IELTS Writing Samples

Response: It is true that taking risks is important for individuals in their professional lives and their personal lives. In this essay I am going to present drawbacks and benfits of this phenonmen. I beilieve that the disadvantages are outweigh by advantages. To begin with, the most significant benefit is related to economy. individuals useally take riske to increase their income to have better life style. for example, some employees resing thier jobs to lunch thier own business to earn more money. additionally, In some country, people cannot increase their level of life style whit out taking risk. for instance, in Iran people cannot buy a house ,where they family can live there, with out taking morgage. Thus, If they do not take riske to take huge loan, they will not able to buy their own place to live with out the stress of the growth of renting house. on the other hand, this phenonmen can bring health problems. when individuals take big risk for their professional or personal lives find them in stressful situation. a clear example is that starting new business can be challenging and stressfull for people who want to work for self and hire others employee. if they are not sccussfull in their work and lost thier invest, they probably are in denger of heart desease. To conclude, although taking risk have some drawbacks, it is vital to change level of our life style. without taking risk, people probably will not have the opprtunity to level up in their lives.

Response: People are calling into question the usefulness of staying in a job neither are they satisfied, nor they have a high income. While some advocate continuing work in such situations, others dismiss them as completely idle precious time. Both sides of the argument present rational ideas, which will be elaborated. To begin with, proponents of work in bad situations assert that the benefits accruing from it are by no means negligible. A good illustration of this is the scientist who works voluntarily for several years, not only do they work for long hours without attaining a salary, but also their abilities are underestimated, in addition to behaving in impolite ways with them. Indeed, they tolerate these unfriendly workplaces for the sake of obtaining several things, some of which are being skillful, willpower, problem-solving, and data analysis. The more marketable skills they have, the more they are likely to be experts. As a result, they can find better positions in well-known organizations. On the contrary, opponents put forward the argument that working in bad conditions causes some deleterious effects on individuals, hence, job seekers should be aware when it comes to selecting a workplace. The most compelling reason justifying their assertion is that the time and energy expended on working in harsh workplaces can be put to better use in a healthy environment that helps them to foster their aptitude as well as manifest their ulterior talent resulting in having a sense of achievement. In conclusion, I am of the opinion that we ought to consider some criteria such as the behavior of the boss, and colleagues, and ambiance when applying for a job, since it can have both deleterious and positive impacts on our social life leading to either obtaining unprecedented success or failed.

Response: While some companies advocate for trending their new produts by means of advertisement, critics assert that although this approach remains successful for a while; however, it would not last for long, and ultimately, it becomes forgotten and loses its value. Meanwhile, I believe, this kind of advertising depends on the businesses' porpuse, which at most times, is to make a significant short-time profite, and then trend a new product. On one hand, those companies just tend to enhance their sales and profite, therefore, their quality is not always a priority to them. When you choose quantity over quality you achieve noticeable short-time sales, which is financialy reasonable in case that you plan your next move very meticulously. For example, a certain shampo factory in my country, every now and then, comes up with a new type of shampo with different colours and sents, and then, they spend a substantial budget on the advertisemnet of their new product inorder to stay in the market and remain popular among customers. In another case, companies manage to achieve brilliant quality and a good picture at the same time. Those companies, spend huge amounts of money on their tv commercial and urbon advertisemnets just to exhibit their superiority. Furthermore, they claim higher values and costs so that in same ways they assur you that you are not about to waist your money on something unworthy. In another word, their first priority is to stay popular and desireable by individuals. On the other hand, there are many successful companies that have not changed or augmented their advertisements for several decades, and they are still one the top choices of people on the market. For instance, if you cosider the pen company, Bick, you will realize that they have not changed the shapes or quality of their pens for decades and they are still intriguing for their consumers. So, you cannot provide quality and individuals' trust by allocating a huge part of your budget to advertising. Moreover, it depends to companies' intentions to whether present themselves as long-lasting or unstable competitors. In conclusion, investing on advertisement is always a wise and reasonable decision; however, you should not sacrifice other prospects of your business just to increase your temporary sales and profit. Finally, if you desire to stay in the market for long, you would better pay heed to both of your products' popularity and qualty simultaneously.

Response: It is said that some people are of the opinion that people like doctors and engineers who are professionals should work in the same country they trained in, while other people think they can choose freely about where they want to work. This essay will discuss both sides and what I believe is that professionals should be able to work where ever they want. Firstly, there is an idea in which experts should stay the country that they did training because they are aware about difficulities that people face every day and in another words, they know how to tackle the problems far more better than a new person who has no experiment in that country. For example, my father holds a bachelor’s degree in Civil engeering from an university in our country and then started to work as a trainee in same place and got a job after that. As far as I am concerned, now he is an exeptional professional who done many things for this country. On the other hand, as can be seen, there are people who believe doctors, engineers, and other experts are free to choose if they want to work in the same country that they learnt every thing or some other place. Professionals are useful where ever they go and imporvement happens in their presents. For example, a Iranian vet who was interested in Indian animals moved to India after finishing his training to help them prevent animal extinction and had important impact in this occasion. In summary, although there is a belief that professionals should learn and work in same place, I think they can freely go to different country if they want to.

