نمونه رایتینگ آیلتس

نمونه رایتینگ آیلتس قسمت ۳۴

Nowadays the way many people interact with each other has changed because of technology.
In what ways has technology affected the types of relationships that people make? Has this been a positive or negative development?

It is true that new technologies have had an influence on communication between people. Technology has affected relationships in various ways, and in my opinion there are both positive and negative effects.

Technology has had an impact on relationships in business, education and social life. Firstly, telephones and the Internet allow business people in different countries to interact without ever meeting each other. Secondly, services like Skype create new possibilities for relationships between students and teachers. For example, a student can now take video lessons with a teacher in a different city or country. Finally, many people use social networks, like Facebook, to make new friends and find people who share common interests, and they interact through their computers rather than face to face.

On the one hand, these developments can be extremely positive. Cooperation between people in different countries was much more difficult when communication was limited to written letters or telegrams. Nowadays, interactions by email, phone or video are almost as good as face-to-face meetings, and many of us benefit from these interactions, either in work or social contexts. On the other hand, the availability of new communication technologies can also have the result of isolating people and discouraging real interaction. For example, many young people choose to make friends online rather than mixing with their peers in the real world, and these ‘virtual’ relationships are a poor substitute for real friendships.

In conclusion, technology has certainly revolutionized communication between people, but not all of the outcomes of this revolution have been positive.
(۲۵۷ words, band 9)

برای دیدن مطالب بیشتر کافیست کلیک کنید

نمونه رایتینگ آیلتس قسمت شانزدهم

Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, so protecting them is a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people argue that it is pointless to spend money on the protection of wild animals because we humans have no need for them. I completely disagree with this point of view.

In my opinion, it is absurd to argue that wild animals have no place in the 21st century. I do not believe that planet Earth exists only for the benefit of humans, and there is nothing special about this particular century that means that we suddenly have the right to allow or encourage the extinction of any species. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason why we should let animals die out. We do not need to exploit or destroy every last square meter of land in order to feed or accommodate the world’s population. There is plenty of room for us to exist side by side with wild animals, and this should be our aim.

I also disagree with the idea that protecting animals is a waste of resources. It is usually the protection of natural habitats that ensures the survival of wild animals, and most scientists agree that these habitats are also crucial for human survival. For example, rainforests produce oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide and stabilize the Earth’s climate. If we destroyed these areas, the costs of managing the resulting changes to our planet would far outweigh the costs of conservation. By protecting wild animals and their habitats, we maintain the natural balance of all life on Earth.

In conclusion, we have no right to decide whether or not wild animals should exist, and I believe that we should do everything we can to protect them. (269 words)

Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, so protecting them is a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people argue that it is pointless to spend money on the protection of wild animals because we humans have no need for them. I completely disagree with this point of view.

In my opinion, it is absurd to argue that wild animals have no place in the 21st century. I do not believe that planet Earth exists only for the benefit of humans, and there is nothing special about this particular century that means that we suddenly have the right to allow or encourage the extinction of any species. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason why we should let animals die out. We do not need to exploit or destroy every last square meter of land in order to feed or accommodate the world’s population. There is plenty of room for us to exist side by side with wild animals, and this should be our aim.

I also disagree with the idea that protecting animals is a waste of resources. It is usually the protection of natural habitats that ensures the survival of wild animals, and most scientists agree that these habitats are also crucial for human survival. For example, rainforests produce oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide and stabilize the Earth’s climate. If we destroyed these areas, the costs of managing the resulting changes to our planet would far outweigh the costs of conservation. By protecting wild animals and their habitats, we maintain the natural balance of all life on Earth.

In conclusion, we have no right to decide whether or not wild animals should exist, and I believe that we should do everything we can to protect them. (269 words)

برای دیدن مطالب بیشتر کافیست کلیک کنید

نمونه سوالات رایتینگ آیلتس

The money spent by governments on space programs would be better spent on vital public services such as schools and hospitals.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Governments in some countries spend large amounts of money on space exploration programs. I completely agree with the idea that these are a waste of money, and that the funds should be allocated to public services.

There are several reasons why space programs should be abandoned. Firstly, it is extremely expensive to train scientists and other staff involved with space missions, and facilities and equipment also come at a huge cost to the government. Secondly, these programs do not benefit normal people in our daily lives; they are simply vanity projects for politicians. Finally, many missions to space fail completely, and the smallest technological error can cost astronauts their lives. The Challenger space shuttle disaster showed us that space travel is extremely dangerous, and in my opinion it is not worth the risk.

I believe that the money from space programs should go to vital public services instead. It is much cheaper to train doctors, teachers, police and other public service workers than it is to train astronauts or the scientists and engineers who work on space exploration projects. Furthermore, public servants do jobs that have a positive impact on every member of society. For example, we all use schools, hospitals and roads, and we all need the security that the police provide. If governments reallocated the money spent on space travel and research, many thousands of people could be lifted out of poverty or given a better quality of life.

In conclusion, my view is that governments should spend money on services that benefit all members of society, and it is wrong to waste our resources on projects that do not improve our everyday lives.

- See more at: http://ielts-city.com/%d9%86%d9%85%d9%88%d9%86%d9%87-%d8%b3%d9%88%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a7%d8%aa-%d8%b1%d8%a7%d9%8a%d8%aa%d9%8a%d9%86%da%af-%d8%a2%d9%8a%d9%84%d8%aa%d8%b3-%d9%82%d8%b3%d9%85%d8%aa-%d9%87%d9%81%d8%aa%d9%85/#sthash.g6kj034S.dpuf

The money spent by governments on space programs would be better spent on vital public services such as schools and hospitals.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Governments in some countries spend large amounts of money on space exploration programs. I completely agree with the idea that these are a waste of money, and that the funds should be allocated to public services.

There are several reasons why space programs should be abandoned. Firstly, it is extremely expensive to train scientists and other staff involved with space missions, and facilities and equipment also come at a huge cost to the government. Secondly, these programs do not benefit normal people in our daily lives; they are simply vanity projects for politicians. Finally, many missions to space fail completely, and the smallest technological error can cost astronauts their lives. The Challenger space shuttle disaster showed us that space travel is extremely dangerous, and in my opinion it is not worth the risk.

I believe that the money from space programs should go to vital public services instead. It is much cheaper to train doctors, teachers, police and other public service workers than it is to train astronauts or the scientists and engineers who work on space exploration projects. Furthermore, public servants do jobs that have a positive impact on every member of society. For example, we all use schools, hospitals and roads, and we all need the security that the police provide. If governments reallocated the money spent on space travel and research, many thousands of people could be lifted out of poverty or given a better quality of life.

In conclusion, my view is that governments should spend money on services that benefit all members of society, and it is wrong to waste our resources on projects that do not improve our everyday lives.

برای دیدن مطالب بیشتر کافیست کلیک کنید