having a secure place outweighs the other positive points. First, many individuals argue that we should try to obtain a fixed position and have an income of that. In fact, they hold that not only is making money a main purpose of doing the practice but also finding a firm place can bring us happiness, too. We can make enough money and have stable financial situation thereby having sweat pleasure, as well as doing hobbies, and buying expensive stuff that make us satisfy. For example, a friend of mine living in California is a firm employee with excellent salary. Although, shedoesn't like her career, she believe that she can have proper future comes from this position. Furthermore, she would like to become professional tennis player and she is glad due to affording the costs of its coach. Secondly, other people state that we should enjoy our life in each position. Moreover, spending most of moments of life during work time, they swear that the job should be pleasure, as well as enjoying for them. Besides, the yield of a satisfaction job has done by a blessed one can bring large amounts of admirable results, in a short time, though. In fact, they point out that not only is lifetime too short but also it passes extremely fast, so we should live life. Due tosince a job takes an important and major part of alivenesslife, it is more suitable to selecting the favorite situations than secure choices. For instance, my best friend works more than ten hours in a day and she really likes her duty which she has special intelligence on, thereby having achievements. Finally, I personally believe that we can't generalize it and should consider moderation. Actually, I mean that for some of the individuals, financial and economic aspects of a place is are profitable, others take care ofacceptable and gratifying features of one, though. Hence, depending on different people, choices are divergent. However, sometimes some positive points can fill some gaps, and money can be a proper solution to doing boring practices, thus it is worthy to stay on in secure positions. By way of conclusion, from my perspective selection is subjective but fixed practices with outstanding money bring happiness. Although, there are some claims which state are told that finding a firm position can build a properly gainful future, other beliefs are mentioned that agreeable work is the main purpose. Unless,if we know what kind of jobs can satisfy us, we can examine each of them and see their consequences.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

With a growing world population one of the most pressing issues is that of feeding such a large number of people. Some people think that GM foods offer a viable solution to this problem. To What extent do you agree or disagree? Science has captured a long distinction from the time of an obeying humanbeings coexisting with nature to the people of today wishing to be the masters of mother nature. In this way, owing the power which have has been obtained with the discovery of DNA, human beings have been enabled to manipulate the smallest components of creatures. Generally speaking, we as human-beings are beginning to create what we desire. Among these production products, GM foods could be named in the list of these very accomplishments but not everybody people isare getting along with it. On the one hand, proponents refer to many of reasons like producing production enhancement. As a matter of fact, the world ‘s population is increasing and the demands intensification concurs with it undoubtedly, but it seems conventional agricultural methods did not improve simultaneously and cannot meet this new volume of needs. Therefore, if there is an opportunity to modify the food production in order to overcome this shortcoming, we should grab it unquestionably. In the following this method will diminish the prices economically and made make food more accessible to the vulnerable classes of people, so it will help to cut the hunger from the world. On the other hand, long term environmental consequences like jeopardizing the natural selection of nature and destroying the inherent diversity to for the sake of producers’ benefits from mass prodaction can be considered as opponents’ main claims. Among these, health is the vital concern. Not only is it uncharted to be absolutely safe consuming these types of products but also there are some reports about the damages which have been generated by using them. In the worst case it is possible that broken manipulated genomes penetrate in living creatures’ cells devouring GM foods and stay on their DNA to the point that changing them in an unfavorable way like make making them more resistant to Antibiotics. To sum up, there are various points of view for a critical to face this new gaining of Genetically Modified Food using gens engineering. Trying to stay safe, as far as we do not have no enough factual points to stand for one of them -whether to be pros or cons- it will be more reasonable to ban introduce some laws and restriction in order to prevent some proven ill-sorted way of producing and study them to improve this process.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Nowadays technology is increasingly being used to monitor what people are saying and doing (for example, through cellphone tracking and security cameras). In many cases, the people being monitored are unaware that this is happening. Do you think the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages? No sooner had modern technologies found their ways into our lives than privacy had been invaded. There are lots of technology pieces which are used by organizations or governments for monitoring people. These pieces of information are aggregated for the sake of security. But the controversial question is that does it have any negative side effects and should we allow them to monitor our personal lives? The next time you are walking on the street or you want to call somebody, spare a thought for people who are monitoring your steps or listening to your call. Opponents consider it as an invasion of privacy and believe that this monitoring has rendered people vulnerable in their personal lives. This is important especially in countries where human rights are ignored. In these cases, surveillance may be used as a form of blackmail. Governments can use these modern tools to maintain their survival instead of their people security. Far from being useless or detrimental, society can benefit from it. Supporters of monitoring policy argue while criminals or terrorist are using modern devices, applying new technological methods for monitoring is inevitable. For instance using public cameras can help police to find suspects of a kidnap or tracking a cellphone may result in discovering of a terrorist attack, so people life could be more secure. To conclude, I think the benefits of monitoring outweigh its drawbacks. This is provided it is used in a rational way. New regulations must be designed and limitations should be clear. Nobody wants to be monitored but the fact is monitoring is a major deterrent to criminals.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

