I only have two available at present. The next lesson should be ready to buy at the end of this month (hopefully) which is the adv disadv essay. If I have time, I’ll also add a couple of writing task 2 lessons as well this year.
All the best
Glen noted that some American troops “for mere pleasure, fire indiscriminately into Vietnamese homes and, without provocation or justification, shoot at the people themselves,” and that “severe beatings and torture at knife point are usual means of questioning captives.” He ended by asking General Abrams to implement the codes of the Geneva Conventions. Abrams passed Glen’s letter on to Major Colin Powell (future Secretary of State), who never interviewed Glen and dismissed the allegations as overly broad and without documentation.
What happen if I talk about both point of view in “Opinion questions” and then in the conclusion I give my opinion? Can I do that? Or it is recomended choise one side and write about that un all essay?
Sure. Some teacher recommend having only one sentence. Personally, I think you should make that decision in your test on the day and depending on your essay. If you are worried about word count, have two sentences instead.
The videos on the three different type of usual essays asked for IELTS writing task 2 are to be purchased linked. I can not afford to it, do you have any other means to be generous enough to share it.
So your opinion is that education should be mandatory and education should not be mandatory? This means you have no clear opinion. You must present a clear position in the IELTS opinion essay – you will get a low mark for Task Response if you fail to present and support a clear position. A balanced view does not mean you agree and disagree. It means you present a specific view which is quantified.
There was a pause, and McCain said, in a way that works only with people who talk late into the night with one another, “Are you guys chicken or not?” Ezell Blair worked up the courage the next day to ask for a cup of coffee because he was flanked by his roommate and two good friends from high school.
I appreciate for your time and effort to reply my question. I still have confusion with agree or disagree and argumentative essay. So both are same. That means we can follow same structure for both them. Is that correct?
In hindsight, Truman’s failure to respond to Ho’s entreaties was a tragic error. The Viet Minh were not beholden to the Soviet Union, and the Viet Minh’s egalitarian economic program posed no threat to the United States. Had Truman offered aid to Ho’s independent government, the French would likely have been deterred from re-imposing their control, which means that there would have been no First Indochina War, no U.S. involvement in that war, and no subsequent American War in Vietnam.
In the future, the most valuable science institutions will be closely linked to the people and places whose urgent problems need to be solved; they will cultivate strong lines of accountability to those for whom solutions are important; they will incentivize scientists to care about the problems more than the production of knowledge. They will link research agendas to the quest for improved solutions — often technological ones — rather than to understanding for its own sake. The science they produce will be of higher quality, because it will have to be. The current dominant paradigm will meanwhile continue to crumble under the weight of its own contradictions, but it will also continue to hog most of the resources and insist on its elevated social and political status. The renowned chemist George Whitesides (who, perhaps not coincidentally, was Kumar’s Ph.D. advisor) in in 2012 that, in the past century or so, purely curiosity-driven science has delivered only one or two fundamentally transformational breakthroughs (quantum mechanics and perhaps genomics), and that, given this performance record, keeping science separate from technology “may or may not be an affordable luxury.” A different way to put it might be that the sort of undisciplined exploration that Vannevar Bush was peddling back in 1945 should be seen now in much the same light as space travel, support for the arts or for public monuments, and wilderness protection. However worthwhile and ennobling it may be for its own sake, it cannot be justified in terms of solving problems or guiding policy decisions — or even of leading toward verifiable truth.
I have a question to ask in related to a recent exam question that you have posted. the question is, ‘Countries with longer working days are more economically successful, but there are also some negative consequences. Do you agree?’
In this essay I feel like there are three independent areas that I need to connect each other. How longer working hours develop country economy and how longer working days bring social issues.
Is this correct? Or my entire essay should be on longer working days and social issues?
I think that longer working days develop economy is a fact (according to this question) and we don’t need to describe a given fact. Just mention it only in introduction?
So my idea here is to disagree and say that i beleive the govt is not spending too much money on conservation and that is is deserved. So i have made both paragraphs on the importance of wildlife only which justifies govt spend. I hope it is OK to not mention anything in this essay and discuss about “other problems that are more important” , since my arguement is quite in favur of wildlife conservation.