IELTS Writing Samples

Response: Some people argue that advertisements have become so pervasive that they no longer catch people’s attention, while others believe that advertising still influences consumers’ purchasing decisions. In my opinion, although people often ignore ads, they are still likely to buy products they have seen before, making advertisements effective overall. On the one hand, people are exposed to a vast number of advertisements daily, leading them to develop an unconscious ability to ignore them. Pop-ups, auto-play videos, banners, and other types of advertisements appear regularly, but consumers often close them as quickly as possible without even glancing at them. Advertisers attempt to counter this by making their ads blend in with regular content, but over time, consumers learn to recognize them. For example, many advertisements on Instagram appear as regular posts, but due to their sheer frequency, users can easily identify them as sponsored content. On the other hand, advertising remains effective because companies use various marketing techniques to persuade consumers. Businesses offer discounts, coupons, and special promotions to attract buyers, even when the differences between new and old products are minimal. For instance, Apple frequently emails customers about the latest iPhone, offering exclusive deals and incentives, which ultimately persuades many people to upgrade their devices even if they do not need a new phone. In conclusion, although advertisements are not as effective as they once were, they still influence consumer behavior through strategic marketing methods. Therefore, advertising continues to play a crucial role in shaping purchasing decisions.

Response: In a significant number of nations, in recent times, residents can purchase foodstuffs from supermarkets with ease. While some individuals argue that this is a negative trend, I strongly believe that this accessibility is a quite beneficial development for two compelling reasons, including mitigating global warming. Saving time is the first area of concern. In the past, rural individuals were obligated to spend a large amount of their time to purchase food produced, as shops that offered these products were often situated in city centers. Therefore, they had to go to cities for buying foodstuffs; however, these days, individuals have access to a wide range of shops to purchase roughly whatever they want. I believe that time is the most valuable aspect of individuals' lives that this accessibility provides people with the opportunity to save their time. Some people argue that as this development might promote consumerism among consumers, so this trend is associated with a major drawback. However, I do not agree with their viewpoint. In addition to the aforementioned point, I believe that the most significant reason for regarding this trend as a positive one is mitigating global warming. In previous years, people had to drive to specific locations to purchase their food products, due to a lack of shops that offered these commodities. Thus, they utilized vehicles, which exhaust a huge amount of carbon dioxide, contributing to global warming. However, nowadays, as almost all supermarkets have a wide variety of groceries, individuals are not obligated to drive to find specific shops. In conclusion, these days, many countries provide their residents with the opportunity to purchase their food products from supermarkets. While some people claim that this is a negative trend, as it may lead to consumerism, I strongly believe that this development is completely positive, as this trend saves individuals' time and reduces global warming.

Response: People in some countries prefer to have their own home rather than renting one. this can be so important to them, and I think this certainly is a positive trend for a range of reasons I would argue below. On the one hand, having private home is a critical problem in some countries for some important reasons. Firstly, people who own a home can easily live in those countries, because home is one of the significant problems in some countries. In my country Iran, for example, young generation have to pay a large amount of money for just owning a small apartment. Secondly, many people prefer to have their own home, for the price of home increases significantly in some countries evert year; therefore, they invest on their home to insure everything they own. In Iran, for example, the price of land and home experiences a significant change from year to year. Finally, owing a home gives people a chance to live in their cities for years without transfering their furniture; by contrast, by renting home, people have to carry their furniture whenever they want to change their home. On the other hand, I think owning a home is certainly a positive situation. people who own a home, can easily spend money for the maintanace or fixing their home like painting walls or fixing the air conditionar. If people own a home, anything they spend belongs to their private and owing home; by contrast, anything is spent on renting home belongs to the person who owns the home. Furthermore, owing a home cause to gain from the benefits. For example, bank loans often are given to people who can provide a valuable document like the home document. In conclusion, owing a private home or apartment is so important in some countries for reasons argued above. I think it's better to have our own home. It would be pleasant if people had their private home.

