Yoga Taruna

:question: Nowadays, food has become easier to prepare. Has this change improved the way people live? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. :idea: People’s growing need for practicality has resulted in many innovations, such as those in food preparation. People realize that preparing a meal could be complicated and time-consuming. Therefore, they need an easier and more practical way to prepare food in order to maximize their time and avoid spending too much time cooking. Seeing this need as a good business opportunity, many food producers create the so-called instant or fast foods which take only a little time to prepare. The ease and convenience which these foods offer have made more people rely on such foods and changed their lifestyle. However, some people are concerned whether reliance on such foods improves or impairs people’s life. In my opinion, such foods are not necessarily harmful to us. In some aspects, they can benefit people. For example, instant foods are usually produced mechanically in very large quantity for the public, so that their prices can be lowered as much as possible and more people can afford them. Compare instant noodles with handmade ones. With the aid of recent technologies, those two kinds of noodles hardly have any differences in taste, texture, and quality. However, the handmade ones are usually more expensive due to their more complicated making process. Moreover, in many countries (including mine), the governments have set up strict rules that require producers of instant or fast foods to care greatly about the quality and the safety of their products. As the result, before going on sale, such foods must meet both the safety and nutritional requirements, so that people who consume such foods can not only enjoy the convenience but also fulfill their nutritional needs.

:question: In many developing countries, children work in some form to bring in necessary income from an early age. In the first world, many people think this is damaging and wrong but others would argue that their work brings them a sense of contributing, belonging and responsibility. What is your opinion? :idea: Child workers have long been a hot issue to debate. Pros and contras concerning this issue come up as well. The pros’ side believes that children should be allowed to work and bring in some additional income to help their family financially, provided that they work only under proper management and under strictly special conditions. One of such conditions is that the employer(s) must provide their child workers with healthy and conducive work environment that still allows the children to maintain their physical and mental health, take advantage and enjoyment of their childhood, study, and pursue a better future. Child workers should be strictly differentiated from their adult counterparts. The contras’ side insists that children aren’t supposed to work since work environment is basically suitable only for adults because of its highly competitive and ever-changing nature that children can hardly adapt themselves to, due to their inexperience and naïveté. Such environment can deprive children of the cheerfulness of their childhood. Children should be given ample time to learn, play, and explore their world since they have just started life. They cannot be expected to assume adults’ role and responsibility. Some psychologists state that youths who were deprived of the enjoyment of their childhood will likely grow into immature adults. I agree with the pros’ opinion mentioned above. If managed properly and wisely, working can help children build a sense of responsibility and also give them a good chance to learn. From my observation, I learn that some friends of mine who worked for their family since their childhood grow tougher and more prepared to face the hardship of life than those who didn’t.

:question: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Parents are the best teachers. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. :idea: Learning process is a never ending process. As long as one lives, he/she always has to learn. In learning process, one needs mentors, tutors, teachers, or the like, who can give him/her guidance, examples, direction, instruction, etc. and can serve as role models. An interesting question then arises: who can teach the best? Many people find that their parents are their best teachers in their lifetime. I agree with them. Here are my reasons, based on my own experience. First, parents are the ones who love and care the most about their children, and thus, the former will always feel responsible for the latter’s future. Every parent intrinsically wants a better future for his/her children and accordingly, always makes the best effort to help them achieve success. Although teachers at schools are well educated and trained to love their pupils, teachers’ love will never be equal to parents’ love. Second, parents are the ones who are closest to their children. They both live in the same house and share the same ups and downs together. As the result, they interact with each other more intensively and more intimately than with any other people. Supposedly, parents know the best how their children behave and what their children want, need, or even feel. Subsequently, parents know the best how to treat and educate their children in various conditions or situations. They can decide wisely what their children should or shouldn’t do. In conclusion, parents are the best nurturers of their children. No one else can assume parents’ position because the bond between parents and their children is unique and stronger than any other interpersonal bonds.

