Bugungi kunda aksariyat forumdoshlarimiz, Oliy o`quv yurtlariga imtixonlarga tayyorgarlik ko`rishyapti. Shu jumladan, ba`zi forumdoshlarimiz IELTS, TOEFL kabi imtixonlardan yuqori natijalarga umid qilishyapti. Ushbu mavzuni ochishimdan maqsad IELTS examlariga bir-birimizga ko`maklashishdir.

IELTS examlari tarkibida Writing bo`limi ham mavjud.
Writing task 1 ga 20 min vaqt ajratilsa, Writing task 2 ga 40 min. Jami 1 soat davomida ingliz tilida ikkita insho yozish talab etiladi. Ushnu mazvuda Writing task 2 ga yozgan insholarimizni post qilamiz.

Unda o`zim boshlayman.

To some people studying the past has little value in the modern world. Why do you think it is important to do so? What will be the effect if children are not taught history?
I guess, studying some kind of subjects depends on people’s interests, ability and of course benefit. We study in order to get some profit or to use this knowledge in the future life, especially during the work, study or do our life more comfortable or better than in the past.
Nowadays, the most of people aren’t interested in history. Because our modern world is different from the past for that reason at the present we need to study some new subjects to develop our earth or where we live. However, we should learn history, our ancestors life with the purpose of not to repeat their mistakes. For instance, when builders build some house they pay attention to fundamental part of the house. If fundamental part isn’t built strong, the house won’t perseverance even the wind. Our life like a house which we build during we live. It consists of history, present and future. History is fundamental part of our life. Unless we don’t learn history, our life will be destroyed. For that reason we have to study past and modern subjects at the same time, and teach them to our future generations.
If children are taught history, it will give good results. During studying history they can learn their ancestors, inventions, how scientists invented things which we use they every day every field of our life and they might be encouraged by studying. Past events will be incentive of the future inventions.
Indeed, we should study the past and teach it to our children, in order to get certain information about the past life and not to repeat errors of people who lived before us.
Words: 275

PS: Birinchi yozgan essaylarimdan. Fikr, mulohaza va tanqidlaringizni kutaman.

Unda o`zim boshlayman.


PS: Birinchi yozgan essaylarimdan. Fikr, mulohaza va tanqidlaringizni kutaman.

your theme Reminds all the memories  and recalled our lesson too .

Studying the English language in an English-speaking country is the best but not the only way to learn the language.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Learning foreign language especially English, is useful for everyone not only for linguistics and it`s also beneficial who want to be a master of their qualification. For the reason English is widely distributed in many parts of our world. You can communicate with other people in English despite of their nationality.
In my opinion, learning English in an English-speaking country has favourable chance learn it by native speakers and it has also an opportunity to learn it easily with the right pronunciation. Moreover, you can practice your English every day everywhere and English-speaking countries own well-known universities all over the world. You can be a student of these famous universities by learning English.
However, for every plus there is a minus. On the other hand it doesn`t mean that everyone who live in an English-speaking country know all the rules of the language thoroughly and they speak according to the grammar rules. You may learn very informal words, phrases, or meanings, not regarded as standard which isn`t often used by a specific profession.
I consider, studying the English language will give good results if you learn it at the same time studying some specialty. For one thing, you can get right qualification and know the language and you don`t spend your time not only for English.
Words: 216

           
Some      people    prefer   to  live  in  a  house,   while   others    think   that  there   are  more
advantages living in an apartment.

Are there more advantages than disadvantages to living in a house rather than in an
apartment?

       Many   people   nowadays   face   a   difficult   decision   when   they buy   their   own   home.   The
question  is whether  they should buy a  house or  an  apartment.  There would seem to be
clear benefits and drawbacks to both options.

       Perhaps the major advantage of living in a house is the issue of privacy. Typically, there is
more opportunity for peace and quiet, if you live in a house. This is particularly the case if it
is   a   detached   house.   Other   significant   advantages   are   that   houses   are   generally more
spacious and on the whole have gardens. This is especially important if there is a family so
that the children  can  have a safe environment to play in. If,  however, you live in  a  tower
block, then the children may have to play outside on the pavement.

      There are, of  course, negative aspects  to living in  houses.  The greatest of these is that
they tend to be more expensive to purchase and to maintain.  Indeed, a large majority of
people   choose to   live   in   apartments because   they cannot   afford the mortgage to buy a
house.     Another   possible    problem    is  that  there  are   fewer   houses    in  cities  than  the
countryside. So if you like urban life, it may be preferable to live in an apartment. A second
reason to avoid living in a house is that there is a greater sense of community to life in an
apartment.

      My conclusion  would be that this  is a  well-balanced issue. There are probably an  equal
number of pros and cons to making either choice. Ultimately, whether you decide to live in
a cottage in the countryside or a duplex in the city depends on your own personality, family
and financial circumstances.

(285 words)

Unemployment is one of the most serious problems facing developed nations today.
What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of reducing the working week to
thirty five hours?

      It is unquestionable that rising unemployment is one of the most pressing issues in the
industrial world. One solution that has been put forward is to cut the working week to a
maximum of 35 hours. However, this solution is somewhat controversial as it has both
positive and negative effects.

     It is fairly easy to understand the reasons why this proposal has been made. The
reasoning is that if workers are not allowed to work for more than 35 hours weekly, then
employers will be forced to engage more staff. There would be at least two advantages to
this. Not only would unemployment be reduced, but the working conditions of employees
on very long shifts would also be significantly improved. For example, a factory employing
300 manual workers doing 10 hours a day might employ 450 workers.

