جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

In spite of the advances made in agriculture, many people around the world still go hungry. Why is this case? What can be done about this problem? Despite the major developments during the last couple of decades, many a person is still suffering from hunger across the globe. There are a variety of reasons behind this lifethreatening issue which demand drastic measures or else, it will continue taking its toll exponentially. Thanks to the new improvements in the cultivation of crops in most parts of the world farmers are producing many more products than what they planted/cultivated earlier, but regrettably owing to the wrong policies still many people do not have enough food to eat. Encouraging people to eat more, transnational corporations are always looking for more benefits by more creating demands. Eye-catching advertisements are typical examples of such wrong policies which perhaps lead to the growth of consumerism. The more people eat in developed countries, the less remains for individuals in under-developed areas. To address this significant problem, officials can enlighten members of society about this growing plight thereby striking a balance between actual need and food consumption in developed countries. Moreover, advanced countries can train underdeveloped farmers in poor conditions to benefit from the improved methods in agriculture such as optimized irrigation or modern farming. Gone are the days when farmers could grow their products with traditional methods. From what has been discussed above, hunger cannot be eradicated completely unless large industrial companies change their policies asking people not to have more than their body needs, and besides that academic communities can cooperation cooperate in training farmers with new methods of farming to increase their products/crop yield.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Some people think that newly built houses should follow the style of the old houses in the local areas, while others think that people should have freedom to build houses of their own styles. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. There are different views on the style of houses that are erected(to be erected) in neighborhood .While some think argue/maintain that new houses should be built in the same design as old ones, others believe that freedom should be given to individuals to construct houses of their own design (and favoured taste) .(I agree with the second view, and I would argue on both points of view and .) On one side of the argument there are some people who think that new houses which is are built should blend in with the existing architectural style of a local area. In terms of the tangible cultural heritage of a small towns or villages,. Traditional houses maintain the spirit of their culture and custom , and they give a strong sense of identity to the locality. , Whereas whereas contemporary design of houses and even high-rise buildings are incompatible with old one. From an architectural perspective, modern houses alongside traditional dwellings are an eyesore. As a result , a local area may lose its standard of aesthetics hence local dwellers would not be able tohave enjoy the view of the vicinity. On the other hand, some believe that local authorities should permit individuals to build houses with their own architectural design (should permit individuals to have the right to opt for their architectural design freely).People also tend to dismiss traditional ideas in terms of building costs. To be more precise, traditional construction materials like giant natural stones from local quarries are difficult to excavate and also is expensive . Furthermore , the maintenance cost of houses constructed in the old ways tends to be higher compared with modern ones.In conclusion , it is believed by some people that it is essential to give individuals a the freedom to build their own style of house , meanwhile others argue that building of current home should follow a uniform traditional style . I personally agree with the first opinion.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

The concerned parents and teachers of an elementary school have decided to ban the usage of computers owing to diminishing of the students’ attention spans. To support this claim the author pointed out no evidences and statistics. Since nowadays society would not accept anyone who has not the ability to work with technology, the chief aim of each school must be educating the children in the best ways. Therefore, I find this arguments logically unconvincing in several respects. An obvious flaw in this argument is that there is no measurement in it. The author cites no credible facts in order to make any sound recommendations. When a group wants to ban a possibility for a school thoroughly, they should study the situation with statistical factors, consider possible different assumptions, then draw a conclusion. For instance, there is not any mention about the length of usage of computers by students in hours. Or how many students spend time on computers? Do all of the students waste their time by on computer games or do they try to overcome the wanting knowledge of their teachers. This lacking of information leads this argument to an unpersuasive recommendations. Even assuming that modern technology is the reason of shorter children’s attention spans, nowadays with internet children become more clever. They can find any information in “Wikipedia”. It will help them to study/pursue education/educate faster. Robing the children of this opportunity is neither possible or fair. Without accounting for these obvious facts the committee cannot assume that removing computers is the only possible solution for increasing the attention of students. Planing / planning Another compelling arguments against this decision is that it did not mention, whether computers abvailability being available in all places, is the problem of diminishing the attention or not. Can it be corrected by limiting the accessibility of them to the designated areas? This is mainly because if using computers in some special places can help students improve the attention, there is no need to ban the whole possibility. The administration can limit the places of computers and let the twenty-first-century students, the internet generation, learn with technology. to sum up, what elaborated above shows that the author’s evidence lends little credible support to persuade me that banning a whole elementary school from using modern technology which is a new way of learning, is the only possible recommendation for improving students’ attention spans. The committee needs to provide more and clear assumptionsthat the children can focus better without technology. We need more information to evaluate the committee’s claim better. We need statistics and charts in order to decide clearly for this important decision.