Should government spend public money on saving small languages? Hi there! this is my IELTS writing homework. I really appreciate it if you could correct it! ======= Several languages are in danger of extinction because they are spoken by very small numbers of people. Some people say that governments should spend public money on saving these languages, while others believe that would be a waste of money. Discuss both these views and give your opinion. In recent years, the issue of whether government should spend money on saving some languages which are spoken by minority of people has sparked a series of controversies. While Someone said it is necessary, others believe it is meaningless. From my opinion, I support the later one. On the one hand, language is regarded as the representation of culture, because it often constants a local and unique style of thinking form a certain region. Thus, saving a language means saving the regional culture in some extents. For example, the language form XinLi where is located in the rural area in China, is spoken by only 10 thousand residences. But, there are nearly 100 thousand people learn it on the internet due to it’s special logic and pronunciation. If the government did not protect this language from extinction, no one could get the beauty of this delicate language and the culture behind it. On the other hand, the importance of other issues that ought to be addressed by the government should not be underestimated, such as starvation and health issue. Compared with saving language, saving lives is more urgent, because we are nothing without lives. In some developing countries, even in some developed countries, a number of people are suffering from starvation or poverty, if the public departments could take their responsibility to deal with it, like investing more money on food production or basic healthy insurance, many people might have a hope of life. A report from The Economists indicated that in Guizhou, China, 1000 dollars can matin a poor family’s live for a year. The budget of the government is limited, using this 1000 dollar on saving a less well-known language means taking away that family’s hope. In summary, from the points given, I believe the governments should invest more on some more urgent issues rather than a language.

Please help me to correct the writing Hi there! This is my IELTS writing homework. I really appreciate it if you could correct it! ======= This line graph illustrates the number of fish and meat consumption perversion per week in the US between 1979 and 2004. Overall, it is clear that the figure for chicken had a dramatic growth and became the biggest one in 2004, while beef and lamb saw downward trends during this period. To be more specific, although beef consumption was the highest number in 1979 with nearly 220g and reached the peak at roughly 240g in 1982, it dropped sharply from 298g to 2004 falling from 235g to only 120g. Similarly, there was also a huge reduction in the volume of lamb. It had decreased by approximately 100g, from 155g to 60g, despite there were three small increases in 1987, 1997 and 2003. By contrast, people in the UK consumed more and more chicken. The number of the consumption increased dramatically, growing from 245g to 250g during this time, and overweighed lamb in 1980 and beef in 1990. Compared with that, the trend of fish was relatively stable, which fell by 5g from 2919to 2980, then it remain stable between 25g to 55g in the flowing years.

Help! Which sentence is correct? I want to say: I found a problem when I filled out the form. But I want to express it differently Which one is correct and nature? (and what are these grammars called) 1. I found a problem filling out the form 2. I found a problem, filling out the form 3. I found a problem while filling out the form 4. I found a problem when filling out the form

Help! Restrictive and Non—Restrictive attributive clauses! which one is correct and nature? 1 I hate those companies that emit pollutants 2 I hate those companies which emit pollutants 3 I hate those companies, which emit pollutants 4 I hate those companies who emit pollutants 5 I like to go to places where there have natural scenery. 6 I like to go to places, where can borden my horizons. 7 I like to go to places that have natural scenery. 8 I like to go to places which have natural scenery.

WHAT THE DIFFERENT: dweller/citizen/resident/inhabitant WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE: dweller/citizen/resident/inhabitant and how to use them

HELP! How to use this compare sentence?? Are these two sentences correct? 1. The risk of having heart disease for the people who exercise regularly is 30% lower than those who don't 2.People who exercise regularly have a more than 30% lower risk of heart disease than those who don't

Is it good to move the large companies and factories to the countryside? Hi there! this is my IELTS writing homework. I would really appreciate it if you could correct it! ======= Q: Traffic and housing problems in major cities could be solved by moving large companies and factories and their employees to the countryside. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Traffic and housing problems in major cities could be solved by moving large companies and factories and their employees to the countryside. To what extent do you agree or disagree? In recent years, with the development of urbanization, the problems of cities has sparked a series of controversies. Some people suggest that relocating large companies and their personnel to the rural area should be a good solution of traffic and housing problems. From my perspective, I firmly agree with that. This essay will use examples to demonstrates my opinions. Firstly, moving the large companies and factories and their employees is helpful to reduce traffic congestion because the staff could be separated when they commute. This means people would not have to go to the same concentrated area in the city, instead, they would be able to avoid crowed passengers and go to different destinations. As a consequence, if city dwellers worked in diverse places, it will greatly release the pressure of public transportation system. For instant, since some huge firms has been moved from the City center, the traffic situation is Beijing has changed much better than before. Secondly, relocating companies is also beneficial for resolving housing problems. The central reason is the price of housing will decrease. With more people choose to live close to their workplace where is in the countryside, the rent of house that are located in the midtown will drop. A report from Beijing City Council indicated that many megacity regarded satellite town as an efficient way to lower the housing price. In summary, from the opinions given, I think moving the large companies and their employees from city center plays a significant role in untangling the traffic and housing issues.

Is sport just a leisure activity? I don't think so. Hi there! this is my IELTS writing homework. I would really appreciate it if you could correct it! ======= Q: Some people think that sports are important to society, while others think they are just leisure activities. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. In recent years, the issue of sport has sparked a series of controversies. Some people believe that sport plays a vital role in the society while others regard it as just an entertainment. From my perspective, I firmly agree with the former viewpoint. This essay will discuss both sides and try to demonstrate my opinions. On the one hand, it is true that sport unlike other activities, such as studying or working, can bring direct benefits. For a great number of people, especially for someone who is unwealthy, it is much wiser to spend time on earning money. Whereas doing physical exercise is obviously not one of that kind of activities. For instant, when I was young and didn't make much money, I used my time to study and work because it helps me to increase my salary . Only when I felt boring or when I had time, I went out to exercise. On the other hand, Although sport is a leisure activity in some people’s mind, it does not mean the importance of it should be underestimated. The central reason behind this is twofold - initially, sport is beneficial for Bothe people’s mental and physical health. A study from Harvard university indicated that the people who doing exercise regularly have nearly 30% lover risk of having heart disease than those who didn’t. Secondly, as one of the most valuable industries, the development of sport in cosset is vital for the economy. Only in the last year, with a growing number of residences doing sport, more than 20,000 new jobs were supplied in Beijing. Therefore, sport is significant in people’s life. In summary, the opinions given, I believe sport isn’t just a relaxing activity, instead, it is a vital activity in our society.

A Forever Beauty : The Story of Diana Last week, I saw a documentary about Princess Diana on Netflix. In my memory, Diana was a pretty and famous celebrity, but I didn't know her very well. After t saw it, I was totally addicted to her and felt heartbroken about her death. She is absolutely a great star, a great woman, a great female leader. First, she was so gorgeous that wherever she was, she was the center of attention. And she was not just a pretty woman, what's more, she sets an example for all celebrities, she used her influence to guide people to pay attention to vulnerable groups and to eliminate prejudice. Secondly, She was also a victim of a royal family and the press. The rigid British royal family suppressed her character, and the crazy media deprived her privacy. Third, and the most important, She was a person who never admits defeat. She has changed the public's impression of royalty; she has changed people's perception of a woman. The most impressive sentence in this film is that: She didn't want to be a reader, she wanted to be the writer of her own book.