Integrated writing

First attempt: 8/14/2020

In the lecture, the lecturer argues that no memoir can be correct accurately. But, the Chevalier de
Seingalts's memoir is actually reliable and correct. Though the critics have doubted the accuracy of the
memoir on the fact that he had borrowed considerable sums of money from a Swiss merchant, it can be
explained that it may have taken a significant amount of time while selling is property or wealth and
thus he borrowed some money from the merchant to fulfill his lavish lifestyle.

Also, talking about the conversation with Voltaire, the critics say that how can somebody remember the
exact conversation that he/she had with someone else adding the fact that the memoir was written
many years after the conversation occurred. But as per the researchers, it is said that Chevalier wrote
the notes of the conversation on the night he had the conversation with Voltaire. Also, it is said that he
regularly consulted the notes and journals during his memoir writing.

Speaking of his escape from the prison in Venice, Italy, it can be proven by the fact that the ceiling of his
room was immediately repaired after his escape. And for those critics who argue that he may have
escaped the prison by bribing the jailers with the help of his politically well-connected friends, but there
were many other prisoners who had a lot more friends than he did but still couldn't make it out of the
jail.

Yes, it is correct that no memoir can be totally accurate. But according to the research till this date the
memoir of Chevalier is actually reliable and correct. Although there may be some rumors and criticism,
his recounting life adventures cannot be denied.

Second attempt: 8/16/2020

The reading and the listening passage are both about the hypothesis behind the decline in the
population of sea otters on the Alaskan coast. The author of the writing passage believes that the
decrease in population is due to the pollution of the seawater. The lecturer, on the other hand, argues
that the reason for the decreasing numbers of sea otter is due to the attacks of predators. She also
addresses, in detail, for her support in the predation hypothesis.

Firstly, the author states that the pollution of the seawater is the reason for the declining numbers of
sea otters, which is supported by the increasing level of chemical pollutants seen in the seawater due to
oil rigs in those regions. This decreased the immune system of the sea otters causing them to die. The
lecturer argues with this statement by mentioning that if the statement made by the author is true, then
numerous numbers of dead bodies of sea otters in the water should have been seen. But, the fact is that
the dead body of sea otters isn't found in that significant number.

Secondly, the author contends that the decreasing numbers of other sea mammals like seals can also be
used to support the fact that the pollution of seawater has not only affected the sea otters, but it has
affected the whole coastal ecosystem. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by asserting that the other
missing sea mammals may have become prey to sea otters since the sea otter's most preferred
prey(whales), have been hunted more by humans these days. And this point also justifies the lesser
population of other mammals.
Furthermore, the author also says that there is an uneven pattern in otter's decline, they happen to
decline differently in different places. The uneven concentration of pollutants is the reason for this
uneven pattern. The lecturer argues with this statement by asserting that this uneven pattern is seen
due to the uneven distribution of their prey (whales). She elaborates this by mentioning the fact that the
decline of populations of otters is more where the populations of whales are less and vice-versa.

08/17/2020

The reading passage and the listening passage both are about the advantages of solar energy over other
non-renewable sources of energy. The author of the passage mentions the primary benefits of using the
solar energy and believes that it will help uplifting us from our dependence on other non-renewable
energy sources. The lecturer completely agrees the ideas the author has set forth and talks about other
secondary benefits of the solar energy that the author has missed out.

Firstly, the author believes that solar energy can be a perpetual source of energy as compared to other
sources since the other energy source are renewable only over millions of years. But, it is not the case
for solar energy. The lecturer supports this statement by mentioning that in a five years period, a solar
cell will produce more energy than it was required to build the solar cell itself.This will offset the
production of energy.

Secondly, the author posits that the solar energy produces zero harmful byproducts during it's
production compared to current energy sources which is highly benificial considering the health of our
planet. This results in overall human benifit. The lecturer adds the idea that the solar energy serves
multiple purpose and minimze the use of other energy resources. He elaboratesthis idea by the example
of solar powered water heater.