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Countries with long average working hours are economically more successful than those countries which do not work long hours. To what extent do you agree or disagree? In some developed countries working long shifts is regarded to be entirely conventional. In fact, there is an opinion that working long hours is the major key why they are more prosperous than other countries with briefer working hours. However, I partially agree with this. Some countries believe that having a developed economic is directly associated with long working hours. working for approximately 8 hours a day, for instance, can lead to a wealthy economy, since a lot of efforts and energy is needed for a country to be economically powerful and unrivaled in the world. Moreover, they also claimedclaim, working for long hours increase the productivity of their countries and this can allow them to boost their economy. take China as an example for being the second greatest economy in the world, one of the main reasons is because of long hours working. Moreover, Chinese workers are constantly working. Although, this it is argued that another factors for this universal success are cheap labors and also low-cost goods and services. Conversely, other countries believe that lengthy working hours does not always guarantee economic booming and also productivity. They believed When workers and staff are obliged to work a lot, they might lose energy, so they cannot do their responsibilities as well as they can. They have less sufficient time for themselves during a week and therefore, this sedentary sort of life can lead to less satisfaction among its residents. The statics have shown us (revealed) that, staffers have been perturbation perturbed and stressed because of long hours working which by the by has significant impact on their quality of life. Moreover, there are some countries with normal average working hours that have high Gross Domestic Production (GDP). In a nutshell, I strongly believed that there are some vital factors such as quality of working which can cause the growth of the economy.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Nowadays, a lot of buildings, such as offices and schools, are now being built with an open plan design. Why is that? Do you see this as a positive or negative development? These days, many structures like offices, and schools which are now being built with an open plan design. In my opinion, the main reason is that economically open designs is are extremely efficient, but this progress can be positive or negative as it will include including advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage of open design buildings as I mentioned, is efficiency, for instance, you can accommodate a lot of workforces in a big hall, and you do not have to pay for rooms’ decoration with doors, windows or other facilities when you can design offices just by desks and chairs. It will also reduce the overhead costs dramatically. On the other hand, communication between staff, and superiors will be more convenient which can make the company more productive. Besides, staffs can have better interpersonal skills, . as a result, you will have more effective management and collaboration. There will be disadvantages with open design buildings as well, for instance, the staff will not have the privacy that they need, or they may not feel security when they do not have privet places especially when they have been overlooked exposed toby their colleagues all the time. The other negative point which is inevitable is, this kind of buildings are noisier than closed plan offices when employees have a conversation on the phone, or to each other in one time, it is not only noisy, it can distract their colleagues as well. As a result, open design buildings could be good progress in many ways, especially economically, but it is vital that how the design is donewill be designing, and for what kind of company. I know that where she lives. I know that how you live can determine your health.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Some people take the view that older children can take care of younger children, some others may hold the view that taking care of children should be done by other adults. Which view do you agree with? Why? Children bring joy and happiness, but it is only possible through the special care they receive in a nurturing environment. As older children can be a perfect partner in playing games with their younger siblings or relatives, they may also be considered a perfect option for taking care of them. While some believe that older children can look after younger ones, I think that the whole responsibility shoulders on fully grown adults because of their physical abilities, maturity and legal duties. First of all, taking care of a child is not only limited to spending some time with them, but also requires one’s physical strength. For example, as danger is always threatening young children, leaving them alone while playing has never been a good idea. Prevention of the incidence of Happening an accident while playing necessitates measures to be taken. If a child breaks his/her hand, a person who is physically strong is needed to grab and hold them while taking them to the hospital. Besides, as children cry because of various reasons, for some of them, hugging remains the only option to calm them down. Therefore, the more an adult is physically powerful, the better reaction they show in vital situations. Moreover, maturity comes with age. As children grow, their needs differ from time to time. This can burden a huge responsibility on caregivers. The more adults are knowledgeable about a child’s demands for a healthier life, the better capable they capable are in of managing upcoming challenges. Furthermore, taking care of children is not limited to their basic needs, which demands well-spend spent time playing with them and helping them to develop mentally. Sometimes children may engage in a fight, so only a sensible adult can handle the situation while teaching problem-solving skills. As a consequence, not only is the physical presence of an adult is not enough, but also their intellectual abilities are vital so that children’s mental health would be guaranteed. Finally, each society has defined some principles to boost children’s quality of life. Law establishments are provided in the case of negligence by caregivers or other legal guardians. For instance, in the case that older children are given the responsibility to take care of their younger siblings, every incident that threatens their safety can lead to adverse consequences such as legal punishment for parents or other main caregivers. As a result, the more rules are set strictly in the case of child caregiving, the more adults may take them seriously and the probability of such happenings will decrease. To sum up, I believe that adults should hold the responsibility of taking care of children. I suggest that policy makers relax the rules, giving more off time to their employees when it is comes to taking care of children, because in this way adults show instant reactions in times of need, children develop mental skills and the chances for accidents decrease.