:question: Recent advancements in technology have led to many changes in our daily lives, but some people would argue that we are becoming too dependent on technology and that not all these changes are beneficial. Give your opinion and support your argument. :) Recent advancements in technology have changed our lives significantly. Most noticeably, they facilitate our living, as evidenced by more effectiveness, efficiency, convenience, and ease which result from their proper application. With the aid of recent advanced technologies, difficult tasks can be accomplished in less time with less effort and energy than they were in the past. However, some people are concerned that the convenience and ease that recent advanced technologies offer affect our humanity. Since technology can facilitate almost all our activities, many people depend more on it than on other people. For example, in big cities, real intimate interpersonal relationship seldom takes place because people devote their time, attention, and money more to their computers, smartphones, and the like, than to social activities with other people. Also in big cities, many children and youths prefer playing videogames solitarily to socializing or doing exercises with their friends. We have to admit that in our modern era, technology is indispensable as well as unavoidable. By nature, everyone wants to live an easy, comfortable, and enjoyable life. Technology can help us create such a life. However, too much dependence on technology can impair our sense of humanity and prevent us from living a healthy, balanced life, just as evidenced by some people’s addiction to the latest products of telecommunication technologies which makes them neglect their families and social life. Therefore, to get the best of technology, we have to use it wisely. Facts have taught us that the application of technology can lead to either beneficial or detrimental changes, depending on how we make use of technology. If we use technology for the good of humankind, hopefully it will make our world better. On the opposite, if we use it unwisely and let ourselves indulge uncontrollably in curiosity about the latest technologies, we are heading for our own destruction.

Selamat siang, Pak Mike! :orange: :apple: Sorry for my late response and many thanks for your comments. I find your comments very helpful and I really appreciate them. As a non-native English speaker, I am always tempted to try out words, idioms, phrases, or grammatical structures I am not familiar with, in attempts to vary my English. Sometimes, my attempts end up in good results, but far more often, they end up in awkward sentences or compositions like what you see in my essay above.

:question: The government has announced that it plans to build a new university. Some people think that your community would be a good place to locate the university. Compare the advantages and disadvantages of establishing a new university in your community. Use specific details in your discussion. :idea: No one denies the importance of education. Therefore, easy access to education should be available to all. In order to carry out a part of its commitment to “education for all”, our government has recently announced its plan to build a new university. Among the first things to be decided is where the university should be located. Some people think that our community would be a good place to locate it. To examine its feasibility, we need to take into consideration both the advantages and the disadvantages of establishing a new university in our community. In my opinion, they are as follows. On the side of its advantages, establishing a new university in our community will make access to higher education easy for us. The nearest university from our community is still a long way to go and not easy to reach. As a result, many of us who want to pursue higher education have to spend a lot of money, energy, and time to reach it. The existence of a university in our community will not only be a great relief for us, but is also believed to create a learning atmosphere for its surroundings, because it will result in intensive interaction between our community and the university’s students. Such interaction will encourage us to learn more. Another possible advantage is that the establishment of a new university will create new jobs for people living in its surroundings. The arrival of many students will create demands for all that students need, such as: new dormitories, restaurants, bookstores, stationery shops, and the like. Response to the demands can mean the creation of new jobs which will benefit the locals. On the side of its disadvantages, establishing a new university will take up a lot of space. It means that we have to turn a great area of our community’s land into university properties. Fortunately, there is an industrial wasteland in our community that our government can turn into university properties, so that we believe that the disadvantages can be minimized. Comparing the advantages and disadvantages above, we believe that establishing a new university in our community will benefit us very much. Not only will it make the best use of the wasteland, but it will also create a learning atmosphere for us and provide new employment. :)