And last but not the least, the author puts forth the idea that solar energy is a cheap source of energy
since it requires very less maintenance. The author compares it with other energy sources which
requires higher maintenance and sometimes have lesser life time. Meanwhile, the life time of solar
energy being 30 years. The lecturer supports this idea by asserting that due to production offset and
more energy, the energy can be sold out resulting in more financial benifit. Besides that the incentives
given by the givernment will add up the profit.

08/18/2020

The reading and the listening passage both are about how working as a team for a project is different
from working as an individual. The author of the passage believes that the work will be more productive
and more efficient if the project is performed by a group. The lecturer, on the other hand has a different
opinion. He states that working on a project as a team isn't that effective, as the author contends in the
reading passsage by taking about the results of experiment conducted in a company.

Firstly, the author mentions that due to wider range of knowledge, skills and expertise in a team, the
work will be of better quality than that performed by an individual. The lecturer argues about this by
positing that in a project performed by a team, the ideas of few influencers are usually belittled by the
others. But, however if the project went bad, all of the team members are accountable which isn't fair at
all.
Secondly, the author believes that due to the presence of greater recources in a team, the response of a
team is quicker and they usually have highly creative solutions. The lecturer disagrees with this
statement by asserting that, the team members take more time coming into a common ground while
working as a team resulting in delayed completion of project.

Further, the author also notes that working in a team is a great opportunity for some team members
since they get a chance to gain recognition in the team by contributing their best in the project. The
lecturer, however, rebuts this by stating that all the team members get equal credit for the completion
of project even though the do not give equal comtribution to the project. This will cause dissatisfaction
in workers who had worked more than other members, but do not get the recognition they deserved.

Second attempt

The reading and the listening passage both are about the portrait of a woman’s face painted by
Rembrandt. Both the passage talks about if the painting was really drawn by Rembrandt or not. The
author of the passage states that there are some serious problems with the painting and hence suggests
that it wasn't a painting of Rembrandt. The lecturer, on the other hand, believes that, although the
statements made in the passage are true, the painting was actually painted by Rembrandt and gives
reasons for her support.

Firstly, the author talks about the inconsistent dressing of the woman in the painting. The woman in the
painting is wearing a cheap hat that the servants used to wear back then with a highly expensive coat.
The lecturer, on the other hand, states that in the actual painting, the woman was wearing a light-
colored simple cloth but the coat was painted over the original painting to make it look more valuable.

Secondly, the author mentions about the light and the shadow mismatch. He elaborates about this by
mentioning that the face was illuminated from below, but there was a dark fur collar below which
should have absorbed the light rather than reflecting it. The lecturer rebuts this my stating that from X-
rays and other analysis of the painting, it was seen that the collar wasn't the original part of the painting.
It was later added to make the painting look like a formal painting of an aristocratic lady and to make it
look more expensive.

And lastly, the author posits that the painting was made in pieces of woods glued together which was
never seen before in Rembrandt's painting. The lecturer elaborates this by mentioning that the painting
was originally made in a single wood piece but the other pieces were later glued to make the painting
look more grand and expensive. She supports this statement with the fact that the original wood in
which the painting was drawn, was from the very same tree which was used to paint his own portrait.

To sum up, both the author and lecturer hold a conflicting view about the legitimacy of the Rembrandts
painting and both of them have their own reasons to support.

Third attempt

The reading and the writing passage both elaborates on whether the dinosaurs were endothermic
animals or not. The author of the reading passage believes that dinosaurs were in fact endothermic
reptiles because they show many characteristics similar to other endothermic animals. The lecturer, on
the other hand, disagrees with the author's idea and gives are the opinion that dinosaurs were not
endothermic and supports her point with specific reasons.
Firstly, the author states that the fossils of dinosaurs were also found in the polar regions of the earth
and if the dinosaurs were to live in the polar regions, they have to be endothermic. The lecturer argues
with this claim by mentioning that the polar region was not cold throughout the year back then when
dinosaurs existed. She says the dinosaurs could have survived in the polar region during the warmer
season and for the colder season, they may have hibernated or moved to warmer places.