Response: All cars, buses and vehicles will have no driver in the future. Individuals, who use cars or buses, are passengers and they do not have control over deriving. It has its own advantages and disadvantages. This essay evaluates both sides. Overall, I believe that its benefits outweigh its drawbacks and It will be helpful to use driverless cars. We are living on the edge of technology, and it is obviously accepted that technology has a significant impact of every aspect of our lives, and transportation is not an exception. One of the effects of technology is producing the driverless cars. It has several advantages. For instance, it helps to reduce the number of car accidents significantly. Every day numerous car accidents happen due to the human errors. For example, drivers are sleepy and exhausted, leading to reduced attention. In addition, drivers, especially younger ones, used to check their smartphone while deriving. All these situations are caused accident by human. Driverless cars focus on driving only and nothing can distract them from the road. As a result, the number of accidents will be decreased if people use driverless cars. On the other hand, it has some drawbacks. It is really hard to trust to the technology and give all the control of vehicles to Artificial intelligence. It is widely considered that driverless cars like all the other intelligence products will have some bugs. There is not any certainty that driverless cars will have no technical issues. For instance, I see some situations in movies that the program of a driverless car has a tiny technical problem, and it was impossible to control the car manually. As a result, it was totally impossible to turn on the car. In addition, fixing the driverless cars need huge amount of money and experts. In this circumstance only a few numbers of members of society are able to fix these cars. In conclusion, I claim it is completely hard to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of driverless cars, however I believe it is worthy to use them in the future.

Response: All cars, buses and vehicles will have no driver in the future. Individuals, who use cars or buses, are passengers and they do not have control over deriving. It has its own advantages and disadvantages. This essay evaluates both sides. Overall, I believe that its benefits and drawback will be equal, and neither of them outweigh the other one. We are living on the edge of technology, and it is obviously accepted that technology has a significant impact of every aspect of our lives, and transportation is not an exception. One of the effects of technology is producing the driverless cars. It has several advantages. For instance, it helps to reduce the number of car accidents significantly. Every day numerous car accidents are happened due to the human errors. For example, driver is sleepy and exhausted, and he/ she has less attention to the road. In addition, drivers, especially younger ones, used to check their smartphone while deriving. All these situations are caused accident by human. Driverless cars focus on driving only and nothing can distract them from the road. As a result, the number of accidents will be decreased if people use driverless cars. On the other hand, it has some drawbacks. It is really hard to trust to technology and give all the control of vehicles to Artificial intelligence. It is widely considered that driverless cars like all the other intelligence products will have some bugs. There is not any certainty that driverless cars will have no technical issues. For instance, I see some situations in movies that the program of a driverless car has a tiny technical problem, and it was impossible to control the car manually. As a result, it was totally impossible to turn on the car. In addition, fixing the driverless cars need huge amount of money and experts. In this circumstance only a few numbers of members of society are able to fix these cars. In conclusion, I claim it is completely hard to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of driverless cars, however I believe it is worthy to use them in the future.

Response: While some specialists argue that sweet products are real dangers to our health, and one of the most effective ways to prevent them is by increasing their prices, critics claim that although raising prices is a rational way, consuming food based on carbohydrates has roots in our traditional dishes, so most people will be unsatisfied and tend to resist this change. Meanwhile, I believe that we will not be able to eradicate carbohydrate completely from our diets due to the fact that they are a significant part of our invaluable cultural foods. On one hand, raising prices will definitely limit individuals' consumption, and many believe that by continuing this trend, sugar may lose its charm for people and ultimately lose its popularity. As it is written in every diet-related book, after not using sweet products for fourteen days, besides losing weight, other foods will taste better in your mouth and this factor will persuade you to eat other materials instead of sugar more than before. Now, not using sugar due to its high cost will be another way to manage adults and children's urges to purchase more. On the other hand, not all adults and even children have a sweet tooth, and increasing prices will be unfair to them because they deliberately do not overuse sugar. For example, if you consider birthday cakes as one of our traditions, for those people who have sweet consumptions only on their birthdays, overpaying for a piece of cake is totally unfair. In addition, when governments raise sugar's value, they will attract people's attention to the issue and in contrast to their intentions, it may lead to using sugar even more than before. In conclusion, I believe if governments are considering this approach to achieve the goal of a heathier society, they should arise the prices gradually and in the shadows in order to not receive people's harsh reactions. Finally, from my personal perspective, eating sweet food is something related to our cognitive processes and it can not be ommited from our lives overnight; conversely, it should become a habit and be tought in our childhood.

