CONDITIONS to be used in Writing Task-2
1.
• Even though she spoke very quietly, he understood every word.
• She didn't get the job, even though she had all the necessary qualifications.
2. Although : Although we don't agree, I think she's a brilliant speaker.
• I enjoyed the course, although I would have liked more grammar practice.
•Although we saw each other every day, we didn't really know each other.
Indubitably, living alone is a situation where you will be taking care of things like finances, food, bills and other requirements all by yourself. It is believed that in the contemporary era, millennials deciding to live all alone than bygone era. However, it is constructive as well as destructive trend.
Apparently, living alone holds wide range of constructive benefits. First and foremost, staying alone not only teaches independence, but also provide sense of responsibility. To vindicate, as per BBC previous year report, 90% people understand all major responsibilities who are living by their own whereas only 40% people understand who are living with someone else as they take things granted. Secondly, unless you waste lot of money, living alone can benefit considerably in saving big amount of money. When you live alone, you pay expenses yourself which subsequentially teaches you financial management. Thereby, you can save more money for your future.
Nevertheless, it entails myriad detrimental ramifications. Chiefly, if any serious health issue arises, there will be no one to call on emergency number or to take care off. To corroborate, in past decade 60% dead bodies which are unidentified and could be saved if informed on right time are those who were living alone as published by wall street of journal. Moreover, can loneliness lead to depression? Certainly yes, being alone is not that easy for anyone. After few years, it causes depression which has harrowing upshot on mental as well as physical health.
To recapitulate, although living alone has its own inherited downsides, its constructive ripples in terms of sense of responsibility, savings and independence is unsurpassable. Needless to state, it is mixed bag of both boon and bane.
Many people say that the only way to guarantee a good job is to complete a course of university education. Others claim that it is better to start work after school and gain experience in the world of work. Discuss both views and give your opinion ?
Every individual thrives for successful career for which education serve as a foundation block of learning. However, there are two predominantly contrasting views where a section of society vehemently deems that only path to assure a good job is to complete a graduation, while other emphasizes that best way is to start job after school to acquire some experience first.
Apparently, various factors make a section of people advocate that completing university education can only entail to good job and have reasons to substantiate it. First and foremost, skilled jobs not only require a professional degree, but also require practical experience to perform it. To vindicate, globally 100% doctors have qualified degree of their particular field as jobs like doctors, engineers require a degree from university before starting their promising career. Secondly, unlike old times when employers used to offer a job to candidate from university, nowadays numerous jobs fair happens and most employers who provide their presence in jobs fair always seek and give priority to candidate who has a degree because it shows a certain level of intelligence and education.
Nevertheless, some believe that gaining experience in the work after school benefited considerably to an individual. Chiefly, if only university courses were pathway to good job, then world would not have encountered great minds. To corroborate, 80% entrepreneur does not have any qualified degree or certification and are successful like Mark Zuckerberg who own Facebook and WhatsApp. Furthermore, are all university courses provide practical knowledge? Certainly no, except skilled work no other degree or course provides such experience. Thereby, starting job early becomes contributing factor in field on experience as well as maturity.
In my profound opinion, although university course is not only required to become successful in life, its constructive ripples in terms of knowledge, intelligence and education is unsurpassable. Needless to state, it depends on individual mind set what they want to opt.
Nuclear energy is a better choice for meeting increasing demand. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Owing to the unexpected progress in science and technology nuclear energy is one of those technological innovations that are boundlessly used all over world. It is often argued that nuclear energy is greater solution for meeting growing demand. However, I partially agree to given notion.
Apparently, opting nuclear energy holds constructive benefits. First and foremost, nuclear energy is not only economical in fuel costs, but also does not contribute to global warming. To vindicate, as per BBC previous year report, after introduction of nuclear energy there is 6% gradual decline in global carbon emissions. Secondly, unlike other power stations, nuclear energy power station consumes very low fuel which benefited considerably to fuel cost of government. Thereby, nuclear energy substantially contributes to mother nature as well as government and welcomed warmly by anyone.
Nevertheless, inspite of nuclear energy, there are multifarious options. Chiefly, nuclear station produce radioactive waste and safe disposal is intricate and expensive. To corroborate, radioactive waste decay in approximately 30 years and high level waste are hazardous because it produce fatal radiation doses during short period of direct exposure as published by wall street of journal. Furthermore, are construction of nuclear power station costs high? Certainly yes, financial cost of building and decommissioning a nuclear power station are very large. Hence, it needs a huge percentage of budget to derive benefit. Solar power is abundant, inexhaustible, and arguably the best known of the alternative energy sources. The most common method of harnessing this energy is through the use of solar panels that convert sunlight to electricity that is then distributed to the end-user.
To recapitulate, although nuclear energy has its own inherited downsides, its constructive ripple in terms of fuel costs, no contribution in global warming and no pollution is unsurpassable. Needless to state, nuclear energy has its own merits and demerits.
Your workplace does not have a parking area for cars and it is causing some problems. Write a letter to your manager and include the following:
– Describe the problems it has caused.
– Explain what benefits a parking area would bring to the company.
– Suggest a solution.
