"Technology" Development in technology has brought various environmental problems. Some believe that people need to live simpler lives to solve it. Others, however, believe that technology is the way to solve these problems. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
It is undeniable that technology is responsible for damaging the environment in several ways. Although some people think that the best way to address these issues is to live as simple as possible, I believe that breakthrough technology itself can solve these problems. [V1 and V2, you support V2.]
On the one hand, some people argue that the only way to tackle technology-induced environmental problems is by removing the causes of these problems. The main reason is that factories and vehicles produce emissions and exhaust fumes which contribute to global warming. In addition, people are using several kinds of labour-saving devices which consume too much electricity generated from burning fossil fuels. They also point out that manufacturing technology creates large amount of waste, and throwing away of broken or unwanted electronic devices is also a big issue because most of them contain hazardous materials like lead and mercury which can contaminate land, water and even food chain. Therefore, they think that the most effective solution would be living simply not by producing and using any technology.[ not-so-simple life styles -> production -> wastes -> env problems. So shall we uproot the root cause? Life style as the root of all env evils?]
Nevertheless, I believe that new technology would be the best way to address these environmental problems. Firstly, technology helps us develop and produce new materials and devices that are sustainable and do not harm the environment. For example, introducing electric cars or solar cars would be the most effective way to solve air pollution caused by carbon emission. Secondly, production of electricity from renewable energy resources such as solar, wind, nuclear energy and invention of energy efficient devices could be a solution to save natural resources which are running out in the near future. Finally, using appropriate recycling method and technology to dispose electronic wastes could solve the land pollution problem. [1. new materials and devices 2. new energy 3. recycle. Very good.]
In conclusion, I believe that it is simply unrealistic to get back to the old paths because it can have an extremely negative impact on our living standards. In my opinion, new technologies can help reduce environmental problems caused by technological advances. [You go back to your support of V2. Good, a clear finish.]
[I am happy with your essay. you 'll do well in IELTS. You get about 7.1 band if I am the grader.]
[No problem, so, no solution. Only 2 ways to improve.]
First, have more ideas and compressed them. Say, now you pack 4 suits (1 cause-effect chain in Para2 and 3 way-outs in Para3 ) in 1 suitcase. What if you pack 20 suits instead? Try, the quality will shoot up.
Second, up your style. 1, weed out filler and weak connectives. 2, use more active, energetic verbs, more descriptive, vivid nouns and adjectives.
I will not rewrite this essay b/c it is enough. But next time, I am going to press you on these 2 points: compressed content and vigorous, compact style.
Thank you.
(323)
It is undeniable that technology is responsible for damaging the environment in several ways. Although some people think that the best way to address these issues is to live as simple as possible, I believe that breakthrough technology itself can solve these problems. [V1 and V2, you support V2.]
On the one hand, some people argue that the only way to tackle technology-induced environmental problems is by removing the causes of these problems. The main reason is that factories and vehicles produce emissions and exhaust fumes which contribute to global warming. In addition, people are using several kinds of labour-saving devices which consume too much electricity generated from burning fossil fuels. They also point out that manufacturing technology creates large amount of waste, and throwing away of broken or unwanted electronic devices is also a big issue because most of them contain hazardous materials like lead and mercury which can contaminate land, water and even food chain. Therefore, they think that the most effective solution would be living simply not by producing and using any technology.[ not-so-simple life styles -> production -> wastes -> env problems. So shall we uproot the root cause? Life style as the root of all env evils?]
Nevertheless, I believe that new technology would be the best way to address these environmental problems. Firstly, technology helps us develop and produce new materials and devices that are sustainable and do not harm the environment. For example, introducing electric cars or solar cars would be the most effective way to solve air pollution caused by carbon emission. Secondly, production of electricity from renewable energy resources such as solar, wind, nuclear energy and invention of energy efficient devices could be a solution to save natural resources which are running out in the near future. Finally, using appropriate recycling method and technology to dispose electronic wastes could solve the land pollution problem. [1. new materials and devices 2. new energy 3. recycle. Very good.]
In conclusion, I believe that it is simply unrealistic to get back to the old paths because it can have an extremely negative impact on our living standards. In my opinion, new technologies can help reduce environmental problems caused by technological advances. [You go back to your support of V2. Good, a clear finish.]
[I am happy with your essay. you 'll do well in IELTS. You get about 7.1 band if I am the grader.]
[No problem, so, no solution. Only 2 ways to improve.]
First, have more ideas and compressed them. Say, now you pack 4 suits (1 cause-effect chain in Para2 and 3 way-outs in Para3 ) in 1 suitcase. What if you pack 20 suits instead? Try, the quality will shoot up.
Second, up your style. 1, weed out filler and weak connectives. 2, use more active, energetic verbs, more descriptive, vivid nouns and adjectives.
I will not rewrite this essay b/c it is enough. But next time, I am going to press you on these 2 points: compressed content and vigorous, compact style.
Thank you.
(323)
IELTS Task 2
Q: improvement in health, education and trade are essential for the development of poorer nations. However, the governments of the richer nations should take more responsibility for helping the poorer nations in such areas.
Q: improvement in health, education and trade are essential for the development of poorer nations. However, the governments of the richer nations should take more responsibility for helping the poorer nations in such areas.
To what extent do you agree or disagree.
[question analysis ==
health+education + trade for poorer nations.
richer nations take more responsibility]
[ Ideas that crop up in mind right away (1) What about self-help? (2) No saint. Win-win only will be sustainable.]
It is undeniable that public services such as healthcare, quality education and business opportunities are important for poor countries to develop in many aspects. While I agree that wealthier States should contribute more to support those areas, I also believe that individual country should take several steps to improve their essential services to citizens.
There are many reasons why I think the rich nations should provide a greater level of support to the countries in need. Firstly, these economically strong nations possess technological advances and human resources to help establish infrastructure. For example, new town plans and road networks could be established in order to provide consumers' demand and free flow of goods within the area. Secondly, there are many trained professionals and experts who could advise and lead the educational institutions in developing countries. Finally, support money and grants and international investment from richer part of the world can be used in areas to improve literacy rate and unemployment which are common problems facing third world nations.
[It is in their self-interest to help poorer nations. They should do it as a form of investment. ]
Nevertheless, I disagree with the view that poor nations could expect long term comprehensive support from richer nations. Because there are many ways these disadvantaged countries could strive for on their own instead of waiting for more international aids. One effective means is to maintain law and order within the country. By this mean, local and international businesses would find a way to succeed. If there is no political stability, there would be no investment from multinational companies which would fail to create jobs for local people. Another possible means is to open foreign policy as fair and flexible as possible which is highly essential for further establishment of global trade.
[Even in the very high-tech Silicon Valley, companies do not die or live by technology, not by knowledge, not by assets and resources, not by wit and strategy. "Culture eats strategy for lunch," everyone agrees. The same goes for countries. A country where law and order reigns, where justice is served and shown to have been served, where love and self-respect work hand in hand, where dreams materialize in one's life time ... shall not live poor for long whether anyone helps her or not. So it is in rich countries' self-interest to help such a country. It will go with or without their help! ]
In conclusion, the richer countries should provide various types of aids to the poor, however, the government of poorer nations also have responsibility to welcome[use] these upcoming international aids [effectively].
No comments:
Post a Comment