italki

Cerca tra vari insegnanti di Inglese...

Post

Could you correct my essay? Thanks! There are two opposite opinions on recycling about if requirement of recycling should be accompanied with legal regulation. Some people claimed strongly that government needs to intervene this issue and make legal restriction properly to increase recycling rate, but others argued that it is supposed to leave to individual’s conscience and responsibility of citizen, and not business of government, either. We all agree that recycling plays significant role to preserve sustained green environment and is also beneficial for companies and customers in terms of economical reason, which is decrease of manufacturing cost by recycling. First of all, let’s take a look about how much recycling is needed for environmental preservation. There are three different ways to deal with dump and trash we throw away every single days. We can burn with fire, bury under ground, or ocean. Burning them generates the gases which are detrimental to respiratory organs such as lungs and burring them under ground or ocean make a severe impact on animals and living creature which are living around. For example, turtles and gulls often recognize plastic material as their preys. Even it takes a few ten thousands of years to dissemble plastic under ground or ocean. Secondly, making products with recycled material can reduce the cost of manufacturing, which is advantageous for companies and household because companies can offer cheaper goods to customers. Therefore, because of a bounty of advantages of recycling, making it legal requirement is needed for public interests. For instance, government offers many kinds of subsidy, which is tax benefit, to residents whom they recycle more than average household, but gives punishment, environment charges, to them who didn’t obey the rule.

IELTS TASK1.... Could you give me a feedback and correct my wrong sentences? This line graph illustrates how much average carbon dioxide is emitted per person in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy and Portugal from 1967 to 2007. Overall, average carbon dioxide emissions of Italy and Portugal showed a significant rise over the period, while the emissions of CO2 molecule of Sweden and the United Kingdom experienced a downward trend. In 1967, CO2 emissions of Italy and Portugal were almost 4 and 1 respectively. The CO2 emissions of Italy rose steady, but significantly nearly to 7, exceeding Sweden’s CO2 emissions in the year 1987. Then, Italy remained stable for a decade since 1997. The CO2 emissions of Portugal increased sharply almost to 5, but remained plateau from 1997 to 2007, reaching same amount of the CO2 emissions with the CO2 emissions of Sweden in the end of the period. In early 1967, CO2 emissions of the United Kingdom was largest among these four countries. Even though it declined approximately to 9 till 2007, it stayed the one which is largest among them. The CO2 emissions of Sweden once rose dramatically from 1967 to 1977, but sharply dropped about to 5 in the end of the period.

IELTS WRITING, Could you correct my essay? Thanks! The given bar graph illustrates how often American people ate in fast food restaurants between 2003 to 2013. Generally speaking, almost of Americans had the experience to eat fast food, and half of them ate it at least once a week. On the other hand, only about 5% of them never have had it. According to the chart below, American people who ate it everyday is least among Americans who ate fast food, while those who ate it once a week are most in 2003 and in 2006, and those who ate it once or twice a month are reported most in 2013. In 2003 and 2006, the scale of vertical value, which is the ‘percentage of people’, increases from ‘everyday’ to ‘once a week’, but it decreases from ‘once a week’ to ‘never’. However, in 2013 it increases from ‘everyday’ to ‘once or twice a month’ and decreases from ‘once or twice a month’ to ‘never’. In conclusion, American people in 2013 ate less fast food than in 2003 or in 2006.