جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

In many places, new homes are needed, but the only space available for building them is in the countryside. Some people believe it is more important to protect the countryside and not build new homes there. Today, irrespective of the country, many cities struggle with escalated population, hence the lack of accommodation issues. Therefore, in many regions, in order to lack of a vacant lot to build a house, people have to migrate to countryside and build their house there in lieu of the city, thereby destroying natural environment. This destructive phenomenon has its opposers who say that it can endanger our future lives. On the one hand, many argue that the housing can be quoted as one of the basic human needs which can be categorized as safety in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Therefore, it is for governments to provide citizens with safe accommodation, and one of the areas where can construct a building is countryside. They think that although the protection of nature is one of the officials’ responsibilities, the preparation of the conditions of having a place to live is more crucial than that. Thus, people can use country to build their buildings. However, it should happen under some governmental observations and with a proper environmental protection plan to attain the both approaches. On the other hand, occupying the countryside has been cited as the one of the main culprits of today’s environmental issues. The opponents of this harmful phenomenon believe that not only will damaging the environment endanger both the Earth and humankind’s future, but also it can threaten animals and people’s lives. Additionally, in some cases it can cause extinction to some animal species. When some reside in countryside, road construction for reaching other areas is inevitable, so it damages the occupied region and subsequently has deleterious effects on a vast territory. Consequently, whilst preparation of accommodation is a critically crucial need of individuals, preservation of nature seems to be more important since destroying it will threaten the whole human beings not a specific group needing home.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Written by M.Torabi Do you agree or disagree with capital punishment? Give your reasons The way to punish and deal with perpetrators of capital crimes in today’s societies has been very controversial. Some people agree with capital punishment, while others oppose it. Each group has its own reasons, but still it’s a moot question. Personally, I cannot reject capital punishment completely, but I think it should be severely restricted. Opponents of the death penalty have different arguments. I including never should take taking this opportunity from others to be better people. They know the execution as a punishment against humanity in which the corrective aspect of the individual has not been taken into account. These disputes are often heard from communities that count on the role of each individual in the construction and development of society. Hence, the return of every offender is considered important to the community. But supporters of capital punishment also have their own reasons. They argue that this punishment prevents or at least reduces the crime involved. It is also said that the absence of capital punishment leads to greater courage in committing crimes. Moreover, although the execution of the death sentence is not welcome, it can prevent the worst consequences. For example, if a person is killed by another, capital punishment prevents individual revenge, which otherwise, can make turn society into chaos. To conclude, personally I believed that in the application of punishments, humanitarian principles must be considered and although capital punishment is not desirable, it cannot be completely ignored or removed. At the same time, this punishment must be very limited and strictly controlled.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Nowadays there is a growing trend of private car ownership. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages or environmental problems associated with this? Car manufacturing companies are working day and night to keep up with the demands of their customers. People nowadays tend to own a car, and many a family has more than one. Although many critics are strongly against production of new cars with current trend besides the financial facilities the car manufacturers provide, many opponents claim that the current policy is not to the benefit of our planet and consequently to humans. It was not too many years ago that having a car was a distant dream for a large portion of population, but thanks to the advances of technology and finance, in this day and age almost everyone owns a vehicle. Many an expert of finance holds the idea that not only can more production of cars benefit the economy, but it also help scientific researchers to do their research about new means of transports consuming clean energies. That fossil fuel resources will run out sooner or later is a disputable fact. Opponents of this idea claim that with this rate of production we are ruining the old Mother Nature and this eventually leads us into a disaster. Frustrated and disappointed, people living in modern societies are watching fall of trees to build new roads or expand the existing ones along with heavy consumption of natural resources as raw material for giant car companies which definitely will all in all results in mass destructions of next generations’ habitat. Many a research confirm the strong correlation between many diseases such as obesity, hypertension and coronary artery problems and daily usage of private cars. To sum up, I believe while ownership of a car has many merits, encouraging people to buy one is not necessary. Admittedly, ownership of car can benefit the owner in a variety of ways though temporarily,. However, it arguably has many demerits in long term for both the owner and the nature.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