Hi bahramimetal! Thank you for your comment and invitation, but I’m sorry to disagree with you. I have checked my dictionary, searched sample sentences via google, and found that we should use complete sentences when using “the more, the more” rule. Here are sample sentences that I found : The more they resist, the more they divide. (In other words, it can be re-written: They resist more and they divide more.) The more troops they send, the more targets we have. (In other words: They send more troops and we have more targets.) The more you learn, the more you realize how little you know. (In other words: You learn more and you realize more how little you know.) Look at the above sample sentences re-written in other words: They are complete sentences, aren’t they? Look again at my sentence: The higher the quality is, the more successful the nation can be. (In other words: The quality is higher and the nation can be more successful.) These are also complete sentences. Now look at your sentence: The higher the quality be, the more successful the nation receives. (In other words: The quality be higher (not a complete sentence: there must be a modal between “quality” and “be”) and the nation receives more successful (“receive” is a transitive verb, so it must be followed by a noun, not an adjective like “more successful".)) That’s my explanation. I hope some experts or native English speakers will help. Thank you. :):)

:question: Computers can translate all kinds of languages well, so our children don't need to learn more languages in the future. :idea: The advances in information technology have helped us very much and made our duties easier. In the field of language learning only, for example, with the aid of certain software or programs installed in our computers, we can now translate all kinds of languages well. This fact incites a question whether our children still need to learn more languages in the future or not. In my opinion, they still do. My reasons are as follows. Firstly, we cannot depend on computers all the time. Imagine that someday we have to attend an important meeting which many people from many countries attend too. In such a situation, we have to socialize and communicate with each other in a friendly yet convincing manner. We often have to make approaches to make the other guests support our purposes. If we have good command of the languages which most of those present speak, they will get a good impression of us, and it will help our communication. On the contrary, if in such a meeting we depend heavily on our computers for translation, our communication will become very difficult. The other guests will probably think of us as the ones who do not try to be communicative. As a result, our further moves will likely be hampered. Secondly, learning other languages will lead us to learning some aspects of the cultures behind the languages. As some linguistic experts say, a nation’s language reflects their character. Accordingly, never learning any other languages will make us hardly get acquainted with other cultures and, in the long term, will possibly plunge us in a kind of narrow-mindedness or chauvinism. Living in a world inhabited by many nations with different cultures, we are supposed to appreciate cultural diversity and build intercultural understanding. Learning other languages can serve as a good tool to serve such purposes. Therefore, I strongly agree that learning other languages should always be encouraged in our schools. Not only will it enhance our children’s communicative skills, but it will also equip them with a sense of intercultural understanding to live in a multicultural world. In the long term, it will help them build a better world in the future. :)

:question: Some people believe that a college or university education should be available to all students. Others believe that higher education should be available only to good students. Discuss these views. Which view do you agree with? Explain why. :idea: Everyone agrees that education is very important. It plays a crucial role in every nation’s character building. Fact shows that the rise and fall of every nation depends to such a substantial extent on the quality of education the nation provides for its citizens. The higher the quality is, the more successful the nation can be. Therefore, almost all countries in the world make basic and secondary education compulsory, in order to equip their citizens with basic knowledge and skills to survive and live a decent life. No one challenges the importance of basic and secondary education. However, when it comes to higher education, people’s opinions differ. Some people believe that higher education should be available to all students, because it opens many doors to a better future. The higher the education one receives is, the more chances in the future he/she can grab. Since everyone wants and deserves a better future, he/she should be given easy access to higher education. Others believe that higher education should be available only to good students. Their main reason is because higher education is very demanding. Firstly, it is so costly that guaranteeing its availability to all students will burden state finances. Secondly, higher education has many special requirements, especially intellectual ones, which supposedly, not every student can meet. Therefore, higher education is better reserved only to tightly selected students. As for me, I agree with those who support the idea that education in all its levels should be for all. Firstly, denying some students access to higher education will create a kind of discrimination between “good” and “bad” students. In the long term, those who can get access to higher education will likely feel superior to those who cannot. This kind of feeling will be detrimental to the nation’s character building. Secondly, everyone has potential to be developed and cultivated to its maximum. Denying some students access to higher education can kill their chances of such development and can somehow constitute a violation of their rights to a better future. :)

