Mondays

Amirhossein, Producting Rubbish

2019-01-29T05:02:16+00:00

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Nowadays we are producing more and more rubbish. Why do you think this is happening? What can governments do to help reduce the amount of rubbish produced? Nowadays, I think more rubbish which is produced by a huge amount of consumption is a vital issue that all the countries are involved with compare to the past. However, the government plays an important role in reversing this destructive trend/reducing the amount of rubbish. In the first place, I think that a rate of consumption is a problem that must be examined carefully. A more consumption causes people to produce more rubbish which in turn brings about more pollution in the environment. The mentioned issue particularly has been observed in big cities because of population growth. Moreover, packaging of goods produces rubbish when we use them too. Also, use of disposable products is so common these days that makes matters worse. After that, I think the government plays an important role in controlling the produced rubbish. It can enhance the culture of society by training. In addition, the government can encourage or fine people to motivate them to separate rubbish from their houses. For instance, in Vancouver city the government fine households and shops that do not attempt to recycle their waste, so the a large amount of rubbish will be reduced by this method. Moreover, the government can establish places to which in people deliver their recycled rubbish. Last but not least, the government can impose taxes on plastic bags to encourage discourage people to from buying them less plastic bags. For example in Canada and most of the European countries, shops take the cost of plastic bags from the customers if they do not have any suitable devices to carry their goods. So overall, I believe that all of the methods that were mentioned above will be implemented with the help of all nations to save the world.

Anahita, Learning a Language

2019-01-29T05:02:04+00:00

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Some experts believe that it is better for children to begin learning a foreign language at primary schools rather than secondary school. Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages? Nowadays, teaching a second language at the schools is almost mandatory in every countries over the world either at the primary or secondary level. While there is a widely held view among some people that learning a new language should be started at younger ages, others criticize it and are of the opposite opinion. I, personally agree with the first group. One of the most outstanding benefits of introducing a new language to younger children is acquiring a higher proficiency of it. To illustrate, my cousin was born and grew up in Sweden. She has learnt Persian from her parents, while Swedish and English are spoken in the society and the on television respectively. Therefore, she was able to speak three different languages at her early ages. Moreover, learning an additional language would enhance the cognitive skills of children. Based upon recent statistics multilingual people are smarter than monolingual ones. By studying a new language, not only will the individual's mind be receptive to learn more, but also their intelligence will increase over time. The More languages spoken by kids, the higher IQ level they will be benefitedbenefit from. On the other side, learning a language other than the socially spoken language from early ages may confuse the kid. For instance, some statistics reported that multilingual children at age 4 are not able to communicate with their counterparts in the kindergarten since they cannot realize which language is the native one and they may pronounce the native tongue with a foreign dialect. As a result, it would take a longer time for them to speak fluently. In conclusion, although learning extra languages at primary school will disadvantageface children with some disadvantages, but the benefits outweigh and promote their IQ level.

Beheshteh, Architecture

2019-01-29T05:01:52+00:00

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

The government is responsible for protecting a nation's cultural identity. Thus, some people think it is the duty of the government to ensure that new buildings are built in traditional styles. To what extent do you agree? Architecture, as an indispensable factor of human beings’ history, plays a significant role in men’s cultural identity. Therefore, the more emphasis on building applied, the stronger a nation’s culture is valued. However, whether should we continue the same traditional constructing- style in with respect to save the identity of a culture or not is the question. From my point of view, barely would a sensible person prefer to live in an old fashioned house, though charmed by history, because neither are they convenient nor secure. Having undertaken great changes, building in Japan are much more resilient to earthquakes, thereby saving more lives. Moreover, modern property all set for the perks of our current society whose citizens’ lives have been totally changed though decades. No more might an element in homes, which used to be of importance one day, be appropriate, particularly these days that the whole life is surprisingly aided by technology. However, the need for changes in building styles does not debunk the notion of saving the cultural values and meanings, by way of architecture. Thanks to the importance of the sense of belonging, governments are responsible for saving the very valuable old structures, thus transmitting the culture and history to the future generations. Houses, On the one hand, are to reflect the identity and character of a society admiringly evolved over time. On the other hand, they must be able to satisfy all demands of the settlers, so a combination of modernity and history comes into consideration. Besides, historical buildings in any country are shouldering the value of our ancestors, hence they deserve to draw major governmental fund. Overall, houses must be built in a way that can simultaneously fulfill modern needs as well as respect the responsibility of culture transition , which is indeed vital for any society member.