If you could change one important thing in your hometown, what would you change? Human being as it could be derived from these word/as the name suggests/ shape his/her existence on being and being itself will be possible only in a spatial condition as Heidegger said: “Dasein” which means being there. Cities as the biggest physical spatial world which humans create in their lifespan have come a long way from the first people who decided live together to these days’ metropolises. These creations have consisted from lots of components having interrelating effects on each other. Digressing from this saturated intro, I personally think transportation serves as one of the sensational structure of every living-place. Deep thinking, I should point out the nature of life. Beside many concepts like the capability of talk or thought/the faculty of speech/, materialistically it seems fair to say human being owe its evolution to his/her ability to move without which there was no exploration in the strangeness of world. Eagerness have come to the life when an individual confronts an unrecognized thing thanks to the mobility vigor. Technically, here it worth to refer three main object which are genuinely impressed from transports’ mater. First and most every citizen spends a lots of time for movement in cities, especially in metropolitan ones. I myself waste three hours a day in traffic jam in my hometown, Tehran. Air pollution as the second significant issue, harms every people in such a city so that we had it as a harmless town just a quarter of year. Regarding scientific researches, nose to tail traffics should be quoted as the main culprit for this impurity of the air. Last but not the least is a mount of stress which these types of cities induced people when they always follow an inactive streams of cars and think about parking place or get try along with the tension of drivers whereas they are late apart any condition.To put it in a nutshell, I rather to change the way we transport in my hometown to safe keep my time and health and shape my life in a practicable circumstance.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Some people believe that companies should pay for damages they cause to the environment, while others say that the government should be responsible for such expenses. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include any examples from your experience? The issue of accelerating damages to the environment has one again come under the spotlight. Some researchers assume that the companies producing pollutants regularly are responsible for such a hazardous difficulty. Some others, however, assert that governments need to shoulder the burden of tackling this challenging situation. From my point of view, solving this problem require a close partnership between both the government and managers of companies. First and foremost, authorities had better allocate certain amounts of money to recruiting some environmentalists as well as mechanical engineers as their consultant to focus on finding main causes of damages and investigating numerous beneficial solutions. For instance, they can introduce an array of rules and pose limitations on people using their own cars rather than public transportation systems or even provide them with bicycles for cycling to some destinations in the close vicinity. The government can exert wind energy and solar panels instead of fossil fuel which is an effective solution to reduce releasing noxious fumes to the air. Companies should help the authorities to carry out their projects and observe the rules regarding managing this problem. The case in point is placing some filters on the exit way of fumes produced during work and broadening the knowledge of their workers in regard to the detrimental effects of these emissions on their health. What these functions lead to is changing the filters on a regular basis and respect other rules regarding mitigating these challenges. On the whole, I once again reaffirm my position as to doing environmentally friendly projects. I believe that either governments or company owners are responsible for facing this issue.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Most writers of fiction do not earn enough money to live from their writing.Do you think the government should give them financial assistance to help encourage good literature? Obviously, there are some conditions under which a novelist could reasonably expect some government suport. In a nutshell, if the writer has already proved that he or she can write not only about size a day issues but also the stories produced are stimulating and interesting, then I consider that some financial help might be given. Language quality, of course, is difficult to define, but if the writing shows, for example, a wide vocabulary with imagination and elegance more over high quality grammar, then I can see a valid reason for assisting an author to spend some time free from money problems. Such a writing needs to be encouraged. the entertainment value of a book would be also a factor in deciding whether to provide assistance to an author. Evenually, further consideration would include social and educational values expressed in the author's work. However, if the ideas were socially irresponsible, or if the stories contain unnecessary violence or pornography for its own sake, then I would not want to see the author sponsored to write stories which do not benefit society. Books which proved to be extremely popular, such as the Tin Tin stories, clearly need no subsidy at all because the authors have become rich through their writing. Finally, in my eyes, views on what good quality writing means will vary widely, and so if any author is to be given money for writing, then the decision would have to be made by a committee or panel of judge. An individual opinion would certainly cause disagreement among the reading public.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Sanaz Namdar Topic: Some people say History is one of the most important school subjects. Other people think that, in today’s world, subjects like Science and Technology are more important than history. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. Nowadays, the curriculum of students in schools consists of various fields. Some hold the view that by virtue of technological advances, some subjects such as science and technology affect students more positively in comparison with history whilst the opponents insist on the merits of the latter further. I strongly presume that all fields are equally worth considering when it comes to children’s upbringing. That studying history can have significant impacts on children is a given. To begin with, it is well-documented that studying history at an early age gives them the cognitive ability to analyze the current issues which can be insurmountable for others. Despite the technological developments, Not only should history be valued for broadening students’ horizons, but also it should be appreciated for acquainting students with their culture and heritage background. In other words, It brings societal unity to an otherwise nonidentified society, not least during globalization. On the other hand, apart from history, there are some other of benefit courses in students’ curriculums such as science and technology. Due to modern technological developments in all aspects, it is incumbent on educators to conforming to modernization. Therefore, educationalists believe that studying these fields at schools can assist students in gaining higher academic qualifications, hence more prosperity in their adults’ world. In conclusion, to fulfilling varying needs of students in order to be not only a productive member of society but also a respected individual in the future, moderation amongst courses is the answer. From my prospect, the biased viewon schools’ subjects can have some comprehensively irredeemable effects on the society future.