Secondly, the author believes that dinosaurs are endothermic because they possess endothermic
features like having their legs underneath their body unlike the other reptiles (lizards) which have legs
on their sides. The author elaborates on this by putting forth the idea that dinosaurs had legs
underneath their body because of their heavyweight not to help them for running purpose like the
endothermic mammals.

Lastly, the author also notes about the Haversian canal that has been seen in the fossils of dinosaurs.
The Haversian canal in the bone is a home for blood vessels which helps in the rapid growth of the
animal and is seen only in endothermic animals. The lecturer, however, has her own explanation of this
and completely disagrees with the author. She says growth rings have also been seen in the fossils of
dinosaurs. The growth rings help to cease the growth of the animals during cooler periods. This suggests
that dinosaurs could grow rapidly, followed by no growth and rapid growth again which is a significant
feature of non-endothermic animals.

To sum up, the author and lecturer have contradictory ideas over the dinosaur's ability to adapt to the
atmospheric temperature. Both of them have strong ideas to support their claim.

08/23/2020

Both the reading and the listening passage are about numbers of work days an employer should work in
a week. The author of the passage believes that if workers are made to work 4 days in a week with 20
percentage cutoff in their salary, it would benefit the employer, employee and the country as well. The
lecturer, on the other hand, disagrees with the claims made by the author in the reading passage and
addresses in detail, the reasons for is opinion.

Firstly, the author states that if the employers work 4 days a week rather than the conventional way of
working 5 days a week, it would increase the profit of the company since the company has to pay lesser
amount for it's employee and also the employee will be more efficient on their work. The lecturer
argues with this statement by mentioning that the company has to hire more wokers to fill the gap.
Eventually, resulting in more expenses for each employee in their health benefits, office space, training,
and utilities.

Secondly, the author posits that working fewer days in a week will eventually result in the increase of
vacancies in the country. This will allow the country's unemployment rate to decrease. The lecturer
rebuts this by asserting that the company may pressurize the employees to do overtime and maintain
same work output in 4 days work rather than hiring a new employee to bridge the gap.

Furthermore, the author also notes that there will be a better work life balance of the employees if they
are allowed to work only 4 days a week. They can be active in other recreational activities and spend
more time with their family. The lecturer, however, disagrees with this claim by giving the idea that
employees may feel insecure about their job if they work days a week. The workers who work fewer
days may have lesser job stability and also may be the last preference during job promotions.
To sum up, both the author and lecturer hold conflicting views about the idea of how many days a
worker should work for overall benefits of employees and the company. Both have their own convincing
reasons to support their claim. It's clear that they will have trouble finding a common ground on this
issue.

08/28/2020

Both the reading and the listening passages discuss on the pros and cons of traditional printed
encyclopedias and communal online encyclopedias. The author of the reading passage believes that
there are significant advantages of printed encyclopedia over communal online encyclopedias. The
lecturer, on the other hand, is of the opinion that communal online encyclopedias are far better over the
traditional ones, and addresses, in detail, reasons for his support.

Firstly, the author states that online encyclopedia does not have the academic credentials and the ones
who writes the articles are not trained experts. This will result in partial or inaccurate information which
can misguide its reader. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning that traditional encyclopedias
were also never accurate. He further gives the idea that online encyclopedias can be corrected if there is
an error, which is not the case for the traditional encyclopedias.

Secondly, the author mentions that online encyclopedias can be mishandled by hackers or people with
wrong intensions. He also states that if any incorrect information is placed in the encyclopedias, no one
can figure out if there has been any such activity or not. The lecturer disagrees with this my claiming
that website owners have their own strategies to tackle such problems. They hire special editors to
check the edit done by people and eliminate them if the edits are suspicious.

Lastly, the author posits that the wide content of online encyclopedias can drive viewers to look for
informations they do not need rather than looking for informations they need. He gives an example of a
kid who is on the online encyclopedia for his school project but gets diverted away by other contents.
While the lecturer believes that having a wide range of content is actually beneficial. He puts forth the
idea that having larger variety in content will serve more viewers to get all the knowledge they require
at a same platform.

