جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime. Others, however, argue that the circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should always be taken into account when deciding on the punishment. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. While many individuals hold the idea that a certain penalty ought to be applied for a crime regardless of the reasons behind the crime such as motivation, age and mental health of the wrongdoer, the opponents argue that a fair judiciary system can consider the reasonable grounds behind an unlawful act. When it comes to applying a penalty for a criminal activity, I subscribe to the view that we had better study the case carefully to find the root causes behind it or a machine can read a look up table and pronounce the verdicts. First and for most, we have to note that the main reason behind a punishment is to show the wrongdoer and other members of society that retributions are defined and will be applied if someone commits a crime whereby we can curb the criminal activities in societies. Capital punishment, for example, is an acceptable punishment in many parts of the world where legislators believe it can prevent brutal criminal activities such as murder. Undoubtedly, judging a wrongdoer regardless of decisive factors at play could reduce the crime rate in a primitive society. Having said that, applying a specific punishment for a wrongdoer regardless of his age, mental wellness, and motivation is not fair. Compared to the past, we are now living in an age where every single part of life has dramatically improved, hence an improvement in our judiciary system seems unavoidable. The expected punishment of a person who suffers from a mental disorder, or a child who cannot recognize the consequent consequence of their actions should be completely different from normal individuals. From my point of view, obligatory educational sessions for the abovementioned group work far better than traditional penalties. To sum up, I subscribe to the view that modern punishment has to be replaced with the traditionally old ones thereby expecting societies with lower crime rates. Only when the lawmakers manage the punishment fit the crime considering other factors at play can we expect an impressive reduction in crimes.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Why do some people commit crime? Every morning when we wake up and turn on the tv and listen to the news we heard some bad news like robbery or raped rape of someone , hostage taking , honor killings and domestic violence… . The main question is that how we can control people to do less the crime. The main reason I think is poverty and a family growing up in it. However, there is are some other reasons like injustice , class inequality , … . if we support poor family families and create jobs/provide employmentdo entrepreneurship for them or support the orphans child give them good food , shelter and send them to school for education I think this these things reduce commit commission of crime . with a glance look at the society we understand/realize some people like some children may commited a crime for getting the attention of their parents ./seek their parents’ attention The preventative measures is are putting surveillance in the street , alley , stores and letting them know if they do something wrong we can see them and they are getting in trouble and specify some punishments for each crime and imprisonment a guilty person . At the end, we cannot/can not understand the situation that a criminal is in when verdict why people committing crime; we are not in their place . however, we can make society a better and safer place with by helping people finish their education, give them good work and arrest the guilty persons for a crime committed.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Some modern agriculture methods damage the environment. People think providing more food for the growing world population is more important than protecting the environment. Do you agree with this view? Over the past century, because of advancement of technology, humans̕ welfare has been improved. The unfettered increase Increasing in population and urbanization are two factors, which endorse the importance of food expansion by utilizing modern agriculture methods. However, there is not any public consensus in this context. Although some people believe that providing food for the growing world population is more important, others continue to assert that protecting the environment is much more critical. I believe that preserving the environment is more vital and ignoring it can have dire consequences. In the following paragraphs, I will explain my reasons. As the first reason, modern agriculture uses state-of-the-art methods to produce higher amounts of foods. Although in the short run, it seems that these methods boost the food production, in the long run, it can have irreparable effects on the ecosystem and result in changing it. It is a controversial subject that in some areas some animal species migrate to a new place to find food and survive and some animals have been found dead in forests because of lack of food. In fact, due to human’s manipulation, the ecosystem chain has been disrupted, so an incorrect intervention in a particular plant species can have effect on all wildlife and wild flora. As a result, in a long time because of death of animal species and changing of plants, the environmental resources will be reduced. Furthermore, in my opinion, some modern agriculture methods lead to irreversible changes like increasing the greenhouse gases and global warming, loss of water resources and so on. Increasing the increase in the number of factories and industrialization of countries causes air pollution that over time raises the number of diseases like cancers. Furthermore, utilizing chemical fertilizers can lead to water pollution. As a result, these methods not only do not have benefits for humans, but rather can result in a variety of sicknesses. On the other hand, some techniques in modern agriculture like new methods of irrigation can increase the food production and do not have any disadvantage for the environment. In summary, despite the dramatic increase of population and urgent need for food resources and widespread hunger and malnutrition, it is better to take a long-term perspective instead of trying to solve and overcome the problems only for a short time. The Ecosystem, plants and animal species are heritages, which have been given to us and it is our duty to give it them to next generation.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Some people say that the government should break down all the historic buildings and replace them with modern buildings. DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE? As buildings from the past centuries or decades constitute a part of today’s cities, their maintenance or destruction and replacing those them with modern ones by the authorities has have theirits advocates and I subscribe to the view of the former group, which prefers the ancient buildings being preserved. The absence of construction technologies or effortless methods, which just have been developed in the recent decades, prove that the process of building in the past was far more complicated and harder than that of the present. Constructing buildings mostly by workforce instead of machines and equipment, the old builders had to endure many hardships compared to their current counterparts whose works are much more rapid and automatized. Their hard work, alongside their attention to the sophisticated details in buildings, which can rarely be found in the present-day ones, is the main reason to regard them as invaluable architectural heritage. Although the maintenance and the reinforcement of the historic buildings might come at a huge cost to the governments and the idea of substituting them with the modern places is a tempting one, as they might be more luxurious or magnificent, I believe preserving such national heritage will be worth it. What justifies such expenditures and resisting those temptations is that learning about ancient buildings is profoundly informative. Many aspects of the ancients’ lives and culture would be revealed by studying those places. By that, we can be informed about their beliefs or even their ongoing crisiscrises. For instance, the thick high walls of an old place, which seldom have an opening on itthem, can indicate the levels of safety in its society or tell us of the long wars the city might have been involved in. Due to the many contributions these places can make to the knowledge of our society and their high value as our heritage, the governments have to set many rules to preserve them while allocating adequate budget to their maintenance. In conclusion, although protecting historic places from being demolished while there is a high demand for modern fancy buildings is a hard job, I believe theamount of knowledge brought about by the delicate historic buildings could be valuable and instructive enough to justify the hardships.