Dear Mr. Singh,
My name is Prabhat Arora, I am one of sales executives in your renowned company. I am writing this letter to bring your kind attention regarding protentional problems which we are comforting due to no parking area for cars in our work place.
Apparently, parking problem not only affecting company’s staff, but also creating trouble for our customers. I am adamant that you are aware about new project for walk in customers however our customers are not likely to visit our office as our 90% targeted customers own four wheeler.
Fundamentally, if our office have parking area, it will entail to generate more revenue as we will be able to target and meet our customers which we are loosing due to no parking space. Moreover, our company is facing high attrition percentage as most of our staff who own four wheeler does not like to work here.
Nevertheless, if suggestions are welcomed warmly, I would like to recommend that our office building has empty basement. Unlike old times when security guard was needed for parking space, now automated machines has made it smooth and easy.
I hope we will surely going to have our own parking space soon.
Yours sincerely,
Amit Sharma
Some people say that the Olympic Games no longer play a role in the 21st century. Do you agree or disagree?
The Olympic Games are leading international sporting events featuring summer and winter sports competitions in which thousands of athletes from around the world participate in a variety of competitions. It is often argued that Olympic games does not contribute in the 21st Century. However, I firmly disagree to given notion.
Apparently, Olympic games holds wide range of constructive benefits. First and foremost, Olympic games not only encourages investment in transport and infrastructure, but also boost economy of country. To vindicate, as per BBC previous year report, whichever country has hosted Olympic games observed 7% exponential rise in foreign investment which entails higher tax revenues. Secondly, unless it hires people from abroad, Olympic games certainly creates jobs for locals as major sporting events require investment in building stadium, hotels and security. Thus, it substantially contributes to employment opportunity to the locals.
Furthermore, if a major sporting event like the Olympics happens, it can attract thousands of people for the duration of games. These foreign tourists bring a boost to tourism industry. To corroborate, Barcelona saw prolific increase in the number of visitor after the Barcelona Olympics of 1992 as published by wall street of journal. Moreover, does Olympic games plays a motivational factor for sportsmen? Certainly yes, it is key factor influencing different athletes representing the core values of their country. Thereby, these kind of sporting events is contributing factor in country’s sports development.
To recapitulate, although Olympic games involves lot of expenditure, its constructive ripples in terms of economy, employment and motivation is unsurpassable. Needless to state, Olympic games holds paramount significant role in 21st century as well.
More homes are needed considering the population increase. It is better to build house on the current cities or is it better to construct new houses in the countryside ?
It is undeniable fact that shelter is the basic necessity for survival. In the contemporary era with the growing population the need for constant more homes arises. It is often argued whether to construct houses in developed cities or rural areas. However in my contention houses can be build in both cities as well as in countryside.
Apparently accommodation in cities not only open doors full of opportunities in terms of career, but also gives a chance to inculcate the modern lifestyle. Houses in cities are much more vibrant as compare to suburbs. Secondly, in this modern era where all corporate giants are located in metro cities if a person's house is also located within city then it becomes easy for him or her to commute as cities usually have access to outstanding transportation facility. Living in city is exponentially rising these days due to high salaried jobs, latest fashion, fancy culture as compare to suburbs. To vindicate, as per BBC 80% of people prefer to stay within cities and 50% like to invest in real estate in city.
Even though the glam of city is attractive still people like to build houses in the countryside due to its own benefits. Chiefly, life outside the city is much more peaceful and clean. People often seek population free places these days and like to stay away from busy city life. Furthermore house property is cheaper as compare to residential areas in big city and less congested. Countryside homes are even safe as compare to metro ones.
To conclude, although accommodation within city is wealth of opportunities it is happiness which matters whether the roof over someone's head is located in outskirts of city or within the city.
OR
It is undeniable fact that significant rise in population is key factor influencing the construction of new houses. However, it is often argued whether houses should be set up in current cities or it is convenient to construct in rural areas. Nevertheless, in my contention, it is preferred to construct in the country side.
Apparently, building new cities in countryside holds constructive benefits. First and foremost, constructing house in countryside not only going to considerably benefit in geographical development, but also going to substantially contribute in economy development of country. To vindicate, as per BBC previous year report, in last decade rural areas has witnessed significant rise in corporate companies and industries as people has started migrating at countryside. Thereby, these industries will eventually be going to contribute in taxes. Secondly, unlike old times when limited resources were available, nowadays anything can be available with the help of a finger touch at phone as plethora of online shopping websites has made it very smooth. Subsequently, people can maintain their standard of living.
Furthermore, if people show some patience and bear some challenges for a while, they can reap the benefits of more employment and development. To corroborate, 70% people migrated from Toronto to Nova Scoticia due to very high rent and expenses in cities are enjoying exponential rise in salary at countryside and less expenses in just three years as published by wall street of journal. Moreover, are building new houses in countryside is budget friendly option than city? Certainly yes, people can build larger size of house in lesser amount in countryside. Seemingly, people can enjoy plethora of benefits in terms of day to day expenses and house rents.
To recapitulate, although building houses at countryside is quite challenging, its constructive ripples in terms of development, less expenses and more opportunities are unsurpassable. Needless to state, it is great option to build at countryside.
Many young people regularly change their job over the years. What are the reasons for this? Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? ...
