mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
essay-ielts Options
Atatürk
Posted: Thursday, February 18, 2021 2:57:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/25/2018
Posts: 1,828
Neurons: 8,333
Location: İstoç, Istanbul, Turkey
Would you please check my IELTS essay? It is just personal practice, not homework.

In many places, new homes are needed, but the only space available for building them is in the countryside. Some people believe it is more important to protect the countryside and not build new homes there. What is your opinion about this? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

My answer:

In recent times, population growth has resulted in more demands for housing. It is often argued that extra homes have to be built in the countryside where more space is available, while others disagree. I believe that the environment must be protected at all costs.

To begin with, citizens need accommodation for living and there is no place left in the big cities. This can be overcome by building new apartments around the cities and in villages. According to research, in order to maintain mental health, it is very important to own a spacy and private place for living. The cities are also already crammed with high-rises and small apartment buildings. However, I argue that the governments must look for other environmentally-friendly solutions. For instance, the residents of overcrowded urban areas must be encouraged, through incentives, to move to less populated cities, where there are already enough residences. As a long-term solution, governments must also keep populations in control so that there would be a balance between the existing living space and housing demand.

Constructions in the countryside would in fact result in many problems for humans such as air pollution and traffic congestion, which are the cause of many health problems. For example, in Delhi most of the countryside was destroyed in order to build new apartments and now it is the most polluted city in India. Moreover, the countryside is a peaceful shelter for many city dwellers who need to take fresh air and relive their stress and anxiety caused by the city life. If this amenity is destroyed, the quality of these people’s life would be yet more compromised.

In conclusion, the destruction of the countryside should not be taken as the easy option as it will bring about more drawbacks than benefits. It, as a temporary solution, will just deteriorate the conditions; where would be the next target of destruction after we lost our green lands to the unstoppable humans’ demand for housing?
FounDit
Posted: Friday, February 19, 2021 1:08:04 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 15,184
Neurons: 72,704
Atatürk wrote:
Would you please check my IELTS essay? It is just personal practice, not homework.
I'll offer suggestions on the writing and sentence structure, and not on the positions you take, as some are contradictory. So it's good that this is just personal practice.

In many places, new homes are needed, but the only space available for building them is in the countryside. Some people believe it is more important to protect the countryside and not build new homes there. What is your opinion about this? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

My answer:

In recent times, population growth has resulted in more demands for housing. It is often argued that extra homes have to be built in the countryside where more space is available, while others disagree. I believe that the environment must be protected at all costs.

To begin with, citizens need accommodation for living and there is no place left in the big cities.Saying, "To begin with", and then saying people need more accommodation after just saying the environment must be protected at all costs, doesn't logically go together. Omit "To begin with", and simply start with "However, citizens..." to show the contrast.

This can be overcome by building new apartments around the cities and in villages. According to research, in order to maintain mental health, it is very important to own a space and have a private place for living. But the cities are also already crammed with high-rises and small apartment buildings. However, I argue that the governments must look for other environmentally-friendly solutions. For instance, the residents of overcrowded urban areas must be encouraged, through incentives, to move to less populated cities, where there are already enough residences. As a long-term solution, governments must also keep populations in control so that there would be a balance between the existing living space and housing demand.

Construction in the countryside would in fact result in many problems for humans, such as air pollution and traffic congestion, which are the cause of many health problems. For example, in Delhi most of the countryside was destroyed in order to build new apartments, and now it is the most polluted city in India. Moreover, the countryside is a peaceful shelter for many city dwellers who need to take fresh air and relief from the stress and anxiety caused by the city life. If this amenity is destroyed, the quality of these people’s lives would be yet more compromised.

In conclusion, the destruction of the countryside should not be taken as the easy option, as it will bring about more drawbacks than benefits. It, as a temporary solution, will just deteriorate the conditions; where would the next target of destruction be (moved here) after we lost our green lands to the unstoppable human demand for housing?
Atatürk
Posted: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 4:39:18 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/25/2018
Posts: 1,828
Neurons: 8,333
Location: İstoç, Istanbul, Turkey
Thank you very much for your very constructive feedback.

How should I realize whether it's a possessive construction (human's demand) or an adjunct noun (human demand)?

Atatürk
Posted: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 4:54:41 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/25/2018
Posts: 1,828
Neurons: 8,333
Location: İstoç, Istanbul, Turkey
Here is the revised edition, based on your feedback. I would appreciate it if you could have look at it and let me know if it is still contradictory.


In recent times, population growth has resulted in more demands for housing. It is often argued that extra homes have to be built in the countryside where more space is available, while others disagree. I believe that the environment must be protected and considered only as a last resort.

Construction in the countryside would in fact result in many problems for humans, such as air pollution and traffic congestion, which are the cause of many health problems. For example, in Delhi most of the countryside was destroyed in order to build new apartments, and now it is the most polluted city in India. Moreover, the countryside is a peaceful shelter for many city dwellers who need fresh air and relief from the stress and anxiety caused by city life. If this amenity is destroyed, the quality of these people’s lives would be yet more compromised.


