Search the Community

Please Grade my below essay, it's an independent task for Toefl. Topic: People benefit from traveling in their own country than from traveling to the foreign country. I agree that traveling in the own country as well as the foreign country benefit people in various ways. traveling in the own country used to know in depth about own country different flavors. Foreign country traveling used to know about a different culture and lifestyle. Traveling in its own country is advantageous in many terms first it's very cheap to travel in the same country. we can easily communicate with local people so it's easy to bargain. this gives a deep knowledge about our own culture, lifestyle, and food. In our own country, it's easy to visit a place more than once because it's cheap and easily accessible. visiting a place more than once enable us to experience the same thing with the different point of views and angles. More information shall enable us to share it with others which will result into increased tourism in our country, this will affect our economy and finally, it will be used as the welfare of our country people. Traveling in a foreign country is helpful for getting worldwide knowledge. this introduces us to know about different culture, lifestyle, and their local food taste. we meet different type of peoples, mostly we come across communication problem but at the same time we communicate with those local people in terms gesture, different sound words. so it enable us to express ourselves in more creative ways. Now the day's lots of information is present on the internet, we can browse for foreign location on the internet too, but experiencing it physically is a unique and mindblowing experience which can't be experienced through looking in the pictures on the internet. so overall traveling has lots of advantage in terms of knowledge, experience the beauty of different places and economical benefits.

Reading Passage: Reading Time: 3 minutes In the United States, employees typically work five days a week for eight hours each day. However, many employees want to work a four-day week and are willing to accept less pay in order to do so. A mandatory policy requiring companies to offer their employees the option of working a four-day workweek for four-fifths (80 percent) of their normal pay would benefit the economy as a whole as well as the individual companies and the employees who decided to take the option. The shortened workweek would increase company profits because employees would feel more rested and alert, and as a result, they would make fewer costly errors in their work. Hiring more staff to ensure that the same amount of work would be accomplished would not result in additional payroll costs because four-day employees would only be paid 80 percent of the normal rate. In the end, companies would have fewer overworked and error-prone employees for the same money, which would increase company profits. For the country as a whole, one of the primary benefits of offering this option to employees is that it would reduce unemployment rates. If many full-time employees started working fewer hours, some of their workload would have to be shifted to others. Thus, for every four employees who went on an 80 percent week, a new employee could be hired at the 80 percent rate. Finally, the option of a four-day workweek would be better for individual employees. Employees who could afford a lower salary in exchange for more free time could improve the quality of their lives by spending the extra time with their families, pursuing private interests, or enjoying leisure activities. Narrator: Now listen to part of a lecture on the topic you just read about. Professor: Offering employees the option of a four-day workweek won’t affect company profits, economic conditions, or the lives of employees in the ways the reading suggests. First, offering a four-day workweek will probably force companies to spend more— possibly a lot more. Adding new workers means putting much more money into providing training and medical benefits; remember … the costs of things like health benefits can be the same whether an employee works four days or five. And having more employees also requires more office space and more computers. These additional costs would quickly cut into company profits. Second, with respect to overall employment, it doesn’t follow that once some employees choose a four-day workweek, many more jobs will become available. Hiring new workers is costly, as I argued a moment ago. And companies have other options: they might just choose to ask their employees to work overtime to make up the difference. Worse, companies might raise expectations … they might start to expect that their four-day employees can do the same amount of work they used to do in five days. If this happens, then no additional jobs will be created and current jobs will become more unpleasant. Finally, while a four-day workweek offers employees more free time to invest in their personal lives, it also presents some risks that could end up reducing their quality of life. Working a shorter week can decrease employees’ job stability and harm their chances for advancing their careers. Four-day employees are likely to be the first to lose their jobs during an economic downturn. They may also be passed over for promotions because companies might prefer to have five-day employees in management positions to ensure continuous coverage and consistent supervision for the entire workweek. Narrator: Summarize the points made in the lecture, be sure to explain how they cast doubt on specific points made in the reading passage. Here is My Response: Please check my response and let me know where i can do improvement. In the lecture, the narrator suggests that reducing workload from 5 days to 4 days won't affect the economy, which is contradictory to the reading passage. According to the narrator to hire new Employees needs more money for training, medical benefits, more computers and more office space. which will cut down on company profits and this may cost more money than retaining the same no of employees for 5 days work. Besides, reading states that shortened weekend will increase company profits as their employee feel more rested and relaxed so they will likely to make less error in their work but narrator thinks that company may ask their 4-day employees to work overtime to complete the 5-day work in 4-days. this will make the current job more unpleasant and this won't create additional jobs too. In the end, the reading passage states that 4 days employees will have more free time in exchange for their lower salary this could improve their quality of life by spending more time with family members, pursuing private interests and enjoying leisure activities but narrator says that 4-days employee would risk their job stability and also advancement in their career path because they may lose their jobs in economic downturn . They may also be passed over promotion too because the company will prefer 5-day employee for the management position as they can give more time for consistent supervision.

