Ielts learners

The society would benefit from a ban on all forms of advertising because it serves no useful purpose, and can even be damaging. Do you agree or disagree?

It is regularly argued that prohibition of all categories of advertisement, which are thought to be pointless and even detrimental, could generate numerous benefits for the community. Notwithstanding, from my standpoint, social members tend to not only reap advantages but also tolerate demerits from this trend.
On the one hand, it seems undeniable that the ban on multiple kinds of advertisement can be beneficial for consumers. Forbidding advertising is synonymous with the fact that purchasers may not have to pay a remarkable measure of money for advertising services included in product prices. This can serve to reduce consumers’ expenditures for shopping. Moreover, no sooner are numerous advertisements exaggerating the functions, values and qualities of commodities with a view to pressing citizens to purchase their products prohibited than individuals may select their items to fulfill their requirements without being adversely affected by the messages in which the truths related to these goods can have been exaggerated or even distorted.
On the other hand, it would appear that the bar to advertisement services likewise pose untold drawbacks to the community. The first shortcoming could be the joblessness which employees involved in advertising could be confronted with, in all likelihood, giving rise to an increase in the unemployment rate. Another disadvantage might be that this prohibition can keep consumers in ignorance of the latest goods available on the market. Hence, they may be faced with obstacles in searching for and comparing the quality and price concerning the products of the same category before deciding to purchase them.
In conclusion, it is my conviction that banning advertisements can wield both desired and adverse effects on community members.
(273 words)


IELTS Writing Task 2 in April 2017

Some people think that people who choose a job early and keep doing it are more likely to get a satisfying in their career life than those who frequently change jobs. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is often said that individuals settling down with a permanent career soon seem to experience further satisfaction in their work than social members regularly altering their employment. However, from my standpoint, both these options could bestow comparable feelings of fulfillment.
On the one hand, it is undeniable that numerous people who can opt for a job early and maintain it may reap pleasure in their work. When realizing the job they have a craving for earlier in their life and might land this kind of job, individuals are likely to grasp privileges to expose the majority of their aptitudes, skills and their expertise on their work. As a result, it is easy for them to achieve progress in their career and receive a high salary which may satisfy their requirements for entertainment or education. It is unquestionable that these appear to help create satisfactory with their job.
Notwithstanding, it is my conviction that individuals, who frequently hopping their position, can be likewise content with their employment. The first explanation is that when regularly changing their jobs, they may have multiple opportunities to accumulate diverse majors, skills and knowledge. Thus, they may step out of their comfort zones in order to experience feelings of satisfaction. Another cause could be that by virtue of regularly shifting their employment, social workers are likely to find the most appropriate position with their personal competences and aspiration. Hence, it would seem that job hoppers can also achieve exaltation in working.
Overall, it is sensible to conclude that not only people making an early choice of work and pursue it for their whole life but also individuals often changing their position can equally get satisfactory in their career.
(283 words)