Response: Nowadays, there is a controversial discussion among authorities whether a competetive or a cooperative environment is most effective. While the first group argues that encountering to a competitive environment would be more beneficial, The other group argues that cooperation between members in different communities contribute to more benefits. In this essay I will discuss both mindsets and in my opinion, the latter group reasoning is more justifiable. On the one hand, some argue that competition is essential for progress. The chief reason of their claim is that it is closely assosiated with personal growth. When people are being exposed in situations that needs them to compete with their counterparts, they are encouraged to nurture their skills to exceeds their rivals. For example, in school environment, the grade educational system triggers students to study harder to get the best scores. As the resut, their knowledge and skills in academic subjects will be better. The same occures in the workplace, when colleagues compete each other and gain more competencies in their field to obtain the promotion. Hence, Others, including myself, argue that cooperative environment would be worthwhile in terms of personal growth and also favour the organisation profits. Their reasons are twofold. First and foremost, providing a cooperative situation causes motivation. For all individuals working or studying in an environment when there is no rat race to prove themselves, provides a sense of calmness which stimulate them to flourish themselves and have an effective performance. Moreover, In this situation, people can learn more from each other. People in an organisation for instance, can share whatever they know, correct each others mistake, and use others experiences, all to reach the ultimate goal of the organisation. In conclusion, while the competition, as the former group believe, would be of some benefits, I believe the advantages result from cooperation are more significant.

Response: While many people argue that doctors and engineers should choose their work in the country where they pass courses, others believe that they should be able to work in foreign countries. I agree with the latter approach since it brings several valuable effects on their career and increases their chances for finding adequate jobs. On the one hand, many people say that professional people should choose their work freely because it enables them to achieve several positive achievements. This means that, when people work in foreign countries, they might be able to work with several facilities which they might not access to them in the training country. As a result, they are able to broaden their knowledge extensively by working with several facilities. Moreover, it is possible that the training country cannot meet their needs properly. In other words, people might face several challenges due the lack of balance between supply and demand. By way of example, while Iran educates over 1000 materials engineers per year, the industry of Iran need to 100 materials engineers per year. Therefore, i am convinced with this approach since they are able to not only enhance their knowledge, but also increase their chances to find jobs. On the other hand, others advocate that doctors and engineers should find work the in training country since governments allocate money to train those. It is because that governments would allocate more money on other fields, if they did not train. Moreover, some parts of training highly depend on the facilities of the training country. It is possible that when they want to work in foreign countries, they might struggle with problems due to the differences between training materials. Yet, I do not support this approach since every humans must be able to choose work without any restriction and doctors and engineers are not exceptions. In conclusion, Although working in the training country could be beneficial since the government allocates money for training and no differences between training material and demands, I believe that doctors and engineers should be work in foreign countries since they can improve their knowledge and increase their chances to find jobs.

Response: In some countries, the average living age of people increase than past. While a group of people present the view that elderly people are beneficial for society, I agree with those who believe an aging population created problems for governments. On the one hand, some individuals justifiably argue that elderly people are unable to work. Due to this fact, it is the government who should pay for their life and provide their basic needs. It is possible throughout two different ways. If they have insurance, the institution will pay for their expenses. However, if they do not have one, the government should provide them with their need by people's taxes which might have negative consequences on youngsters in order to increasing the amount of tax. A further disadvantage is that the sociaty turns into an old one. As they are unable to participated in breeding, over time, we face a sociaty that most people are old. Not only does this situation have adverse effects on the economy of society, but it may also be an endpoint for the generation. On the other hand, another group of individuals presents the view that we are responsible for looking after our old parents as they did when we were children. They firmly insist that, even if we do not a suitable life condition, we should keep them with ourselves because they can convey their experienced and teach us the correct way of living. However, I do not find this reason convincing as we do not have any obligation and keeping elderly people can bring several financial and mental problems. In addition, they might feel as a burden and find their life useless. Despite, the society provides some places for elderly people to live peacfully, the capacity of the society in order to having elderly is limited because the government need young people who are active and make their country successful. In conclusion, while there are some potential advantages associated with an ageing population, I believe that substantial drawbacks in terms of providing financial aid and having an old society outweigh its benefits.

Response: People in some countries prefer to have their own home rather than renting one. this can be so important to them, and I think this certainly is a positive trend for a range of reasons I would argue below. On the one hand, having private home is a critical problem in some countries for some important reasons. Firstly, people who own a home can easily live in those countries, because home is one of the significant problems in some countries. In my country Iran, for example, young generation have to pay a large amount of money for just owning a small apartment. Secondly, many people prefer to have their own home, for the price of home increases significantly in some countries evert year; therefore, they invest on their home to insure everything they own. In Iran, for example, the price of land and home experiences a significant change from year to year. Finally, owing a home gives people a chance to live in their cities for years without transfering their furniture; by contrast, by renting home, people have to carry their furniture whenever they want to change their home. On the other hand, I think owning a home is certainly a positive situation. people who own a home, can easily spend money for the maintenance or fixing their home like painting walls or fixing the air conditioner. If people own a home, anything they spend belongs to their private and owing home; by contrast, anything is spent on renting home belongs to the person who owns the home. Furthermore, owing a home cause to gain from the benefits. For example, bank loans often are given to people who can provide a valuable document like the home document. In conclusion, owing a private home or apartment is so important in some countries for reasons argued above. I think it's better to have our own home. It would be pleasant if people had their private home.