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Some people argue that it is best to accept a bad situation, such as an unsatisfactory job or shortage of money. Others believe that it is better to try and improve such situations. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. How paradoxical that human nature consists of both enthusiasm for change and fear of it. To compound the irony, both attempt to make a change and patience with hardship have been extolled by many throughout history. After thousands of years of human civilization, the question still remains but through different forms and terms. There is no point in denying that in order to answer this question and take any side, it is required to cast some light on what is worth trying to alter. Before all else, we should identify what we can change and what not. All inspirational, beautiful sentences quipped by nominal scientists and philosophers regarding making or undergoing changes for a better life notwithstanding, the hard truth is that sometimes a change is out of question no matter how hard one tries. It is only everyday life when you face difficulty triggered by decisions you made in the past. stuck in a career that you hate, for instance, while all your childhood you had your heart set on another which necessitates a university degree or other requirements you do not possess is bitterly painful yet surprisingly commonplace. Although perseverance and tenacity are good personal traits, they cannot always bring about a better situation as the decisive factors are beyond control, and any more effort leads to failure and a sense of frustration. Meanwhile, the definition of a bad or good situation is such relative that no one is able to determine what it is and what the assessment criteria are. It varies widely according to the person, the generation or even the culture. In other words, someone's ideal job might be another's nightmare. Many desperately seek a nine-to-five job with insurance and safety/insecurity but limited responsibilities and no risks whatsoever, whereas others find this a living in hell due to their adventurous nature. Similarly, financial problems may be interpreted in numerous ways. Many affluent a person seeks more wealth however tremendous they have managed to gain, whilst their high-spirited fellows are contented with far less property. However, the state of satisfaction should not cause lethargy. It is believed that efforts to change an unpleasant situation are a success whether attaining the goal or not since it leaves no residual regret later in life. Only when an individual works hard to achieve his dreams and progress, will he not be remorseful about his past. Besides, an alteration can open up a whole gamut of new experiences, which in turn may open the door for a better future. Quitting a job or a field of study that is excruciating, a great number of thriving figures in various times and places could morph their monotonous, hard life into a magical experience by which a taste of better life became possible. In conclusion, although the idea of a change for a better life is highly attractive, altering all the bothering elements in one’s life might not be easy in practice. However, I am of the opinion that this should not justify the tendency towards inactivity, praying for a miracle.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? People who develop many skills are more successful than people who focus on one skill only. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. It is stating the obvious that success has several meanings for each person and it depends on each individuals' individual’s situation. That has been considerquestioned, whether people who have various skills are more prosperous or others who focus on one skill only, which has always been a much debated argument. Despite the argument asserting that people who focus on one tasks are more successful based on having a high concentration on their works, I believe otherwise on the grounds that a person who learns different tasks are is more creative and flexible to in several careers than others which is conducive to being more successful. First and more obvious, the crux of the matter lies in the fact that people who develop various skills are more productive. In simple terms, being more productive gives more chance to a person to become more creative. The best example is, a worker in a company who knows numerous skills. He is able to work in different parts of that company and as a result, is a more productive and highly-respected worker in that company. Besides, since he knows several tasks he gains more experiences in different fields which is culminates in fixing better problems it in terms of being a creative and experienced person. Therefore, it goes without saying that a person who learns more than one task has a more opportunity to become a productive and creative person, thereby copping coping better with difficulties which may he may face on the way to successbe face in the success way. Another striking point is that people with several abilities are more likely to flexibly develop their careers. To put apposite words, fundamentally they have more opportunity to find jobs compared to people who focus on one ability. For the purpose of illustration, a person who graduated from electrical engineering and knows mechanics and is also fluent in English and French not only has he more chances to find several jobs but also he may has have more salary than others. Hence, as is clear, individuals with diverse skills are more better able to flexibly develop their careers whereby having a more better chance to choose their career as much as possible. To cut a long story short, although some people believe that individuals who focus on one skill are more successful in terms of concentration, people with various skills are more creative and productive person individuals and also they have more opportunity to find more jobs which will be more beneficial during their life.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Should wealthy nations be required to share their wealth among poorer nations by providing such things as food and education? Or is it the responsibility of the governments of poorer nations to look after their citizens themselves? Some expect that rich communities are responsible for supplying food and education for impoverished people from poor societies, on the other side, this question might come up to our mind, is this the right way? What about the Governments of these societies? Are they not responsible for these? On one side, some claim that supplying food and education is not a solution. Firstly, because it could not be a sustainable trend. Secondly, politicians of these countries usually abuse their power for their own benefits and they do not care about their people as long as they receive their needs from other communities. Given that, supporting such countries might not be the best answer. On the other side, for people of wealthy countries, who usually consume more than they need almost every day, helping other communities, that are in need of their basic necessities such as food and education, not only should not be a concern, but they should think of it as an opportunity for a safer and better world. Since we are living in a globalization age and the whole world is connected together, helping other people is a sign of humanity. However, we are all witnessing people who escape from their countries because of lack of their vital needs and they live in the difficult situation of the refugee camps all around the world from Europe to New Zealand these days. To conclude, although governments should be responsible for fulfilling basic human needs for their own nations, people in developed countries are morally obliged to help people in poor countries for humanitarian reasons.