To conclude, both the author and lecturer hold conflicting views about traditional printed encyclopedias
and communal online encyclopedias. Also, both have their own reasons for their support. It's clear that
they will have trouble finding a common ground on this issue.

Independent writing

08/16/2020

Some people think that human needs for farmland, housing, and industry are more important than
saving land for endangered animals. Do you agree or disagree with this point of view? Why or why
not? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

Yes, some people tend to have a preconceived idea that human needs for farmland, housing and
industry are a more significant than saving land for endangered species. They seem to have a self-
centered perspective over these ideas. However, I strongly disagree with these people, and I believe
that every animal on the planet has equal right over the earth's land and human needs are not the only
needs of the planet. I will support my viewpoint with two reasons.
Firstly, being the most developed species in this planet, humans should be responsible for well-being of
all the species of the planet. As a socially well-developed living creature, we can work on how we can
save lands for endangered species and promoting their growths and habitat minimizing the effects of
human activities on other species. The establishment of national parks, wildlife conservation areas has
been an excellent solution for safe guarding the natural habitat of animals. This would be a wonderful
example for our next generations to show how concerned and attentive the humans should be regarding
ecosystem of other living creatures. This would also promote the bio-diversity and natural beauty that
our planet carries bringing a balance to the ecosystem.

Secondly, there are many positive aspects of other living animals which can be used for benefits of
human beings. Many research has shown that the few animals have a great potential from a
pharmaceutical point of view. For example, it is found that the horns of rhino can be used to treat fever
and low blood pressure problems in human. There are many other cases, where the medicines made
from living animals turned out to be a revolution in curing incurable diseases.

Yes, humans do have the increasing demand of lands for farming, housing and industrial use due to
increasing population, but I still contend that humans should consider its impact on other living
creatures around and shouldn't disturb their surroundings.

08/21/2020

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Overall, the widespread use of the internet
has a mostly positive effect on life in today’s world.

The rapidly growing use of internet has affected a lot in people's life in the past few deacdes. And it’s a
long discussed topic that if the internet has significant positive impact or negative impacts. Personally, I
believe that internet has mostly positive impacts on our life. It's because of the way, the internet has
brought the whole world together and changed our life making everything so simple and easy.

The primary reason for my support would be that the internet has made the world such a small place.
Because of the internet, everyplace seems so near, it has bridged the gap that had hold the world apart.
For example, in today's time, talking to a friend in America in a video call or sending an e-mail to a
buisnessman in Europe is no big deal. If the same thing had to be done back in the time when there was
no internet, video calling was an impossible thing to do and similarly, e-mail didn't existed, so it would
take a lot of time for that mail to be delivered. This communication bridging brought by the internet
primarily has made people to communicate more easily but at a secondary level, it has opened doors for
globalisation. One can have a chat with any business person or a startup owner from anywhere in the
world and explore the chances of trades and buisness ideas. Had there been no internet till this date,
the world wouldn't have been as it is today.

The second reason for my propensity would be the fact that the internet has made everything so easy in
our daily life. One can shop whatever thing he likes online, or whatever food he likes for the dinner
staying at his home and getting things delivered at his door. With every small buisness going online now,
it has influenced people's lifestyle in a significant way and saving people's time and energy. Let's say,
today I am having a pretty busy and hectic day, and I have my son's birthday today. I need to get him a
birthday cake and a gift on my way back home. If it was in the time where internet didn't existed, I surely
would have failed either my son or my employer. But due to internet, I can choose whatever flavoured
cake my son wants, or whatever design of cake he wants, whatever gift he wants, sitting at my office
table and get it delivered at my home. And that would help a lot in today's hectic and busy world.

Which of the following activities do you think will be the most beneficial to the environment? (1)
Commute by biking or walking (2) Recycling (3) Eating a vegan diet

With increasing human activities throughout the world, it's negative impacts on the environment has
also increased significantly in the past few decades. All the countries around the world have taken
measures considering the health of our environment. Personally, I feel eating a vegan diet is the most
effective measure to heal our environment. I feel this way for two main reasons.