:question: Should criminals be punished with lengthy jail terms or re-educated and rehabilitated, using community service programs for instance, before being reintroduced to society? :idea: It is undoubted that those who have committed crime deserve punishment. However, there are different opinions as for the best way to treat criminals. Some people believe that criminals should be punished with lengthy jail terms, while some others are of the opinion that they should be re-educated and rehabilitated before being reintroduced to society. Logically, the kind of punishment which criminals have to undergo depends on the kind of crime they have committed. The more serious the crime committed is, the more severe the punishment should be. All forms of punishment will serve best if imposed on the right wrong-doers for the right reasons. Lengthy jail terms, as this terminology has clearly indicated, are a form of punishment of high-level severity. This kind of punishment will be appropriate for those who have committed very serious or fatal crime, such as the one which causes death for other people, and for hardened criminals, i.e. those who have repeatedly done crime and undergone corrective programs many times before but are found to be hardly curable. Re-education or rehabilitation will serve well for those who committed crime for the first time and the consequences of the crime are not fatal or very serious. In this case, there are some reasons to believe that since they are not yet so deeply involved in crime, they can still be corrected through re-education or rehabilitation. If they are given second chance to correct and improve themselves, they can be expected to live a good and respectable life after undergoing re-education or rehabilitation programs. In short, no size fits all. Before determining the right punishment for any criminal, those in authority have to take many factors involved into account. :)

Thank you very much, ielts2u (mike?) for your helpful advice. I really appreciate it. Just a little correction for the last paragraph:

:question: The twentieth century has seen great change. In your opinion, what is one change that should be remembered about this century? Give specific reasons and details to explain your choice. :idea: The twentieth century has seen many great changes. In my opinion, one of such changes that should be remembered is the revolutionary change in information and communication technology. This change is worth mentioning because it has affected people’s lifestyle greatly. If distance communication in the beginning of the twentieth century could take long time, in the end of the same century, such communication took only seconds. People living in one side of the world can be immediately informed of what has just happened in the other sides of the world. Some of the effects resulting from such a revolutionary change are as follows. First, this change has accelerated modernization in many parts of the world. The easy exchange of information has admittedly inspired many nations in the world to engage and compete in technological advancement which gradually makes less developed countries have no choice but to catch up with their more developed counterparts, because lagging behind in technology can threaten their survival. Second, this change has promoted openness and transparency. The advent of modern information technology has opened so wide access to information that no government or institution can operate in secrecy any more. In the early twentieth century, due to the technology of that time, information distribution was so limited. Only a few elitist people had access to information, and thus, they could dominate, monopolize, and manipulate information for their own interests. The majority of people lagged very far behind and could only take any information for granted. They had almost no means to verify it and make comparison, and thus, they could be easily manipulated by the elitists. By contrast, in the end of the same century, the flow of information exchange was so overwhelming that it is practically impossible to resist it. As a result, many countries have no choice but to adopt transparency. Third, information and communication technology has enhanced public service. Computerization, one of modern information technology’s products, has transformed the once cumbersome public service into much simpler and more customer-friendly one, saving much more time and energy. In short, the change triggered by the development of information and communication technology in the twentieth century has distinguished the twentieth century from the previous ones. We can see that such a change makes the world seem borderless and tends to merge all its peoples into one big global community, while in the previous centuries, the world seemed divided into parts or groups based on ethnicity, regionalism, stage of development, and so on.

Dear Namrata Arora, Sorry for my late response. I’ve been busy lately. And thank you very much for your encouraging remarks and constructive comments. I really appreciate them. As my fellow learner, you are welcome to give any constructive comments and I can’t claim as well that I’m any better than anyone else in this forum. As a non-native English speaker, I often find myself to be in doubt when trying to use English words, expressions, or idioms which I’m not familiar with. As a result, I rarely try out them and people often find that my vocabulary is only a little more than basic English one. Therefore, I find that your comments really enrich my understanding. We see that there are many ways or expressions to convey the same idea. :) :) p.s. I haven't joined any SKYPE yet for fear that I won't have any spare time to use it.