That said, citizens need accommodation for living and there is very little place left in big cities and metropolises, which are crammed with high-rises and small apartment buildings. Although this can be overcome by building new apartments around the cities and in villages, I argue governments must look for other environmentally-friendly solutions. For instance, the residents of overcrowded urban areas must be encouraged, through incentives, to move to less populated cities, where there are already enough residences. As a long-term solution, governments must also keep populations in control so that there would be a balance between the existing living space and housing demand.



In conclusion, the destruction of the countryside should not be taken as the easy option, as it will bring about more drawbacks than benefits. It, as a temporary solution, will just deteriorate the conditions; where would the next target of destruction be after we lost our green lands to the unstoppable human demand for housing?
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 11:44:39 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 15,184
Neurons: 72,704
Atatürk wrote:
Here is the revised edition, based on your feedback. I would appreciate it if you could have look at it and let me know if it is still contradictory.


In recent times, population growth has resulted in more demands for housing. It is often argued that extra homes have to be built in the countryside where more space is available, while others disagree. I believe that the environment must be protected and expansion into the countryside considered only as a last resort.

Construction in the countryside would in fact result in many problems for humans, such as air pollution and traffic congestion, which are the cause of many health problems. For example, in Delhi most of the countryside was destroyed in order to build new apartments, and now it is the most polluted city in India. Moreover, the countryside is a peaceful shelter for many city dwellers who need fresh air and relief from the stress and anxiety caused by city life. If this amenity is destroyed, the quality of these people’s lives would be yet more compromised.


That said, citizens need accommodation for living and there is very little place left in big cities and metropolises, which are crammed with high-rises and small apartment buildings. Although this can be overcome by building new apartments around the cities and in villages, I argue governments must look for other environmentally-friendly solutions. For instance, the residents of overcrowded urban areas must be encouraged, through incentives, to move to less populated cities, where there are already enough residences (where did these residences come from that are available to city dwellers? Someone had to pay to build them. Were they sitting empty, waiting for buyers? Needs explanation for this idea.). As a long-term solution, governments must also keep populations in control so that there would be a balance between the existing living space and housing demand. Here you advocate for government control of the population. I don't think that will likely be acceptable to most people. It's like China's one child policy.

In conclusion, the destruction of the countryside should not be taken as the easy option, as it will bring about more drawbacks than benefits. It, as a temporary solution (This would not be a temporary solution. Expansion of home building is rather permanent), will just deteriorate the conditions; where would the next target of destruction be after we lost our green lands to the unstoppable human demand for housing?
You lay out a problem that exists between affordable housing and the destruction of the countryside, or Nature. This has always been a problem since cities were invented. Housing can't expand without destroying the countryside around it. Since humans are expanding in numbers and cities need to grow, one solution is to create green spaces inside the cities, such as parks, and green growth on the tops of buildings where feasible. Some future planners envision buildings that incorporate green growth into the building itself. This becomes a blend of expansion and preserving nature.

Atatürk
Posted: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 1:18:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/25/2018
Posts: 1,828
Neurons: 8,333
Location: İstoç, Istanbul, Turkey
Thank you ever so much.

Here is the next draft, please.

In recent times, population growth has resulted in more demands for housing. It is often argued that extra homes have to be built in the countryside where more space is available, while others disagree. I believe that the environment must be protected and expansion into the countryside considered only as a last resort and under certain conditions.

Construction in the countryside would in fact result in many problems for humans, such as air pollution and traffic congestion, which are the cause of many health problems. For example, in Delhi most of the countryside was destroyed in order to build new apartments, and now it is the most polluted city in India. Moreover, the countryside is a peaceful shelter for many city dwellers who need fresh air and relief from the stress and anxiety caused by city life. If this amenity is destroyed, the quality of these people’s lives would be yet more compromised.

That said, citizens need accommodation for living but there is very little place left in big cities and metropolises, which are crammed with high-rises and small apartment buildings. Although this can be overcome by building new apartments around the cities and in villages, I argue governments must look for other environmentally-friendly solutions. For instance, the residents of overcrowded urban areas must be encouraged, through incentives, to move to less populated cities, where there are already enough vacant residences. Otherwise/alternatively, if human encroachment into the nature is inevitable, measures should be taken instead to create green spaces inside the cities, such as parks, and green growth on the tops of buildings where feasible.

The destruction of the countryside should not be taken as the easy option, as it will overall bring about more drawbacks than benefits. What would our life look like if we recklessly lost our green lands to the unstoppable human demand for housing? Would we still enjoy a 'green' planet?
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 1:53:49 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 15,184
Neurons: 72,704
Atatürk wrote:
Thank you ever so much.

Here is the next draft, please.

In recent times, population growth has resulted in more demands for housing. It is often argued that extra homes have to be built in the countryside where more space is available, while others disagree. I believe that the environment must be protected and expansion into the countryside considered only as a last resort and under certain conditions.