some people believe that is good to share as much information as possible in scientific research, business and academic world. Others believe that some information is too important or too valuable to be shared freely. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. Nowadays the most greatest competition between powerful governments is for scientific achievements. Needless to say that knowledge is power,. it makes money for people. The monopoly of science is the preference of many countries. Many people believe that modern wars are about knowledge and scientific data. , so sharing information freely is a controversial issue in scientific, political and economic assemblies. There are people who think it is incontestable fact that In this era of freedom of speech and democracy, restricting information seems quite irrational. Global progress depends on the collaboration of all scientists and nations by sharing the last scientific information. When we speak about global village, there is no barrier for partnership in aspect of knowledge and science. Moreover, it is not fair or humanitarian humane to sell some vital information to poor or undeveloped countries. For example the cases which are in related with to the health or diseases. On the other hand, some people strongly disagree with the opinion of sharing information freely. They point out some reasons like the high costs are spent on scientific research processes. Furthermore, they believe that being available of some sensitive scientific information can be in line with inhuman goals. Consequently, the global peace will be at risk. There are many evidence for misuse of science in the world history, for example surely all of us know about both the advantages of dynamite and its uncontrollable catastrophic drawbacks. Also, the slaughter disastrous results of handing over the technology to terrorist group is a serious concern of all. From my point of view, there is ample reason to support the view of distributing information freely, but the question is under what circumstance these valuable and important data should be accessible freely for all. I believe stricter policies are needed to preserve the economic benefit of scientists and also prevent the non-peaceful use of data. Maybe civil society organizations could supervise and offer suitable solutions in this context. In conclusion, information has limited value when they are curbed and not shared with great minds or not implemented in all human life. For the true global progress, restriction on valuable and vital information should be debarred and we should let people know the truth instead of keeping them in dark and dependency.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Many countries are experiencing population growth and need more homes. Should these new homes be constructed in existing cities or should new towns be built in the countryside? Nowadays, population growth in many countries is basic problem for the governments. More people need more place to live, more home, more facilities and more infrastructures. Hence the governments must create new living zone in big cities to cover these demands. In my opinion, we cannot develop existing cities while we do not think about their urban infrastructures. These substructures have high priority for constructing new homes for new people, if we have not cover those, people will have difficulties more and more. In these cases, there are not the differences between develop the existing cities or built new town. The governments must have pay attention to create best situation in both cases for their peoples. For example, on Iran, the governments makes decision for create new living zone in all crowded cities of the country to cover the growth of population that called “Maskan Mehr”. In most of cities, responsible of these idea, never forecast infrastructures and just try to build more homes for peoples without think about their comforts. For example, in all of them there is lack of schools, medical center, social services and shopping center. Most of them have a long distance with city center. Because of these restrictions, most of the residences residents are dissatisfied. Anyway, I think we could develop cities just when we produce an urban master plan. We must think for the future generations, we should not see today. Looking to the future, we must create new zones with a master plan which can guarantee future life, future development and future construction. Without them we can bring the cities to ruins.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

The ease of international travel and the spread of the kinds of mass media all over the world have made it more possible than ever for people to know how other people live in other countries. Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages? In this fast moving and high-tech world, the spread of mass media all over the world and international travelling have brought all people together and united all nations to some extent. On one hand, the technology can positively contribute spreading traditions all over which results in keeping them alive, however, on the other hand you will lose the originality if you just keep looking around. Firstly, I can strongly subscribe to the idea of how much media has helped people over the years and brought up the quality of life. Statistics show that media has become one of the sources of truth for traveling, running businesses, and following trends and etc. Hence, strange though it may seem, media is forming people’s lives next to international traveling by the same token. Some may argue, not only can media and international travel help people by providing them with options to experience various paths in their lives, but they also give them perspective and more awareness so that they can benefit more from their surroundings. Conversely, a countries country’s history and language are all inextricably bound up with its culture to which this unity by media is strongly detrimental. Similarly, people tend to lose diversity and richness when all act as one in the world, East Asian home therapy VS. the western high tech treatments can be a case in point. Overall, I think people should value their tradition more and stop media from affecting their glamourous culture and start using it in a more controlled way, otherwise, we will have the mentioned faceless uniformity which is an unwelcome and dreary prospect.