:question: Discuss the advantage and disadvantage of giving international aid to poor countries. :idea: Giving international aid to poor countries is an internationally common practice. Its main motive is based on moral obligation which stipulates that all fellow humankind should help each other, according to their respective abilities. This practice also has its own advantages and disadvantages. Some of them are as follows. On the side of its advantages, international aid can serve as many useful tools. First, it can serve as additional resources to help poor countries develop themselves. Many poor countries are often found in great need of resources and international aid can give them some relief. Second, international aid can serve as a tool to strengthen international relations. The donors and the recipients will benefit from each other by engaging in mutual coordination. The former usually will require the latter to guarantee that the latter will make the best use of the aid and won’t misuse it, and the latter is bound to pledge commitment to use the aid the way it is intended for. Third, international aid can facilitate technology transfer, especially when the aid is in the form of technical aid by which the donors not only give the technology (in the form of machinery or the like) but also assign their technicians to train or educate local workers to operate it. On the side of its disadvantages, international aid is found to be often misused. By giving the aid, the donors sometimes require the recipients to do something the benefit of which is disproportionately more favorable to the former than to the latter. Many recipient countries have often complained that donor countries are often found to take advantage of them by means of international aid. Sometimes, the aid is given in such a way that makes the recipients ever dependent on their donors. Finding themselves in a “weaker” bargaining position, recipient countries often has no choice whatsoever but to do what their donors tell them. On the other hand, donor countries, well aware of their “stronger” bargaining position, have the chance to make use of their aid as a pressure on their recipients. In my opinion, international aid should continue because it is a part of our moral obligation - one of the main pillars on which our humanity depends. However, to maximize its advantages and eliminate (or at least, to minimize) its disadvantages, ii should continue in good faith and in such a way that promotes mutual coordination and puts both the donors and the recipients in the same level of bargaining position. Giving aid with the real intention of subjecting its recipients is by no means a good deed and can constitute a violation of commonly accepted moral obligation.

:question: Neighbors are the people who live near us. In your opinion, what are the qualities of a good neighbor? Use specific details and examples in your answer. :idea: Living in a neighborhood demands that we have to live with other people around us. Since everyone wants to live a happy and peaceful life, everyone living in a neighborhood surely expects certain qualities of his/her neighbors so as to guarantee that they will live in harmony. In my opinion, some qualities of good neighbors are as follows. First, they should respect us. Imagine that our neighbors are those who are arrogant and tend to underestimate us. Every time we meet them, they often show disrespect. I don’t think we will live comfortably with such people. Second, they should be helpful. Every time we need help, we can turn to them. Troubles or problems can occur at any time unexpectedly. When this really happens, the ones we expect to help us are certainly those who are nearest to us. More often than not, they are our neighbors. Imagine that when we are really in great need of help, our neighbors never show any willingness to help us. We will be upset and think of them as being unsociable or unsympathetic. Third, they should behave well. We don’t expect our neighbors to act so strangely that we feel suspicious or anxious that they will bring troubles or discomfort not only upon themselves but also upon those who live around them. Imagine that our neighbors often go out stealthily in the middle of the night and when asked, they avoid answering or never give any satisfactory answer. We will be suspicious of the possibility that they are involved in any illegal activities and the police can come to our neighborhood at any time unexpectedly, ransacking for them. In general, the qualities I expect from my neighbors are the same as those I expect from good people, such as goodness, kindness, humility, openness, politeness, helpfulness, and so on. Basically, good neighbors are those who can make people around them respect them and enjoy living with them.

