Students' essays

[Zino nghich Ngom]

Dear Mr.Bear
Please correct for me!

English should be our official language or not? What's your opinion about this.

Nowadays, English is a global language all over the world. Nevertheless, Vietnam as well as many countries does not make chances for people to use English. In my opinion, I suggest that the government should let English be our official language for several reasons.

To begin with, if the government put it into action, English will be used in communication. People have to talk English everyday with other people. All the signs, movies… are used in English. The more we speak it, the more natural and efficient our English can be. For example, English is one of four official languages in Singapore (besides Malay, Chinese, and Tamil). That’s why Singaporean takes it important to use English. It changes the attitude of people when it becomes our official language. It’s compulsory, not optional.

Moreover, English will be used popularly in many fields such as business, culture… especially in education. If English become our official language, the government must support more money on helping students to conquer English skills. In addition, outside the school system, parents are paying a lot of money to help their children learn English at home or abroad. English is used widely in our country can create a good foundation for our society to develop.

In conclusion, English should be used as our official language besides Vietnamese. This will bring us a lot of opportunities as well as challenges. If the Government takes it serious, the number of Vietnamese population use English efficiently will increase dramatically for sure.

[Bear Lac Loi]

Hi Mr.Bear, this is the first time I've attempted to post my essay. Please help to correct me. Thank you so much.

Question 1:

My answer:

The table shows costs that people was spending on three different group of items such as food, drink, tobacco; clothing, footwear; leisure and education in the five different countries, namely Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Turkey in 2002.

The greatest consumption in all five countries was for food, drinks and tobacco, their percentage in total consumers’ expenditures varied from country to country, the highest percentage belonged to Turkey at 32.14%, followed by Ireland at 28.91% . It’s interesting that although the food, drink and tobacco group was also spent on the most in Sweden, the percentage was still low, namely 15.77%, nearly half as high as that of Turkey.

Clothing and footwear was the second highest consumption group in the five countries. In comparison with the first group, its percentages by countries did not substantially different, ranging from 5.40% in Sweden to 9.00% in Italy.

The least amount in total consumer expenditures of each five country was for Leisure and education with the highest percentage of 4.35% in Turkey and the lowest of 1.98% in Spain. Italian and Swedish tended to pay almost equally for this item at around 3.20%.

Overall, in 2002, the biggest different item among five countries was in the food, drinks, tobacco group. The five countries had almost the same percentage of payment for clothing, footwear, leisure and education.

The table shows (add: the) costs that people was (subject-verb agreement) spending on three different group of items such as food, drink, tobacco; clothing, footwear; (add: and) leisure and education in the five different countries, namely Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden (comma) and Turkey in 2002.

The greatest (biggest)consumption (cost – Consumption refer to the quantity, which is not the case)in (for) all five countries was for (delete: for) food, drinks and tobacco, (period) their percentage in total consumers’ expenditures varied from country to country, (period) the highest percentage belonged to Turkey at 32.14%, followed by Ireland at 28.91% . It’s interesting that although the food, drink and tobacco group was also spent on the most (was also the highest expense) in Sweden, the percentage was still low, namely (which was) 15.77%, nearly half as high as that of Turkey.

Clothing and footwear was the second highest consumption (it’s not the consumption. It’s the percentage of families’ income) group in the five countries. In comparison with the first group, its percentages by countries did not substantially different, ranging from 5.40% in Sweden to 9.00% in Italy.

The least amount in total consumer expenditures of each five country (countries) was for Leisure and education with the highest percentage of 4.35% in Turkey and the lowest of 1.98% in Spain. Italian and Swedish tended to pay almost equally for this item at around 3.20% (same percentage does not mean the same amount of money spent).

Overall, in 2002, the biggest different item (the highest percentage or expense) among five countries was in the food, drinks, tobacco group. The five countries had almost the same percentage of payment (expense) for clothing, footwear, leisure (comma) and education.

--- o0o ---

You seem to be confused on the meaning of the numbers.

The high percentage in food means that people spend much of their income on food. It does not mean that they buy or consume a lot of food. The reason they spend high percentage of their income on food can be because the cost of food is too high or their salaries are too low.

As an example, Turkey is not a rich country. Its GDP per capita is only $15,000. Therefore, people must spend much of their income on food even though the food is not very expensive in Turkey – Its agriculture sector contributes almost 10% to its GDP. Meanwhile, Ireland is a rich country. Its GDP per capita is $41,000 USD. However, the food cost in Ireland is high – GDP on agriculture is only 2%. Therefore, much of people’s income is spent on food.

The high percentage in food does not mean that people from Turkey and Ireland buy or consume more food than those in Sweden or Italy.

[Bear Lac Loi]

Dear Mr.Bear
Please correct for me!

English should be our official language or not? What's your opinion about this.

Nowadays, English is a global language all over the world. Nevertheless, Vietnam as well as many countries does not make chances for people to use English. In my opinion, I suggest that the government should let English be our official language for several reasons.

To begin with, if the government put it into action, English will be used in communication. People have to talk English everyday with other people. All the signs, movies… are used in English. The more we speak it, the more natural and efficient our English can be. For example, English is one of four official languages in Singapore (besides Malay, Chinese, and Tamil). That’s why Singaporean takes it important to use English. It changes the attitude of people when it becomes our official language. It’s compulsory, not optional.