Response: While most people advocate for using science only for enhancing our welfare, and improving our surroundings; there are a few groups that tend to use science for their particular benefits in order to harm other individuals or creatures. Meanwhile, I believe that using sciene in any way that menaces our invironmet should be banned and forbidden. On one hand, science is already being used in various of beneficial ways. To begin with, the advancements made on the field of medical sciences, have been significant, and numerous diseases that could profoundly harm us one day, or lead us to our demise, have been compeletly cured or preventable. Next, development of technology has abled us to travel by airplanes, or even go to the moon, just by initiating new vehicles which someday, can lead us to our future lives on a different planet. Those scientists that devoted their lives to their studies and research made all off these progresses possible. Although not all of them were meant for human beings, in the past few decades, scientists have payed an especial heed to our nature and environment, and have provided plans to preserve them at the best possible way. For example, keeping indangered animals like pandas, in exclusive centers in order to save them from extinction. On the other hand, although science often works well in the users' favour, sometimes it just harm other people and creatures. Some would claim that they pay a small price for a grater good. For instance, in the world war two, when the USA used the Atomic Bombs on Japan, just to finish a long-lasting war and bring up piece to many countries. It is true that harsh action ended the war, but it also ruined two cities multitudes and environments for decades. Besides that, there were other times that humans thought they were making progress, but they were only destroying their surroundings, like expanding cities into forrests, which destroyed other creatures' habitats. In conclusion, I firmly believe that the only key to our existence is keeping up with technology throughout utlizing science; however, as I have metioned above, the outcomes would depend on your sides, when you choose a side, the other ones get hurt. So, the best possible approach might be focusing on a way that would not be detrimental to any creature or environmet.

Response: While there are meny advocates for driverless vehicles due to their ease of use and satisfying speed, critics assert that the automatic technology will never substitute for humans, because they will always have errors; therefore, you may never assure that they are completely safe after all. However I belive that the convenience of today's world is a result of our ancestors following and keeping up with technology, then if we aim for enhancing our welfare we would better to take risks and keep going with the flow. On one hand, autopilot vehicles do not have to waste time on their personal needs, then litterally they will help you in order to manage your schedual more effectively and exploit your time and opportunities. For example, you may have seen more than once that a driver refused to do their service due to their personal circumstances, however this problem would be easily solved because these machines are constently available. Besides, as it utlizes the most recent technology and high speed Internet simultaneously, it is able to change your paths and find the shortest and fastest one in no time, and without any hesitation. Although many present drivers are already using navigating maps, most of them cannot trust applications' results because of their previous experiences. On the other hand, these vehicles just like humans are not exempt from errors. For instence, just like humans have to repair their cars when it is neccessary, robots have to deal with these unpredicted accidents as well. I believe that as long as these automatic vehicles are being authorized by someone in a far distance they the situation is secure; however, if they become particularly independent, in times of most needed, they will be out of our control. this kind of independence and disobeidence, can lead to disastrous outcomes, such as hurting the passengers inside or outside of the machine. In conclusion, however inteligence technology is the key to a brighter future, I firmly believe, specially in the more prominent tasks, leavining a dvice to its own can bring catastrophic outcomes. Finally, for our sakes, It would be better that we learn how to authorize them as well as enjoy their services.

Response: Global sugar consumption has significantly surged over the past few years, consequently, leading to an increase in health problems. To mitigate this issue, many people advocate that drinks and food products that contain high sugar levels should be made more expensive. I strongly concur with the suggestion as I believe that high costs would discourage people from buying such products. In recent years, we have observed an increase in snacking culture leading to various health problems. Empirical evidence from various studies proves that diseases such as obesity and diabetes have substantially increased, furthermore, the statistics show that the main cause of this rise is poor eating habits and sedentary lifestyle. To overcome this challenge, reducing sugar intake is paramount, and the most effective way to do so is to make it less easily available by increasing the prices. Increasing prices will make these products less affordable, decreasing consumption. However, high prices alone would not be efficient, the introduction of low-sugar alternatives at lower prices is also necessary. For instance, the Coca-Cola company introduced Diet Coke, but it was a little more expensive than regular Coke, so the majority of individuals preferred to continue drinking regular Coke as it was cost-effective. A survey was done, and the conclusion suggested that if Diet Coke was cheaper, more consumers would be motivated to purchase it. In conclusion, there is a dire need to bring some changes to control global sugar consumption, as health problems are skyrocketing. The most important step is to make the products with high sugar levels less affordable to the general public, so they have to think twice before purchasing them. Furthermore, introducing healthier products at cheaper prices would encourage people to make better choices.