There are Many different types of music today. Why do we need music? Is there traditional music of a country more important than the international music that is heard every where nowadays? Music is food of soul. It provides tired minds a healthy entertainment and help to release pressure of work and other social activities. If we look back at history, man love music and melody all the time. People were used to show their sentiment through music in different circumstances like war and battles, happiness and wedding ceremonies, grief and sorrow etc. Interesting thing is that in all the regions like Asia, Gulf, Africa, Australia, America music is admired equally. In short, it has deep perpetual relationship with human being. There are several types of music practiced and listened in the world. Communities have their own traditional or folk music. For example classical raga is pure Indo-Pak music type whereas pop music is recognized as international music. Some people believe that traditional music is more important than international music. They say that traditional music has its roots in the culture and it represents the history, traditions and thoughts of a community. For example, Indian classical music express their religion and it is considered as sacred as religion. In contrast, international music is only for entertainment. Traditional music helps a man to get connected with his cultural heritage whereas international music leads to globalization and finally one may lost his cultural identity. On the other hand, some people have opposite point of view. They believe that international music is as important as traditional is. By this, one can get closer and familiar to other nations. He can enjoy variety of musical instruments. More vocal options are there. They say that International music presents emerging trends and thoughts. Furthermore, as the man get civilized and world get developed, need of music also get changed for modern man. The parameters for likeness keep on changing with generations. And international music is up to date with current needs. I belief that traditional music is more important when compared to international music. This point of view is more stronger for me. Without a shadow of doubt, international music has charm, but traditional music has its own scenario. It is more important because it has historical and geographical associations with a culture. Cultures must be alive for new generations, people must be get connected to traditional music for getting culture alive.

<strong>Topic</strong>-Even though Globalisation affects the world's economics in a very positive way, its negative side should not be forgotten.<br><br><strong>Ans-</strong> Our world is becoming a small village as a result of globalisation. Globalisation affects our life in a positive way as well as negative way.<br><br>Many people hold the opinion that globalisation leads to brain drains. In other words many talented people in poor countries are migrating to rich countries for better life, thus the poor country looses the talented people. Globalisation also creates multiculturalism, which results in various social and religious conflicts. Moreover, many developed countries such as USA, UK, Canada are investing to less developed countries, as they can pay low wage rate and make profit, which is made possible through globalisation.&nbsp;<br><br>Others, however, disagree that Globalisation creates more job opportunity. Many companies are now making direct investment which reduces unemployment. Furthermore, it enhances the standard of livings. People can use foreign products because of globalisation.<br><br>In addition, uses of latest technology became more easy due to globalisation. Companies like Google, Microsoft can be seen their branches in less developed countries such as India.<br><br>In conclusion, despites some negative points, globalisation made huge positive impact in our life.

Topic: In many countries traditional food is changed to international fast food. This has negative effect on Families and societies as well. Do you agree or disagree provide reasons for your opinion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In recent years, the debate over whether or not fast foods have influenced our life badly has sparked a great deal of controversy among people and nutrition specialists. In spite of some beliefs that these modern foods are more advantageous for our life, many are of the opinion that we should change our new habits in this field. A very convincing argument in favor of restricting modern foods is that they have negative effects on people's health. It is widely believed that fast food might be the main cause of some new increasing disease like fatness, blood pressure, Heart problems and some kinds of cancers. In addition, scientists claim that the high amount of fat and calorie in these kinds of foods are not appropriate for our modern life. Similarly, it is often said that the variety of fast foods are limited and it can lead to some problems due to the lack of vitamins and other essential elements. What is more, it is generally argued that fast foods might lead to several health problems owing to the fact hat the process of production of them often is not healthy. Another common point supporting conserving the traditional foods is that they can illustrate the culture of each nation. It is commonly suggested that it is necessary for all people entire the world to look after their previous traditions. Also, most people believe that our previous generations' food might be one of our cultural heritages. Furthermore, sociologists are of the claim that our future generations will need to utilize their fathers' experiences in each field. Besides, it is often argued that we can analyze so many different nations' behaviors and culture by studying their traditional skills like the ways that they have had for making food. On the other hand, it could be acceptable for people to prefer fast food than traditional ones owing to the fact that it can have some economical advantages. It is usually said that traditional food in most countries need more time and more money too. Moreover, many people state that nowadays they can not spend more than half an hour in preparing food for themselves or their families due to their busy jobs. Likewise, it could be claimed that fast food are available everywhere such as work places, schools, universities, underground railways, and shopping centers and etc. In a nutshell. Considering what has been discussed, it would be quite fair to state that the overall negative effects of fast foods overcome its advantages.