Test 1:

The picture illustrates planned changes that will be made to an established industrial site of a
town named Norbiton. Apparently, it will be converted from a manufacturing site to a
residential area.
The places where factories are now situated will be foreclosed and houses will be built on
them. Additionally, to accommodate the growing population of the town, the size of a house
will be far bigger than that of a factory and they will be organized into three turfs, one in the
east, one in the west and one up north. As a result, roads will be modified to facilitate traffic in
this area. A roundabout will be put in the south, in place of the old three-way junction to
smooth the flow of vehicles. And a bridge will be put across the river to enable approach to the
north’s residence on the farmland.
Along with the mentioned upgrades, services and facilities will also be constructed. There will
be a school located on the east end, a playground nesting in the east’s residences, a medical
center on the right of the newly built traffic circle and shops on the opposite side of the medical

center.

Risk taking may yield benefits for the reckless people. These men may boast about their success
and encourage others to make such decision in their career and personal life. In my opinion,
however, this practice without statistical calculations could impose unfathomable damages to
one’s life and career in comparison with possible gains it might bring, which I shall explain
below.

On one hand, a success based on risk-taking could be less time-consuming and on a bigger scale
than a risk-avoiding success. For example, if one wants to make a saving of 100.000 dollars,
they can choose either to save up day by day until they reach that number or to make
investment into the stock market. When the price of stock goes up in a quick period, they will
earn big sums of money. It definitely costs them less time trying and the winning prize could
exceed their expected number greatly. That is why in professional pursuit or personal life, a
person might decide to take risk so as to earn such big achievements in a quick manner.

However, despite those tempting huge gains, risk-taking decisions without evidence can cause
unrecoverable damages to a person. Indeed, without factoring in every possible adverse
outcome, instead just merely focusing on the gain in the end, he might incur great loss,
enormous debt and even legal litigation. Take the stock investment for instance, via heeding
encouragement from his fellow man and making no calculations based on facts, he could
blindly make such risky outlay and lose big sums of money rather achieving something. Besides,
a success essentially based on risk-taking could hardly be replicated. That is in part due to
serendipitous factors such as a coincidental convergence of high demand and low supply or
good, helpful contacts. Without these facilitators, the success rate of a person would not be
high enough.
In conclusion, I, myself, am not in favor of risk-taking without thorough consideration of
possible adverse outcomes despite the big achievements that would follow if one pulls off the
risky situation.
The table indicates the distribution of budget for police in 2017 and 2018 in one region of the
UK and the pie charts demonstrate percentages of the money which was spent on three
sectors.
At a glance, there was not huge increase between 2017 and 2018 total budget, only about 5%
raise and there were disproportionate spendings among three categories.
Most of the funds came from national government, about 50% of the total while local taxes
accounted for 40% and other sources like grants took up a small slice of 10%. Among those,
local taxes received a bigger rise compared to the other two, 10m relative to 2m and 0,5m in
national government and grants, respectively.
The funds were mostly spent on salaries for officers and staff in both years despite a slight drop
from 2017 to 2018 (75% to 69%). Building and transport did not receive any raise in the
allocation of budget while in technology sector, nearly 100% increase could be observed from
2017 to 2018.

Since the advent of smartphones, it is noticeable that children get more and more hooked with
them all day and night. In my view, this trend could be based on the fact that there is a lack of
safe places for pastime in cities. And I believe this habit could negatively impact the
development of young generations.

Children could not have many opportunities to play outside these days. As one can see, there
are huge increases in population which have crammed the streets with numerous vehicles. This
could pose many risks of accidents to children while playing outside. The city council might
combat this by building more parks and playgrounds but they can unlikely accommodate all the
needs in every part of the city. That is apparently why more and more parents and children
choose to stay at home and use smartphones for their amusement instead thanks to its
conveniences.

Personally, I contend that this would cause harm to the development of a child who is
constantly playing smartphones. Smartphones could emit lights that can have some bad effects
on the brain function. For example, it could disrupt the sleep-wake cycle and cause sleep
deprivation if used at nights. This, in turn, could affect the wellness and memory of a child. As a
result, their cognitive development could be hindered. Another downside is that if some
contents on the internet were not censored by parents, it could pervert the perception of a
child about the world. Violent videos, for instance, could instil the thought of violence-based
methods in children to resolve disputes.
In conclusion, that children are using too much smartphones could be explained by the paucity
of risk-free playgrounds in big cities. If this phenomenon slips through the cracks, children
might be afflicted with deleterious consequences.

Homeschooling seems an attractive choice for parents in some countries. While some
advantages could be detailed, its disadvantages are more of a reason why parents should send
their kids to school.

On one hand, at-home education might benefit a family with lower costs, safe environment and
better preparation for the children’s future careers. When letting their children study at home,
parents would save a lot educational costs such as tuition fees or expenese for materials and
uniform clothes. The savings might be a huge sum of money if the children go to school.
Another concern is that bullying and discrimination could arise in any institutions, which might
often come from bigger classmates or maleficent teachers. These incidents could affect the
psychological development of timid or autistic schoolkids. Therefore, these particulars might be
better off receiving home education. Furthermore, teaching kids at home could spare them
from irrelevant subjects that is considered unnecessary for their job preferences. For example,
if a child wants to become a singer, he or she should focus on music lessions rather than maths
or physics.

On the other hand, kids that are home-based taught might lack skills that help them integrate
into the society. Obviously, at school, children would learn to cooperate with their classmates
to complete tasks. Then, they can learn the values of teamwork which is required most in any
fields of careers. Besides, the school regulations would force children into orderly behaviours
that might make them responsible and complying people. These standards are likely necessary
in any communities and they might not be achieved at home when the kids are slack and their
parents are not pedagogically trained. Last disadvantage should be mentioned to outweigh the
abovementioned advantage is that studying at school provides kids with degrees. These papers
seem to be the prerequisites for any job application and statistically speaking, those with
degrees apparently earn more incomes than those who do not own anything.

In conclusion, whereas home education seems to be worthwhile due to reduced costs, better
nurturing environment for special types of kids and omission of irrelevant subjects for career
requirements, it could not compete with academies because of social skill training and
competency certification.