     There is also, however, a strong argument not to implement this proposal. This argument
is based on economic competitiveness. If a company was forced to employ more workers
to produce the same amount of goods, then its wage bill would rise and its products might
become more expensive and less competitive compared to companies with longer working
weeks. In this case, it is possible that the company either might become insolvent or it
would have to make some employees redundant. As a result, the intended benefit to the
personnel would not happen.

     In summary, we can see that this is clearly a complex issue as there are significant
advantages and disadvantages to the proposal. My own personal view is that it would be
better not to introduce the shortened working week because it works only in theory and not
in practice.

(278 words)

Everyone should stay in school until the age of eighteen. To what extent do you
agree or disagree?
    It is often said that if you want to succeed in life, you need a proper education.    I would
agree with this, but it is debatable whether a proper education means having to stay in
school until you are 18.
 
    Perhaps the strongest reason not leaving school early is that it prepares you for your
working career. If you leave school early with only a basic education, you are unlikely to be
able to find any skilled work. Indeed, the education you receive between the ages of 16
and 18 is crucial for anyone who does not want a lifetime of unskilled work in a factory.

    Another compelling reason for remaining in school until 18 is that school provides moral
and social education too. This is particularly important for  people between 16 and 18 who
have many temptations and benefit from the organised framework that school provides.
Young people who stay in school until the age of 18 tend to be more responsible and help
build a stronger society.

       There are, however, equally strong arguments against making school compulsory until the
age of 18. One such argument is that not everyone is academic and that some people
benefit more from vocational training. For instance, someone who wants to become a car
mechanic may find better training and more satisfaction in an apprentice scheme. Another
related argument is that, in todayʼs world, young people are maturing ever more quickly
and are able to make their own life decisions by the age of 16.

   To my mind, everyone should be encouraged to stay in school until 18. However, I believe
it would be a mistake to make this compulsory.

(277 words)

The threat of nuclear weapons maintains world peace. Nuclear power provides
cheap and clean energy. The benefits of nuclear technology far outweigh the
disadvantages. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer.

      One question that has caused a great deal of controversy over the years is nuclear
technology. Although it offers a number of advantages in world peace and green power, it
is also a dangerous technology. In this essay I intend to show how these benefits outweigh
that disadvantage.

       The opponents of nuclear power generally base their arguments on the danger it
represents to the world. There are two main dangers: the risk of nuclear warfare and the
nuclear disasters. If one thinks about Chernobyl, it is easy to understand why people are
worried about nuclear power, as it can cause major suffering. 
There are, however, two good reasons for believing that nuclear technology is generally
advantageous. The first of these is that there has not been a major world conflict since the
invention of nuclear weapons. While there have been wars, they have not been on the
same scale as the Second World War. It is possible to say that the world is a safer place
because of nuclear weapons.
         The other most significant benefit relates to the environment. Perhaps the greatest danger
facing our world today is a combination of global warming and the greenhouse effect. This
danger is caused partly by burning fossil fuels which leads to our polluted atmosphere.
Nuclear power, however, is a much greener alternative which does not have such negative
effects. Furthermore, in the last 50 years there have not been too many nuclear disasters
and many experts claim that it is in fact a safe technology.

      In conclusion I would say that nuclear technology is better than the current alternatives.
However, I also believe we should keep looking for ways to make it safer.

(281 words)

The best way to solve the worldʼs environmental problems is to increase the cost of
fuel. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

      Most people would accept that one of the highest priorities today is to find a solution to the various environmental problems facing mankind. It has been suggested that best way to
achieve this is for governments to raise the price of fuel. I am, however, not sure that this
is necessarily the case.

     One reason why this approach may not work is that there is not just one environmental
problem the world faces today. If governments did make fuel more expensive, it might well
help reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we produce and so slow down the rate of global
warming and air pollution. However, it would not help with other major problems such as
intensive farming, overpopulation, the hole in the ozone layer or water pollution. For these
problems we need to find other solutions.

     A second reason why this policy may not be the most appropriate is that it places the
emphasis on governmental policy and not individual responsibility. Ultimately, most 
environmental problems are the result of the way we as individuals live our lives. If we
wish to find a long-term and lasting solution to them, we need to learn to live in a way that
it is greener or kinder to the environment. What governments need to do to make this
happen is to ensure there is a global programme to educate people of all ages about the
environmental consequences to their actions.

      In summary, I believe that increasing the level of taxation on fuel is at best a short-term
solution to only one environmental problem. If we wish to provide a home for our childrenʼs
children, education is likely to be the key to making this happen.
(283 words)

Should museums and art galleries be free of charge for the general public, or
should a charge, even a voluntary charge, be levied for admittance? Discuss this
issue, and give your opinion.

      One very complex issue in todayʼs world is the funding of museums and art galleries.
There is an argument that they should be free to the general public and funded by
governments, but there is also a case for saying that they should charge an entrance fee
like other attractions. In this essay, I am going to examine both sides of this issue.

       Those who argue that museums should be free typically make one of two arguments. The
first argument is that institutions like museums are a public service and therefore there
should be free access to the man in the street. If for example there was a charge only the
wealthy could afford to enjoy works of art. The second, and related, argument is that if they
did levy a charge fewer people would go to museums. This would be serious as they are
educational institutions and standards would fall.

        In contrast, there is only one major argument on the other side of the debate. This is that
both museums and art galleries need to charge an entrance fee if they are to survive in the
modern world. Governments do not have sufficient funds to subsidise all such institutions
and there are other priorities for public money. Therefore these galleries and museums
need to charge their customers not only to survive but to update their exhibitions and make
new purchases. By way of illustration, the Tate Modern in London could not have been
founded without revenue from admissions.

        My personal position is that there is no clear answer to this question as there are such
strong arguments on both sides. Perhaps it is possible for some museums and galleries to
charge fees and for others not to. 
(288 words)