:question: Will modern technology, such as the internet, ever replace the book or the written word as the main source of information? :idea: Modern technology has produced many technological marvels. One of them is the internet which offers a revolutionary way in information retrieval and changes dramatically the way people seek for information. If in the past, people often had to spend so much time and energy going through many pages or sheets of printed media only to seek for specific information, now with the aid of the internet, information retrieval can be much easier and time-saving. The revolutionary way which the internet offers triggers an intriguing question whether it will replace books or printed media as the main source of information. From my observation, I tend to believe that it will. My main reason is because it has so many advantages over printed media, which make the former (the internet) more preferable, more interesting, more attractive, and even more reliable than the latter (printed media). As a result, more and more people turn to the internet every time they need to seek for information. Here are some of the advantages which I can list to support my belief. First, the kinds of information which the internet provides are almost unlimited. We can find almost any topics from a single computer equipped with a good connection to the internet, while it is impossible to find such a large number of topics only from a single book or a single newspaper. As a result, when people need almost any information, ranging from the latest news, house rentals, car sales, to public transport schedules and fares, they rely on the internet rather than printed media. Second, the information stored in the internet can be updated at very short intervals, enabling its users to always get the latest progress or development. This kind of updating can’t be applied to printed media and thus, printed media always lags behind the internet. Third, the internet also provides other facilities that printed media can’t provide. For example, it enables its users to perform multitasking or interactivity, so that they can communicate with other people, play online games, download or upload pictures, and so on, while seeking for information. Fourth, the optimization of internet usage can reduce paper consumption significantly. Since the environmental awareness is on the rise, people are encouraged to reduce paper consumption. More paper consumption can lead to more deforestation because the raw materials for making paper basically come from forests. As a result, paperless office and “going paperless” are being intensively promoted, and here in this context, the internet has proved to be supportive. Looking at the rapidly widespread use of the internet and people’s increasing reliance on it, I believe that someday the internet will triumph over printed media. The first signs of it have shown. For example, the number of internet users is increasing so dramatically, while the sale of printed media is decreasing.

Hi MSMW! In my opinion, you haven’t answered the question. Note that the question is “What do you think are the most difficult aspects of learning a language?” Then, you have to “Give reasons and examples to support your answer.” I expect that your answer is something like “From my experience, I find that speaking and writing are the most difficult aspects of learning a new language.” Then, in the next sentences, you will explain why you find speaking and writing very difficult. For example, “writing is difficult because I often can’t find the right words to express my opinion in writing” or “speaking is difficult because the new language I’m learning contains some pronunciations I don’t find in my mother language.” I see instead that your essay contains some useful tips for learning a new language. (As your fellow learner and a non-native English speaker, I might be wrong as well.)

:question: Some people choose friends who are different from themselves. Others choose friends who are similar to themselves. Compare the advantages of having friends who are different from you with the advantages of having friends who are similar to you. Which kind of friends do you prefer for yourself? Why? :idea: In choosing friends, different people show different preferences. Some people prefer to choose friends who are different from themselves, while the others prefer to choose friends who are similar to themselves. Each of both preferences has its own advantages. From experience, I have learned about those advantages such as follows. Those who choose friends who are different from themselves state that one of the main reasons of making friends is to enrich their lives. They find that making friends with people who are different from themselves helps them enrich their lives. For example, by talking to or having discussions with their friends, they have good opportunities to gain new thoughts, ideas, opinions, etc. which they have never known or thought of before. By participating in activities with their friends, they have good opportunities to learn new lessons, experiences, or skills which they have never tried out or even heard of before. In brief, with friends who are different from themselves, they can share many opportunities from which they can gain many new and useful experiences, views, opinions, etc, and broaden their views and understanding. Those who choose friends who are similar to themselves are usually people who want to keep their lives simple and don’t expect any radical changes. By making friends with people who are similar to themselves, they can keep their lives simple because they don’t have to bother with many new or unfamiliar things which are often found to cause troubles. Subsequently, they can save much time and energy and they don’t have to change the way they are. For example, when their friends invite them to have a talk or have discussions, they can expect that the topics are about anything they are familiar with or fond of, rather than anything strange or weird which is often found to be unacceptable. When they join in their friends’ activities (such as cooking or sports), they can expect enjoyment, since they are familiar with the activities and know how to make the best use of the activities, rather than trying out something completely new which is often found to be confusing or annoying. As for me, I prefer to make friends with people who are different from myself, since I always look forward to new and useful experiences. From experience, I find that making friends with people who are different from me helps me enrich my life because from them, I can learn many new things which I can’t expect from people who are similar to me.