Firstly, the most primary reason is that domestic farming is one of the most significant cause of climate
change. With the increasing demand of meat and domestic products in the market, industry of domestic
farming is growing rapidly, consequently increasing the footprints of these activities. Eating a vegan diet
is a very effective measure to decrease the use of domestic products. Recent research has shown that
the cattle farming has more impacts in the environment than use of buses, trains and airplanes all put
together. If all the people start following a vegan diet, it would eventually decrease the production of
harmful gases resulting in a healthy and human friendly environment.

The next reason for my propensity would be that, completely following a vegan diet would change the
way by which humans play with the ecosystem in the name of domestic farming. It is a well known fact
to everybody that to fulfill the fooding demands of the domestic animals, people have been planting
trees and herbs that are more likely to be fed by the animals. This has resulted in removal of numbers of
floras and faunas from the ecosystem. For example, if a farmer starts growing only one type of plant all
around so that it can fulfill the demands of his cattle, it would ultimately result in this new plant
replacing all kinds of vegetation that existed before. This may also further result in extinction of animals
which were dependant upon those vegetations.

In conclusion, I think encouraging everyone to follow a vegan diet is the most significant move to bring
the balance in the environment. This is because it will reduce the amount of carbon footprints and also
help in bringing balance to the ecosystem, consequently resulting in a clean and healthy environment.

People attend college or university for many different reasons (for example, new experiences, career
preparation, increased knowledge). Why do you think people attend college or university? Use
specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

Universities and colleges has been providing students with new experiences, broader knowledge and
skills to prepare them for their career since ages. Different people join college or universities with
different aims. However, in general, I strongly believe that students attend universities to prepare
themselves for their career in future. I think so because universities are the place where you can learn
everything that you'll need in future endeavors.

The main reason for my propensity is colleges provide you the knowledge that you'll require in your
future no matter which career you pursue. If you want to pursue a career in acting, your school will help
you get all the knowledge and skills that you'll require to be an actor. And the same is the case with all
other careers, may it be an engineer, a pilot, a footballer or a film director. Speaking of my own
example, firstly I joined high school and majored in physics after my school level education because I
wanted to be an engineer. After high school, I joined university to pursue my career as an engineer
because university provided me with college degree which is a must need to begin a career as an
engineer.

Furthermore, universities are the best platforms for a student to start their career. Being in a well
established college or a university will give you exposure in your related field, will engage you in various
vocational training, research programs, conferences and seminars. Getting your career kick-started by
joining a reputed company or business is easy if you are enrolled in a renowned college or university. For
an instance, let us take an example of two persons who want to pursue their career as an actor, one of
them joined an acting school and one didn't. In this case, it is relatively easy to get an acting job for the
person who went to the acting school because the school had provided him with related trainings and
skills. It doesn't mean that the one who doesn't go to the school will not get any job, but in any job
market the one with school certificates is preferred.

In conclusion, students join universities and colleges for career preparation, because firstly they provide
the student with a degree which is a must need to start any career, and secondly it is relatively easy for
anyone who joined college or university to get into the job market.

08/23/2020

There's an old saying "The nature of your nearest five friends is going to define what kind of person
you'll be after 5 years". And I personally agree with this idea because I believe that friends are the
biggest influence in anyone's life. But, is making new friends a good thing to do? From my own
experience, I think that making new friends is always a great idea. I feel so because making new friends
is like exploring more of what our life has to offer and also you have greater company to share your joys
and sorrows with.

In my opinion, I think that making new friends is a great opportunity for everyone to explore new things
in life. Once you start doing it, you get to learn new things, may be a new hobby, or a new experience.
Speaking of my own experience from my life, I've had many friends throughout my study life, few from
my schools, then from my high school, and also many from my bachelors. My school friends were a
great influence in my life, actually, they were the reason I choose to be an engineer and now I wonder
what I would have become if it wasn't for them. From my high school friends, I learned to enjoy life and
have more fun. Eventually, with them I found many hobbies in myself, like travelling, exploring,
adventures, and all. Lastly, my bachelors mate helped me to be a better version of myself, without them
I couldn't be as better engineer as I am today. So, I made new friends, learned few things from them,
taught them few things and eventually I grew up older and better.