Construction in the countryside would in fact result in many problems for humans, such as air pollution and traffic congestion, which are the cause of many health problems. For example, in Delhi most of the countryside was destroyed in order to build new apartments, and now it is the most polluted city in India. Moreover, the countryside is a peaceful shelter for many city dwellers who need fresh air and relief from the stress and anxiety caused by city life. If this amenity is destroyed, the quality of these people’s lives would be yet more compromised.

That said, citizens need accommodation for living, but there is very little space left in big cities and metropolises, which are crammed with high-rises and small apartment buildings. Although this can be overcome by building new apartments around the cities and in villages, I argue governments must look for other environmentally-friendly solutions. For instance, the residents of overcrowded urban areas must be encouraged, through incentives, to move to less populated cities, where there are already enough vacant residences (so long as you're sure this is true, ok. But you may be asked for evidence to back it up). Alternatively, if human encroachment into the nature is inevitable, measures should be taken instead to create green spaces inside the cities, such as parks, and green growth on the tops of buildings where feasible.

The destruction of the countryside should not be taken as the easy option, as it will overall bring about more drawbacks than benefits. What would our life look like if we recklessly lost our green lands to the unstoppable human demand for housing? Would we still enjoy a 'green' planet?
Atatürk
Posted: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 2:29:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/25/2018
Posts: 1,828
Neurons: 8,333
Location: İstoç, Istanbul, Turkey
I can't thank you enough, dear FounDit.

Is the following any better? The changes are emboldened.

In recent times, population growth has resulted in more demands for housing. It is often argued that extra homes have to be built in the countryside where more space is available, while others disagree. I believe that the environment must be protected and expansion into the countryside be considered only as a last resort and under certain conditions.

Construction in the countryside would in fact result in many problems for humans and animals alike, such as air pollution and the disruption of ecosystems, which are the root cause of many other problems. For example, in Delhi most of the countryside was destroyed in order to build new apartments, and now it has not only lost much of its biodiversity, but it has also turned into the most polluted city in India. Moreover, the countryside is a peaceful shelter for many city dwellers who need fresh air and relief from the stress and anxiety caused by city life. If this amenity is destroyed, the quality of these people’s lives would be yet more compromised.

That said, citizens need accommodation for living, but there is very little space left in big cities and metropolises, which are crammed with high-rises and small apartment buildings. Although this can be overcome by building new apartments around the cities and in surrounding villages, I argue governments must look for other environmentally-friendly solutions. For instance, the residents of rural areas and less populated cities must be encouraged, through incentives and facilities, not to migrate to already over-populated cities. Nonetheless, if human encroachment into the nature is inevitable, measures should be taken to reverse the damage by creating green spaces inside the cities, such as parks, and green growth on the tops of buildings where feasible.

The destruction of the countryside should not be taken as the easy option, as it will overall bring about more drawbacks than benefits if we recklessly lose our green lands to the unstoppable human demand for housing, hence the need for more nature-based solutions.
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 8:41:16 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 15,184
Neurons: 72,704
Atatürk wrote:
I can't thank you enough, dear FounDit.

Is the following any better? The changes are emboldened.
It looks very good to me. Now that the wording appears to be done, I see only a couple of places where a comma and a semi-colon perhaps might be good.

In recent times, population growth has resulted in more demands for housing. It is often argued that extra homes have to be built in the countryside where more space is available, while others disagree. I believe that the environment must be protected and expansion into the countryside be considered only as a last resort and under certain conditions.

Construction in the countryside would, in fact, result in many problems for humans and animals alike, such as air pollution and the disruption of ecosystems, which are the root cause of many other problems. For example, in Delhi most of the countryside was destroyed in order to build new apartments, and now it has not only lost much of its biodiversity, but it has also turned into the most polluted city in India. Moreover, the countryside is a peaceful shelter for many city dwellers who need fresh air and relief from the stress and anxiety caused by city life. If this amenity is destroyed, the quality of these people’s lives would be yet more compromised.

That said, citizens need accommodation for living, but there is very little space left in big cities and metropolises, which are crammed with high-rises and small apartment buildings. Although this can be overcome by building new apartments around the cities and in surrounding villages, I argue governments must look for other environmentally-friendly solutions. For instance, the residents of rural areas and less populated cities must be encouraged, through incentives and facilities, not to migrate to already over-populated cities. Nonetheless, if human encroachment into the nature is inevitable, measures should be taken to reverse the damage by creating green spaces inside the cities, such as parks, and green growth on the tops of buildings where feasible.

The destruction of the countryside should not be taken as the easy option, as it will, overall, bring about more drawbacks than benefits if we recklessly lose our green lands to the unstoppable human demand for housing; hence the need for more nature-based solutions.
Atatürk
Posted: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 11:44:14 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/25/2018
Posts: 1,828
Neurons: 8,333
Location: İstoç, Istanbul, Turkey
Thank you very much for your generous help. God bless you.
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 12:26:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 15,184
Neurons: 72,704
Atatürk wrote:
Thank you very much for your generous help. God bless you.


You are welcome. I'm glad you found my suggestions helpful.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.