:question: Nowadays doctors can become very rich. Should they not focus on profitable activities such as plastic surgery or looking after rich patients and concentrate more on patients’ health, no matter how rich they are? :idea: Health is very important to everyone, no matter whether he/she is rich or poor. Without good health, no one can live a decent life. Therefore, access to good health should be available for everyone, because it is one of everybody’s basic human rights. However, keeping ourselves healthy isn’t always easy and cheap. Many diseases often require special treatments which can be so expensive. Well aware of the importance of good health, rich people usually don’t care how much money they should spend to get good health because money isn’t a problem for them. But for poor people, maintaining good health can be a very big problem, especially when they contract serious diseases. Responding to people’s undeniable need for good health, different doctors take different attitudes. Many of them choose to serve humanity and focus their concentration on improving people’s health and helping everyone get access to good health services. On the contrary, some doctors focus only on profitable health services, such as plastic surgery, or look for rich patients because they know well that the rich will pay them highly as long as their services meet the rich’s standards. In my opinion, doctors should prioritize their patients’ health. They should realize that medical science emerges from and builds on humanity. Once they decide to become doctors, they have to always bear in their minds that medical professions demand high dedication. They can’t lower these noble professions into merely profit-making ones. If to become rich is their primary personal aim, they should give up medical professions and seek for other professions which, by nature, allow them to amass wealth ethically. Furthermore, many countries require every doctor to take an oath before he/she can practice medicine. In the oath-taking ceremony, he/she swears, among others, to consecrate his/her life to the service of humanity and not to use medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity. Therefore, practicing medicine simply to get rich while setting aside people’s health is a violation of the oath and humanity itself.

Hi acc1444! I just want to show some mistakes in your essay above.

Hi hosnatul! Your idea is very good. I think you made a little grammatical mistakes in your first sentence. After the verb "let," we don't use "to infinitive."

Hi acc1444! I'm your fellow learner in this forum. I'm not an English teacher, not even a native English speaker. Just please let me give you my comments. Perhaps they will be helpful. Look at your sentence. That is not a complete sentence. My suggestion is Here are your sentences. I think you should write "their child" instead of "a child."

:question: Some people think that the family is the most important influence on young adults. Other people think that friends are the most important influence on young adults. Which view do you agree with? Use examples to support your position. :idea: Some people find that the family is the most important influence on young adults, while others think of friends as those who influence young adults the most. From my experience, I learn that it is my friends who influenced me the most when I grew up into adulthood. As I grew up, I began to discover my self-identity. This discovery led me to associate with people who had the same backgrounds, the same aspirations, the same interests, etc. as mine. I found that associating with them helped me develop my self-identity and my potential. For example, when I was still a student and needed people who could help me do homework or decide what classes I had to take, I could turn to my fellow students. When I got a job and didn’t know how to handle a specific kind of task, I could ask my fellow workers to help me. In most cases, people I usually turn to for assistance or advice are usually my friends. I still rely on my family, but only to help me with my specific personal problems. Another friend of mine has told me her experience which is similar to mine. That friend is ambitious about her career as an English teacher. She needs good models of English teachers whom she can look up to and whom she can consult about the profession. Unfortunately, she cannot find those kinds of people in her own family since she is the only one in her family who pursues a career in teaching. Consequently, she has to look for them in teacher community in which she finds her seniors and her fellow teachers. With them, she can talk much about her profession, exchange information, and share experiences. As she develops her career, their influence becomes more and more evident. Later on, I find that some other friends of mine have similar experiences. Though family is still of great importance to us, when it comes to our careers or professions, to which we devote a considerable part of our productive lives, our friends and colleagues play more significant roles.