The next reason for my propensity would be the fact that with more friends around you, you will have a
greater circle to share your happiness and sadness with. Also, not to forget that, by having more people
around you, you'll get to know more kind of people. This will have an impact on your general view over
other people, consequently helping you in having a better opinion and in making better decisions about
your social life. For example, any person who is familiar and friendly with more people is generally
smarter because he knows everyone’s perspective and he can finally come up to his own viewpoint,
which I believe will be better than anyone with fewer peoples around him.

In conclusion, I believe that making new friends is always a smart move because new friends adds new
adventures in your life and also can gives you with a completely new outlook over many things. Besides
that, having many friends also puts you in a place where there are many people to care about you which
is always a better thing to have.

08/24/2020

Use of cars has been widely increased over the whole world in the past few decades. But, will it be the
same forever? or will it be replaced by other forms of vehicle? That is a big question today. Well, I
believe that there will probably be fewer numbers of cars in the time 20 years from now. It's because
with the decreasing amount of fossil fuels on the earth and the whole world now being conscious about
sustainable modes of infrastructures, cars are likely to be replaced by other means of transportation.
Besides that, its’ a well-known fact that scientists and engineers have been working hard in the past few
years to replace cars with other means since the increasing use of cars and increasing human population
in the city areas has made the road traffic controls very difficult.

Firstly, we all know that cars use petroleum fuels to operate and it's engine emits harmful gases like
carbon dioxide and Sulphur dioxide which is one of the major reason for climate change. Even though,
engineers are working on electrically powered motor vehicles, it has been seen that they are not as
powerful as cars run by petrol and diesel engines. So with all these premises, it can be predicted that use
of cars can be replaced by other forms of vehicles which are more sustainable and cause minimum harm
to the environment. Besides that, from the past study of human inventions, we can see that humans
have always came up with some new technology making the previous technology or device obsolete.
We can take the example of increasing use of laptops in past 10 years decreasing the use of desktops, or
horse-drawn cart being replaced by motor vehicles. It is plausible that cars will be replaced by
something new.

Secondly, increasing traffic is one of the major problem big cities are facing nowadays. It is obvious that
this is due to increased use of cars as a private vehicle. Most of the countries are coming up with more
sophisticated and efficient technologies to promote the use of public vehicles. Many cities in countries
like China, Japan, Thailand are spending millions and billions of dollars in railway projects, smart buses
and other public means of transportation. So, it can be inferred that the use of cars is likely to be
decreased in significant number in the next two decades.

To conclude, human race has always come up with new solutions and inventions to our previous
problems and issues. So, it is likely that we will probably see fewer numbers of cars in street than today
twenty years from now, solving all the issues we have with cars.

08/26/2020

With the development of technology, computer games have also evolved to a great extent in the past
few decades. The game developers have come up with different new updates in gaming to give their
customers the experiences that they seek for, attracting more and more children to play and like the
game. This has raised a question among the parents, should the children be allowed to play these games
instead of investing their time in something more real? Well, I believe that the children should not be
allowed to play these games because children who play computer games spend less time other physical
activities which is a crucial thing for a child while growing up. Besides that, research has shown that
majority of gamer children are more isolated and fail to show active social behavior.
Firstly, a child who is more engaged in gaming has less time to spend in physical activities like getting
involved into sports. We all know how important physical activities are for better health and proper
growth of children. A child who is more active in sports like running, swimming or playing soccer will
have well-developed muscles and bones compared to the child who is not involved in any physical
activity. So, it's important that the children should be involved in these types of activities rather than
playing unreal computer games.

Secondly, research and studies have shown that children who spend most of their time in computer
games are more like to be isolated from their immediate social environment like school friends and
family. Children who are more into computer games are often seen to have fewer friends and rarely get
involved in social interaction. We all know how significant social interactions are for mental and social
well-being of children. Socializing with others, making friends, and honing one's skills in social
interaction is a key to success. Therefore, a child who spends fewer time in computer games is more
likely to succeed in life.