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Music is played in every society and culture in the world today. Some people think that music brings only benefits to individuals and societies. Others, however, think that music can have a negative influence on both. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. Over the history of humankind, music has played an undeniable role to feature largely the whole range of human emotion in all histories and all cultures. It has been one of the main ways of knowing nations and their traditions. Living without music, not only is it unbelievable, but also it brings about unbearable life. I totally believe that music in different types has enormous positive effects to both individuals and societies rather than negative side. However, there would be a few people who think in contrast to me. Of established influences of music, we can easily feel it in our personal life which is refreshing our mind. Not only does it motivate us, but also healing our wound. Music is a composition of lyrics and melodies. Listening to an Amazingly well-created song could be result in (/a reason of) good working through the working hours. Even while music is being played, particularly plants could grow faster than once it is not. Besides, some kind of music have been made by famous songwriters crying lots of social illnesses, owing to represent them to their governments, in other words, music would be an extensively warning tool for usual people to announce their neediness and willingness, in particular, heavy metal bands like Metallica. The flip side of benefits of music, which I do not agree with, is people who think music has negative effects on people. By and large, respectively, how people listen to the music or yawning gap between youths and aged persons could be a problem. The former claim they are exposed to loud noise due to someone’s CD players or their car radios. Consequently, it is not a music problem. And the latter complain owing to differing among people’s taste. However, Everybody knows that people’s taste in music tends to change as they get older. In Conclusion, music could have both positive and negative influences on people and cultures, but I believe it is an integral part of human expression that we cannot really imagine our own life without.

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Some think that private companies should pay for pollution clean up, while others say it should be a government's responsibility. Discuss, and state your own opinion. Recently, due to the fact that governments have been exposed to a large amount of pollution, they should have imposed strict laws against factories which produce wastage whether it is from private companies or not. Some, however, claim that it is incumbent on governments to take some measures to refine these damages. Many a reason exists that factories should be penalized for their adversely affected operations. First and foremost, they explore and exploit the natural resources in lots of areas. Besides, these activities have effect on the environment such as water pollution, air pollution, land contaminated and produce many waste. we should place a premium to take some effective steps to reduce amounts of pollution and also adopt ourselves with approved laws against the devastation caused by excessive use of resources. Only when we oblige them to share amounts of money as taxes, could we control its grave consequences. By contrast, governments should take responsibility for overcoming those environmental problems. moreover, that entrepreneurs could afford to pay recommended fine is not liable, and it is not socially acceptable way. Because humankinds need electricity to enjoy technologies, a farmland to grow crops, accommodation to live, food to eat as well as a mean for transportation to commute. However, the government has still a vital role in managing and limiting the use of natural resources due to sustainable development. In conclusion, one of the sign of homogenous society is that everyone accepts his role either as an individual or as the government, so both private companies and governments should introduce appropriate measures to address this issue.

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? The past 50 years have seen a dramatic increment in garbage. I believe this phenomenon is symptomatic of the lack of awareness about the serious consequences of the throw-away lifestyle which is more common these days. In this essay, I intend to explore the sources of this problem along with some possible solution to it. Chief among the causes of this problem is the industrial development in the modern society. Nowadays, many entrepreneurs are increasingly prone to use plastic and heavy metal in their products’ packaging. This has left the nature powerless to absorb this waste disposal. Little wonder, then, this durable and non-recyclable materials inevitably cause environmental disasters. Another contributing factor is our consumer culture. In my beliefs, people are the main creators of pollution caused by rubbish. A salient example we are all witness to is the growing use of plastic packaging for daily shopping regardless of its potential impact on environment. Therefore, the more people’s quest for plastic packaging, the more disposable goods should be produced. In order to stem the tide of waste disposal, I believe we must first address its root causes. Perhaps the most effective method of doing this would be for the government either to ban the industries producing non environmentally-friendly products more than legitimate level or at least threaten them by prosecution. Moreover, if the environmental standards are to be raised, therefore, it is crucial that the spontaneous commitment of both businesses and citizens be required. One further measure would be to promote more recyclable packaging- like paper packaging- than virgin materials in the community through public campaigns. In reality, of course, this is a vast oversimplification of the issue. These solutions, particularly the prohibitionist approach, would be problematic in themselves. Nonetheless, I believe that the hard way is sometimes the best way and I hope these solutions constitute a good first step.