Dear all,
Could you please judge my 3 essays below? I am new here.
My goal is to get a score of at least 215 (CBT) for TOEFL. I have to do the test this Thursday.
The words marked in red are misspelled words that I noticed myself after writing the essay during the test.
Thank you!
Greetz,
Elisa
ESSAY 1
Question:
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
The automobile has brought more harm than good to the planet.
Use reasons and specific examples to support your opinion.
My Answer:
I do not agree with the statement that the automobile has brought more harm than good to the planet. Automobiles have brought us lots of benefits. If the automobile was never invented, we would never have been able to develop our economy, society and ourselves as we have. Automobiles made us more mobile, we can go almost anywhere we want to. To me, an automobile means freedom and independency. If we would only have trains and boats to transport and to travel, traveling and transporting would take much more time than necessary. And especially for transport means: time is money.
Automobiles brought lots of benefits to our economy. There is a whole industry that makes lots of money with making, selling and fixing cars, which has a very positive effect to our wealth. Thanks to the invention of cars, busses and trucks were invented, which was a very important for the development of trade.
For example, if a Dutch company wants to buy oranges from a Spanish company, it would take weeks or even months to transport it by boat to the Netherlands. If they would transport it by train, the Spanish company needs to be close to a rail track (uit elkaar), so that the goods can be put into the train. Transport by plane is probably too expensive. For this problem transportation by a truck would be a good solution; it is fast, not too expensive and it is able to access almost any place.
Also, if we did not have automobiles we would not be able to travel as much as we do. And we would not have the freedom that comes along with automobiles. We would have to arrange a train or boat ticket, which takes much more time than when you just have to start your car. When you go by car you can choose way more freely the time of your departure and arrival. Also, an automobile can drive you almost anywhere you want to, a train or a boat has only several stations or harbors where it departs and arrives.
If automobiles were not invented, lots of people might not be able to access their work place, because they work somewhere a train or boat does not come and is too far to go by bike to. This would cause unemployment, which always costs the society lots of money.
Of course automobiles harm our environment. The fuel comes out as harmful gas. This problem can be solved if automobiles are able to drive on another source, like water or air. There are already cars that drive on something else than fuel, which is way less harmful than gas. This is a good step to automobiles that do not harm our environment anymore at all.
ESSAY 2
Question:
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
Families with fewer children should be rewarded for helping to prevent overpopulation.
Use reasons and specific examples to support your opinion.
My Answer:
I do not agree with the statement that families with fewer children should be rewarded for helping to prevent overpopulation. My main reason for my opinion on this statement, is that it would not be realistic and impractical to reward families with fewer children, simply because it would cost too much money. I assume that the reward will be given in the form of an amount or a tax discount.
I would prefer to "punish" families with lots of children, if they have more than two. For example, families with more than two kids should pay more tax or get child support from the government only for their first two children (so they have to pay everything for their third, fourth, fifth, etc. child themselves). This would gain money for the government (by punishing), instead of cost money for the government (by rewarding).
For example, if the government would reward families who have only one or two children by giving them $100 per year, this would cost the government millions of dollars they do not have (they already overspend). Also, for this family $100 per year will probably represent only a small amount and they might just think "oh that is nice".
If the government would punish families who have more than two children, for example, by letting them pay several hundreds of dollars for each child more they have above two, this would gain millions of dollars for the government. The government could use that money for things like education, health care, etc. Also, the families who have to pay money for their children because they have more than two, would think twice about having more children. And families who do not have children yet, will start considering not getting more than two children, which they might not have considered if the "punishment rule" would not exist.
I do not think rewarding is a positive stimulation for families for not getting more than two children. They might be given rewards as long as they have only a few children, but to me that seems like a waste if those families get more than a few children after all. I think that punishing for having more than just a few children is a better stimulation for not getting more.
ESSAY 3
Question:
Compare and contrast the advantages of choosing a stable career over an adventurous lifestyle.
Use reasons and specific examples to support your opinion.
My Answer:
One of the most important advantages of a stable career is the security that comes with it. If you have a stable career you will probably have a good job, which results into a decent salary every month. With that salary you will probably be able to buy a house, a nice car and pay for all of your other life expenses, like insurances, health care, etc. With a stable career you know what to expect from life; you know what probably will happen the next couple of years. For lots of people that is very important.
Another advantage of a stable career is that it provides lots of people satisfaction about their lives, because in our society a career reflects the fact that a person has achieved something worthy. Also, because of their achievement in the form of a career, these career minded people will likely be respected by other people and maybe even power. Other people who do not have such a steady career might look up to them. Many decisions people make in their lives are because of reasons like respect, power, etc.
The biggest advantage of an adventurous lifestyle is that it is - it might sound simple, but I think it is true - adventurous: you do not know what tomorrow will bring you. Adventurous people like that, because, for example, they do not want to know what the next couple of years will bring them, or they just really could not stand a job from 9 to 5. They will probably get bored by an office job or something like that. Therefore they prefer the insecurity of the adventurous life above a steady and decent income at the end of the month.
An adventurous life has other advantages too. You will be able to see the world; you can experience things that people with stable careers do not have the time for because they have to work or have to meet other obligations. Also, adventurous people do not have to study for years to graduate for some degree. Adventurous people mostly do not care about that kind of things, they prefer lots of time for themselves, which they can spend as they like.
In my opinion the most important contrast between a stable career and an adventurous life is the security. A stable career has lots of it, and an adventurous life does not. This security brings benefits as well as disadvantages. A stable career brings opportunities because of the stable salary (own house, etc.), but also obligations and not so much spare time. An adventurous life has less security and brings also opportunities (traveling, etc.), but probably also not so much money to spend.