Even though there are some serious benefits of computer games, like allowing the children to get
familiarized with new technology, and not to forget, filling them up with joy and excitement, I would still
contend that it has more disadvantages concerning the long term overall well-being of the children. So,
the children should not be allowed to play computer games.

Grammerly corrected:

With the development of technology, computer games have also evolved to a great extent in the past
few decades. The game developers have come up with different new updates in gaming to give their
customers the experiences that they seek for, attracting more and more children to play and like the
game. This has raised a question among the parents, should the children be allowed to play these games
instead of investing their time in something more real? Well, I believe that the children should not be
allowed to play these games because children who play computer games spend less time on other
physical activities which is a crucial thing for a child while growing up. Besides that, research has shown
that the majority of gamer children are more isolated and fail to show active social behavior.

Firstly, a child who is more engaged in gaming has less time to spend on physical activities like getting
involved in sports. We all know how important physical activities are for better health and proper
growth of children. A child who is more active in sports like running, swimming, or playing soccer will
have well-developed muscles and bones compared to the child who is not involved in any physical
activity. So, children must be involved in these types of activities rather than playing unreal computer
games.

Secondly, research and studies have shown that children who spend most of their time in computer
games are more like to be isolated from their immediate social environments like school friends and
family. Children who are more into computer games are often seen to have fewer friends and rarely get
involved in social interaction. We all know how significant social interactions are for the mental and
social well-being of children. Socializing with others, making friends, and honing one's skills in social
interaction is a key to success. Therefore, a child who spends less time on computer games is more likely
to succeed in life.
Even though there are some serious benefits of computer games, like allowing the children to get
familiarized with new technology, and not to forget, filling them up with joy and excitement, I would still
contend that it has more disadvantages concerning the long term overall well-being of the children. So,
children should not be allowed to play computer games.

Second attempt

In the past few decades, use of television has been grown widely, and with the growth of its use, the
advertisement industry has also grown very far. Every day with rising numbers of commercial products,
television commercials are also increasing rapidly. But, should we allow these commercials ads to be
directed towards our children? Well, I believe that these advertisements can have negative influence in
our kids since children can by highly influenced by small things at the age of two to five years. Besides
that, advertisements may drive children to watch televisions more frequently and they might not get
involved in other learning activities. Therefore, I think that advertisements should not be directed
towards kids.

Firstly, kids of the age group 2-5 age do not develop the cognitive ability to distinguish between the right
and the wrong. Also, even if the commercials are trying to show good aspects of something, the child
might get it wrong. For instance, let us take a commercial ad of a television show directed towards kids,
which is a superhero fighting against villains, who oppress the minor peoples of a community. Here,
although, the commercial's aim is to influence the kids by giving them motivations, the kids may also
admire the villains and may get motivated to harm others. This impact for a child may have long term
influence on the child's perspective towards others. Therefore, advertisements may sometimes cause
irreversible and serious impact on kids which should be prevented as far as possible.

Secondly, this age group of children tend to follow and repeat the activity what they find joy in, even if it
is wrong, because their mind is completely immature. A kid who loved an advertisement in television
wants to watch it more frequently. This may result in the child's affection towards television which will
ultimately impact his involvement in other activities. It is no secret that a child who is fond of television
is less likely to study books, or be active in physical activity like playing. There is no doubt that this will
have a negative impact in physical and mental health of the children. So, I believe that it is better if we
keep our children from television advertisements.

Even though there are few examples of some serious positive influence of television commercials over
some kids, but we shall think it's impact on majority of the children. Therefore, I still contend that
making advertisements targeting minors of our community is a wrong attempt if we want well-being of
our children.