Response: In the present climate, unpleasant conditions have sparked an immense amount of heated debate. There are two perspectives regarding facing them. One is accepting those circumstances and the other claims that it is more reasonable to make bad conditions better. I, for one, subscribe to the latter viewpoint. The proponents of not making any changes may provide several justifications. Firstly, altering a condition is not always possible and practical. By way of illustration, when loved ones of a person die, they are not able to do anything but to accept it. As result, the type of a situation matters. What is more, reforming might involve risk. In other words, a certain circumstance may become worse if they are changed. For instance, many people have lost a great deal of money by investing it in the stock market, hoping to increase it. On the other hand, the supporters of improving a disgusting condition may have plenty of rationales. They opine humans are not plants, which are fixed. To put it simply, situations can become more pleasant by taking appropriate measures. Take a person, for example, who is dissatisfied with their job. They can simply resign and find a more decent vacation. Furthermore, if parents decide not to make any improvements when confronting an unsuitable condition, this may have an adverse affect on them, teaching them to behave similarly in the future. One of my cousins is a case in point. He is not satisfied with his occupation and does not change it. The reason behind his decision might be related to his father, who acted in the same way in the past. Consequently, sons and daughters can be prone to behave in the similar pattern, which is a negative outcome. What can be concluded from the above is that although a group of individuals share the view that people are better off not changing an unpleasant condition, I believe it may be more rational to improve such circumstance. The reasons might be the fact that we are not fixed and can alter situations. Besides, children can be taught in the wrong way when facing an unsuitable condition.

Response: In the present climate, environmental problems have sparked an immense amount of heated debate. There exist two perspectives regarding those challenges. While one viewpoint claims that extinction of certain species of flora and fauna is the most important problem, the other argues there are more notable challenges. The proponents of preservation of animals and plants may provide several justifications. Firstly, it has been scientifically proven that the survival of all creatures are dependent on each other, known as life cycle. As axiomatic as it may sound, humans are involved in this cycle, so we might be in danger if particular species become extinct. By way of illustration, cockroaches and mosquitoes are hunted by lizzards. if we have loss of lizzards, the population of cockroaches will be on the increase. This, in turn, can have several adverse consequences. For example, cockroaches may eat seeds of farming products and humans confront lack of certain produce. On the other hand, a group of people opine there are a few more noticeable environmental problems. Global warming has become a significant setback more specifically in recent years. Today, more and more factories and power plants are established, emitting carbon dioxide and other hazardous gases, such as greenhouse gases into the air. These eventually lead to the depletion of ozone layer, which is a protective layer against the UV of the sun. As a result, this dangerous radiation might reach the surface of the earth, threatening the health of billions of individuals. Skin cancer is one of the risks of the UV radiation, according to Dr. Johnes from the University of California. What can be concluded from the above is that I believe there sure exist more noticeable environmental problems than extinction of certain species of creatures, including global warming, which can result in severe consequences in terms of health.

Response: Nowadays, since a sizeable number of people are immigrating to the big cities in serch of better living condition, the population in the suburbs is dropping. while there are some advantages associated with immigration, I believe the main disadvantages are more substantial. On the one hand, a potential advantage may be better job opportunities. A majority of people who live in the rural areas move to the cities because of earning more money and provide their family with the basic ammenities. For example, big companies in iran are located in cities, thus, people who want to recrute in these companies and having a lucrative career should live in the vicity of the manufactures which are situated in cities. So, the companies' income will be increase because of the skilled workfore who come from the countrysides. Another precieved positive effect is that benefit from a wide vraity of facilities. it is many recreational and residentional facilities in cities, such as better healthcare system or higher standard of education that encourage people to move to cities. Additionally, as a result of moving people to cities, the countrysides remain intact On the other hand, a primary disadvantage is that cities becom overcrowded. Not only has over population a negative effects on traffic congestion, but it also is a threat to the air quality. When people move to the cities, commuting will be increased and as a result of consumption more fossil fuel, the air pollution will be increas. Furthermore, the price of accomodation see an increase, because the demand for house are rose and the landlords offer the higher price for their hiuse because of the competation between people. To conclude, it is true that increasing cities population would seem advantageous under certain sircumstanse. However, in my opinion, its negative effects in terms of air pollution and trafic congestion override the advantages.