:question: What should a government do for a country to become successful? :idea: One of the most important agents responsible for a country’s success or failure is its government. It is the government which takes the lead in shaping the future of its country and nation. In its hands is the authority to manage and guide its country and people. Whenever the government does its job well, its country will succeed and prosper. On the contrary, whenever it abuses its power and turns corrupt, its country will decay and perhaps fall into a failed state. To maintain its country’s sustainability and to guarantee its success, the government has to take fundamental actions. In my opinion, the most important ones are human resources empowerment and law enforcement. Fact shows that human resources are the most important determinants of a country’s success or failure. If the quality of human resources in a country is high, the country will have the strength and potency to withstand all challenges, develop, and advance itself. On the contrary, if the quality of human resources in a country is low, the country will face many difficulties in keeping its survival and sustainability. Therefore, to achieve success for a country, its government has to empower its human resources to their utmost and keep their quality high. Fact also shows that law plays a vital role in guaranteeing a country’s success. Without law, society will be plunged into chaos, anarchy, or disorder - a condition which makes any development, growth, or advancement impossible. On the other hand, strong law enforcement will create a conducive environment for higher competitiveness and effective national innovation systems. Some countries’ success in improving their people’s standard of living is substantially due to their governments’ strong commitment to enforcing the law. In conclusion, human resources empowerment and law enforcement are the most vital actions that every government should prioritize highly among others in order to achieve success for its country. When both actions are already going on well, the country will gradually develop into a prosperous one.

:question: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Playing games teaches us about life. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. :idea: Some people state that playing games can teach us about life. I agree with that statement as long as what is meant by games here refers specifically to educational games and not simply to any kinds of games. As their name implies, educational games are those specifically designed to educate, train, and instill good attitudes and behavior in people who play them. By playing such games, the players are expected to learn lessons which gradually lead them to self-improvement and better attitudes towards life. In my opinion, soccer can serve as an example of a good educational game. It has important characteristics which can teach its players good attitudes towards life such as follows. First, soccer teaches mutual respect. Soccer involves 22 players. If each player doesn’t respect the other players and plays just as he likes it, the game won’t go as expected. Similarly in real life, people should respect each other because without mutual respect, society can be plunged into chaos or anarchy. Second, soccer helps develop team building and good coordination. Soccer involves 2 teams, with each team consisting of 11 players. In order to win, each team has to be cohesive and to apply good coordination and discipline to its members. Each member has to learn what role he plays, how to play it, and what he should or shouldn’t do. A member’s failure to perform well will affect the overall performance of his team. Similarly in real life, each member of society should impose discipline on himself/herself, build good coordination with other members of his/her society, and perform his/her duties well, in order to contribute to the good of his/her society. Third, soccer instills patience and carefulness. Sayings like “haste makes waste” and “think well before doing” apply to soccer. In playing soccer, a player should control and behave himself so as not to take any thoughtless move or action which can result in his team’s bad performance or image. Similarly in real life, everyone has to be patient, careful, and thoughtful, so as not to incur regret or bring shame on himself/herself or his/her society. Fourth, soccer promotes sportsmanship. Every player has to play fairly and in good faith. He has to obey the rules and can’t simply do anything to win. A “good loser” (i.e. one who loses fairly and respectably) should be respected, while a “bad winner” (i.e. one who wins unfairly or by cheating) should be mocked at. Similarly in real life, everyone has to act in accordance with the law and can’t go just as he/she likes it. In conclusion, soccer teaches its players good attitudes towards life, such as those mentioned above. By playing soccer frequently and fairly, the player is expected to realize and internalize its positive characteristics and then apply them to his real life, in order to contribute to his society.