Grammerly corrected:

In the past few decades, the use of television has been grown widely, and with the growth of its use, the
advertisement industry has also grown very far. Every day with rising numbers of commercial products,
television commercials are also increasing rapidly. But, should we allow these commercials ads to be
directed towards our children? Well, I believe that these advertisements can have a negative influence
on our kids since children can be highly influenced by small things at the age of two to five years.
Besides that, advertisements may drive children to watch televisions more frequently and they might
not get involved in other learning activities. Therefore, I think that advertisements should not be
directed towards kids.
Firstly, kids of the age group 2-5 age do not develop the cognitive ability to distinguish between right
and wrong. Also, even if the commercials are trying to show good aspects of something, the child might
get it wrong. For instance, let us take a commercial ad of a television show directed towards kids, which
is a superhero fighting against villains, who oppress the minor peoples of a community. Here, although,
the commercial aims to influence the kids by giving them motivations, the kids may also admire the
villains and may get motivated to harm others. This impact for a child may have long term influence on
the child's perspective towards others. Therefore, advertisements may sometimes cause irreversible and
serious impact on kids which should be prevented as far as possible.

Secondly, this age group of children tends to follow and repeat the activity that they find joy in, even if it
is wrong because their mind is completely immature. A kid who loved an advertisement on television
wants to watch it more frequently. This may result in the child's affection towards television which will
ultimately impact his involvement in other activities. It is no secret that a child who is fond of television
is less likely to study books or be active in physical activity like playing. There is no doubt that this will
harm the physical and mental health of the children. So, I believe that it is better if we keep our children
from television advertisements.

Even though there are few examples of some serious positive influence of television commercials over
some kids, but we shall think about its impacts on the majority of the children. Therefore, I still contend
that making advertisements targeting minors of our community is a wrong attempt if we want the well-
being of our children.

08/28/2020

With evolution of human beings, development of technology and infrastructures have comforted human
lives in many aspects. But, has the life of a person actually become easier than it was before? Or have
we made it more difficult for our off springs to live a simple lifestyle? Well, I believe that scientific
discoveries and updated technologies have eased our lifestyle by a great extent. Besides that, it has
allowed us to enjoy our life in the way none of our ancestors have done before.

Firstly, the infrastructures and facilities we use in our daily life has undoubtedly made everything easy
today. At today's world, everything you want is just a button away from you. Anything we use,
televisions to mobile phones, cooking appliances to dish washer, or cycles to airplanes, everything has
made our life way more comfortable than it was before. If we imagine the time of our grandparents,
who used to communicate with their loved ones working abroad with the aid of hand-written letters, or
had to walk miles to go to the town for shopping, it is no secret how tough the situations were back
then. Everything we do today has become way more simple, which saves us plenty of time to invest our
time on other things.
Secondly, with much of the works being aided by machines, we are able to save a lot of time which we
can invest in any way we like. For instance, let us take a young guy who has a lot of laundries to do. If it
was the time of our grandparents, he had to allocate certain amount of time to do the washing. But
now, with the help of machine, he can save a significant amount of time. He can use that time to do
anything he want to. He can enjoy playing music, watching a movie, writing poems or stories, or
anything he finds fascinating. This is the comfort that our grandparents missed because they didn't had
time to get engaged in the activities they were interested in.
Yes, there are people who might argue that living just a simple life has also been challenging now, things
were better previously. But I still contend that with every generation, the lives of people have become
more and more comforting than it used to be.

https://www.examenglish.com/TOEFL/TOEFL_reading1.htm

Tests:

https://toefl.magoosh.com/free-toefl-practice-test?
utm_source=toeflblog&utm_medium=blog&utm_campaign=blog-
pdfs&utm_term=button&utm_content=practice&_ga=2.248436103.1616713883.1597412649-
1112405474.1597412649

https://www.bestmytest.com/toefl/speaking

The Chemistry department has recently published a notice about the scholarship awards given to the
students who have grades greater than 90 %. But the girl on the conversation however doesn’t like the
move of the college. Firstly, she says that the college should use their funding in updating the equipment
in the chemistry lab because most of these equipment has become obsolete. This would help the
students to get handy with the latest equipment that are used in the real chemistry field. Secondly, the
funding should be given to the students who are working really hard to study even they don’t have 90 %
grades rather than luring the students with greater grades. This would really motivate the students who
are working really hard.