practise Ielts writing task2 around score:6 (academic)

[Tô Lan Phương]

topic: modern communications mean that it's no longer necessary to write letters. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Thanks to the developed technology, people now can take many advantages in modern communications such as sending email, chatting, joining a webinar - web based seminar or making a meeting - via the Internet in lieu of writing letters. These are very crucial in our daily life because they are fast, free and no loss. But in my opinion, it does not mean that it is no longer necessary to write letters because of three underneath reasons.

First of all, writing a letter is a formal way to express ideas, or request some thing from a person who has a high position. We can think carefully when we write and we can reread our letter before sending as well. For example, a staff member would like to present an innovative plan to his manager, or a student wants to get a scholarship to a university.

Secondary, although the rate of Internet relationship has skyrocketed in recent decades, letters always play an important role in every love story. When we fall in love, we usually would like to see the handwriting of our sweetheart and analyze every punctuation. Otherwise, the writer can put all of his/her inspirations in the letter while writing. The receiver would be warmer and happier.

Finally, we can use either typed or handwritten letters as evidences or souvenirs. All contractual documents with legal signatures could be stored for a long time in paper form.

In conclusion, modern communications will support writing letters, but not replace it.

[myhanh]

Three reasons are not good.
"writing a letter is a formal way to express ideas" => Write an email or make a phone call are also formal ways.
"see the handwriting of our sweetheart and analyze every punctuation" => It maybe the best one, but it isnot very important.
"we can use either typed or handwritten letters as evidences or souvenirs" => email is a good evidence, ecard is a good souvernirs
To me,
1) Some people cannot use the modern technology. They want to read letter.
2) If you don't have receiver's phone number, chat nick, ... you just have his/her mailing address, what communication channel do you use?
3) The reciver love to read letter than email.

[Tô Lan Phương]

topic: keeping animals in captivity is cruel. There is no reason for zoos to exist in the 21 st century
How far do you agree or disagree with this opinion

Many countries have voted to guarantee animal rights in their constitutions recently. More and more people would like to prevent animals from being hunted, tamed, or traded. They even demonstrate against keeping animals in captivity. But in my opinion, I do not agree to close all zoos in the world because of these following reasons.

First of all, zoos are very important to educate children, especially those who live in the city, about the habitats and diets of animals. For example, visiting the zoos can help children learn how tigers or lions roar and how lively they are. Young pupils can also feed herbivores by handing them grasses or sugarcanes. These significant actions are useful to build a good feeling about animals in the mind of children, who will be the boss of Earth in the future.

Secondary, it is wonderful to picnic in zoos because they are usually spacious and fresh with plenty of trees and flowers. Here fathers can teach their children about the necessity of animals, plants for our life, and mothers can prepare meals and make tents. In addition, we can take as many pictures together as we like. All family members will feel happier and closer after these relaxing activities.

Last but not least, zoos can be safe houses for endangered species in the red list. Rhinos, elegant sunbirds, pandas ...can be cross-bred by scientists. Moreover, the income from entrance tickets can support the protection of animal projects.

In conclusion, it is a good idea to respect animal rights but it would be over if we said there were no reason for zoos to exist in the 21st century.

[Tô Lan Phương]

topic: computers are not necessarily the best way for children to learn. In many areas of education a teacher can be more effective in helping pupils to gain new skills and knowledge.
to what extent do you agree or disagree with this point of view?


Thanks to many innovative inventions, such as computers, laptops, iPads, etc., children have leant faster and more effectively. There is no doubt about the advantages of hi-tech in teaching. The class will be more lively and attractive for pupils with colorful illustrations. There are many educational games, which make children interested in studying on computers. But in my opinion, teachers still play an important role in many areas of education, especially in the developing countries where there is lack of investment in education.

First of all, teachers can teach children in primary schools about the basic skills such as writing and reading. We have to hand-guide pupils how to draw the alphabetical letters before typing. Hard-working tutors will help children to succeed a lot in the future. At the early age - from 3-5 years old - children cannot use computers which harm their eyes in long time using.

Secondary, children are not only taught knowledge but also morals. No computer can talk about either love or honor. Teachers are always standards for pupils to imitate. Whether children know how to respect the elderly, to take care of community, and to obey their parents depends on their teachers.

Last but not least, communication with teachers can make pupils learn better. They will know how to react against difficult situations. In addition, teachers can teach children to use computers in their study. For example, pupils can do and submit homework via the Internet.

In conclusion, teaching will be more effective with the support of computers, but teachers are still indispensable in education all the time.