Farshid, Scientific Research

2019-01-29T05:01:39+00:00

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Many people believe that scientific research should be carried out and controlled by the governments rather than private companies. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? It is obvious that scientific research has direct impacts on human`s life and with no doubt governments should take responsibility for citizen`s health. Whereashowever, private companies could help the governments to attain this ambitious goal. On the one hand, most of the private companies work on some projects which are based on monetary gain. Therefore, owing to the fact that scientific research projects are mostly long-term with small amount of profit, there are few private institute who like to invest in this field. In other words, the governments have enough budget to spend on such projects and also they are aware of all the side effects of not caring about citizen`s being health. On the other hand, since scientific topics are diverse and wide, individuals could cover up some of them which are not carry out by the governments. Although private institute are given the right to do scientific research, they must be strictly monitored by the governments as some of them might be doing it for destructive weapons. To exemplify, some companies might focus on developing biochemical weapons which could threaten the world peace. To conclude, as the governments have large amount of budget to spend on such non profitable projects, not only are they the mainmostly responsible for undertaking scientific research for citizen`s healthy life, but also they should exert a tight control on private corporation's activity in this area to reach a terrific result.

Mahsa Molaei, Railways

2019-01-29T05:01:28+00:00

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Government should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? Railways and Roads are two significant public facilities which need government’s immediate attention in term of continuous improvement. Some people argue that government should invest in railways rather than roads. In this essay I will consider whether this statement is beneficial to a society or not. Based on the rapid growth of the population, particularly in urban areas, public needs for quality roads have been increased. Due to sharp raise on in the number of private cars, some claim that the government should spend money more on public transport’s foundations such as railways rather than roads. Better situation of public transport causes encourages more people encourage to abandon driving and use the subway system, buses and other forms of public transportation which is are obviously more environmentally-friendly. If government have an adequate investment in bedrocks of public transportation, not only are they helping to gradual decrease in the number of cars in main roads, but also they contributes to providing a more pleasant and less polluted place to live in. In order to achieving achieve this goal, government need to improve railways, increase the number of trains and also stations to make public transportation more accessible for citizens. For instance, if it will be a 5 minutes’ walk to the nearest subway from my home, it will be more likely that I prefer to use it rather than driving my own car and consequently tolerating traffic congestion in rush hours that I usually come back from my work. However, others frown upon this statement and point out that investment in railroads is really appreciated but one sided attention to railways and demonstrate apparent disregard of road situation are detrimental to a society as a whole. That means neglect of roads’ circumstances can result in high rates of fatality in roads. Therefore, I personally believe that the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Governments should spend money on both railways and roads in order to increase urban welfare. Simultaneously they need to use other incentives like tax cuts to discourage people from driving their own cars. To conclude, worthwhile investment of government in railways is inevitable but this measure should not deters them to from enhance enhancing the quality of roads. Public welfare cannot be provided other than when government invest equally in all parts of people’s transportation basic needs.

Mahta, Food Wasting

2019-01-29T05:01:15+00:00

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Nowadays people waste a lot of food that was bought from shops and restaurants. Why do you think people waste food? What can be done to reduce the amount of food they throw away? In this day and age, despite the fact that many countries are suffering from food deprivation, we are witnessing a huge amount of food wasting almost everywhere. In this regard, there is a controversial debate as to what are the main reasons having caused this phenomena and how we should control it. Undoubtedly, a combination of market’s promotion, poverty and getting use to eating precooked food/meals can play a vital role in this trend. Regarding this, both governments and people must take some measures, few of which I will broadly elaborate in this essay. First and foremost, paying too much attention to their own benefit, supermarkets offer stimulating promotions on edible products these days, which incites customers, especially those from non-affluent society, to buy more than their needs, as they mostly consider it to be an economical purchase, hence spoiled unused food. As a case in point, mostly suppliers give a significant discount on their multi-packs of various products to motivate consumers to buy more. Moreover, recently, people have got used to eating convenience food, including frozen and canned foods. It is obvious that not only are they detrimental for human health, but also using them would lead to more food wasting as they would expire soon after their first use. Last but not least, the less time and energy an individual spends on preparing his food, the easier he could overlook it and throw it away, while there are still many food-deprived people suffering from hunger in the world. For addressing the aforementioned causes, it is on governments to exert a tighter control over food consumption. These controls are not necessarily preventive regulations, . sometimes, encouragement and advertisements can be far more effective to maintain the right consumption pattern in people's daily life. At last, most importantly, it is required to that there existhave some educational courses in this regard, starting from elementary school continuously to prepare children's mind to learn how to cook fresh food, use limited eatable resources efficiently and ignore squandering.To put in a nutshell, although many reasons have contributed to an enormously wasted amount of food, nobody can deny its faultiness. Therefore, for tackling this issue, both authorities and folks must put this into prior consideration that food resources are limited and try to change consuming behavior by certain measures.

Parsa Aslani, Countries Becoming Similar

2019-01-29T05:01:02+00:00

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Countries are becoming more and more similar because people able to buy the same products anywhere in the world. Do you think this is positive or negative development. In every countries we have some products which are local for example Germany is famous for it's sausages or Iran is famous for it's carpets or zafran . But nowadays we need not go to Germany for sausages or Germans needn't go to Iran to buy carpet or zafran . We can find all of that in some stores which are so close to us . But I think it can have some negative and positive effects on developing the world and I want totalk aboutthis essay will discuss both of them. The First one is economic, . In my opinion, If governments decide to bring all of the souvenirs from all around the world to every local markets from all neighbor then this act can destroy one of the main reasons that tourists visit other countries. The second one is culture , . In my point of view, If we don't have any tourists then countries couldn't share their culture with other ones and then no person wouldn't find out about other cultures and believes. And in my opinion, having our own products can bring dollars in our country and it can help poor countries like us to develop our economy .In conclusion , If governments send every local products to other countries, then tourists don't have an important reason to travel because they have every things in their neighborhood ,And then some countries which supply their expenses with tourism won't have any , and then they will broke down.

Saeid, Cooking or Restaurants

2019-01-29T05:00:49+00:00

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Many people say that cooking and eating at home is are better for the individual and the family than eating out in restaurants or canteens. Do you agree or disagree? Regarding to the fact that many people are getting more and more involved with today’s regular life style, having one or two meals outside at restaurants has become so prevalent recently. Although it is much more convenient to eat at a restaurant rather than staying home and cooking which is presumably taking more time and energy, I believe that the food … has been cooked at home is way much healthier and I agree to some extent that eating at home is better than outside in a restaurant. On the one hand, eating in a restaurant is definitely much more convenient than allocating time for cooking at home, . you can have a seat in a restaurant and relax while you are waiting for your favorite food to get prepared and at the same time listening to an appealing melody that is playing at the restaurant. Other people may choose to go to a restaurant to eat a specific kind of food that they can’t handle to cook at home themselves because it requires special kitchen tools or even because it is difficult to prepare., for example, I think that I can never cook shrimp pasta, which is my favorite food, as good well as the chief in the restaurant where I use to go there once in a while to eat my favorite food there. On the other hand, I believe eating mostly in restaurants is not healthy both from a physical and mental perspective. Ingredients that has been used in a restaurant to prepare food might not be as healthy as it should be because of two reasons, . firstly, most restaurants objective is to deliver foods as tasty as possible and keep in mind that a tasty food typically consists of lots of fat which is clearly unhealthy for the body, and secondly most restaurants tend to reduce their production cost and as a result they may use cheap and unhealthy food ingredients to lower their production cost. Besides, eating food at home is a brilliant opportunity for families to get along and communicate which is a crucial missing link in today’s machinery life style. In conclusion, eating outside could be more fascinating and convenient but I think by putting a little more pressure on ourselves and taking time to cook at home, we can create an interesting atmosphere and spend time with family which is vital for every individual spiritually.