Moreover, English will be used popularly in many fields such as business, culture… especially in education. If English become our official language, the government must support more money on helping students to conquer English skills. In addition, outside the school system, parents are paying a lot of money to help their children learn English at home or abroad. English is used widely in our country can create a good foundation for our society to develop.

In conclusion, English should be used as our official language besides Vietnamese. This will bring us a lot of opportunities as well as challenges. If the Government takes it serious, the number of Vietnamese population use English efficiently will increase dramatically for sure.

Nowadays, English is a global language all over the world (delete “all over the world”. Global means all over the world already). Nevertheless, Vietnam as well as many (add: other) countries does (do) not make (create) chances for people to use English. In my opinion, I suggest that the government should let English be our official language for several reasons.

To begin with, if the government put it into action, English will be used in communication. People have to talk (add: in) English everyday with other people. All the signs, movies… are used in English. The more we speak it, the more natural and efficient our English can be. For example, English is one of four official languages in Singapore (besides Malay, Chinese, and Tamil). That’s (That is) why Singaporean takes it important (what do you mean?) to use English. It changes the attitude of people when it becomes our official language. It’s (it is) compulsory, not optional.

Moreover, English will be used popularly in many fields such as business, culture… (remove the …) especially in education. If English become (subject-verb agreement) our official language, the government must support (appropriate/provide) more money on helping students to conquer English skills. In addition, outside the school system, parents are paying a lot of money to help their children learn English at home or abroad. English is used widely in our country can create a good foundation for our society to develop.

In conclusion, English should be used as our official language besides Vietnamese. This will bring us a lot of opportunities as well as challenges. If the Government takes it serious (seriously), the number of Vietnamese population (add: who) use English efficiently will increase dramatically for sure.

--- o0o ---

If you choose English as the official language of Vietnam, what will happen to the language of our 4000-year history as mentioned in the song "Tình ca" of Phạm Duy:

Tôi yêu tiếng nước tôi từ khi mới ra đời, người ơi
Mẹ hiền ru những câu xa vời, à ơi! Tiếng ru muôn đời
Tiếng nước tôi! Bốn ngàn năm ròng rã buồn vui
Khóc cười theo mệnh nước nổi trôi, nước ơi
Tiếng nước tôi! Tiếng mẹ sinh từ lúc nằm nôi
Thoắt nghìn năm thành tiếng lòng tôi, nước ơi…

[xanhxanh]

Hi thầy Bear,

Reading your comments on my writing today give me an motivation to write new topics . I hope you don't mind correcting me.

Question: You can get up-to-date news from the radio, TV and the Internet. Which kind of media do you think is the best to get the news?

Today, there are many channels for people to update news and information, for examples, radio, television, internet, paper-based newspapers. However, in my point of view, internet is the most useful one among those because of many objective reasons.

First of all, internet is the fastest channel to obtain news. Radio, television and the likes usually take time running through stages of a program production process such as researching, scriptwriting, place and shooting scheduling, recording, filming, rough editing and final editing. Therefore, the information sometimes does not come timely. However, internet, in other side, is more flexible, quicker and timing. People usually get information almost immediately online after an event happens while other channels usually take two or three days to make it public.

Other reason for the writer to consider internet a preferential choice is its diversity of methods in approaching news. Internet users are not only obtaining news through reading, listening, watching but also through the all three methods. That makes internet more friendly and interesting for users.

The introduction of many smart searching tools such as google, yahoo, bing also makes internet more efficient and satisfying. The applications make the researching process much easier than ever. People used to have to follow the schedule of broadcasting a television program, publishing a newspaper to get the information. However, with internet, it is much convenient because there is no bound of personal time or storage for getting that kind of information.

To summarize, internet is the most timing, convenient, quickest way to update daily news and look for information so far.

[Zino nghich Ngom]

Dear Mr. Bear Lac Loi
Would you please correct my essay? Thank you so much.

Without capital punishment our lives are less secure and crimes or violence increase. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

The government makes the law to ensure the security for the society and prevent violence. There are many punishments for wrongdoers and at the highest level, death penalty is used. Overall, I agree with the idea that capital punishment is really necessary and unremovable. Without it, the crimes will definitely increase and we cannot create a good environment to develop economy to make the life better.

First, I have to emphasize that death penalty is a strict punishment that will take a life of a person. That is for dangerous and unforgivable actions such as: murders kill innocent people or those who damage valuable properties…They cause bad consequences for society and cannot be reeducated as well as they return to their bad days after being in jail again and again. The last solution is to make them cannot commit crimes anymore by death penalty. “Once you owe something, you have to pay for it”, if they do bad thing that unforgivable, it is unavoidable to punish them. This is the only way to help people live in peaceful environment, without being scared by blood thirsty killers.

Moreover, death penalty is one of the most effective ways to impress people, make them afraid of law and do not break it. For example, when a teenager wants to rob something, he has to think about the worst consequence will happen to him. If he hurts or kills someone while robbing, he will be punished strictly even by death. Obviously, the government tightens the law can make people be reluctant to commit crimes. Hence, capital punishment curbs the inspiration and prospects of crimes. In addition, capital punishment saves a lot of government funding which is wasted in maintaining prisons or camps.

Last but not the least, careful investigations must be done seriously to make sure that correct culprit is caught. Human life is precious so that law-making institute must makes the laws as precise as possible. If wrongdoers feel ashamed and well-behaved as well as they have good attitude in camp prison renovation, tolerantly, the society should welcome them to come back to community.
In conclusion, death penalty is strict but unremovable. This punishment is necessary for the government to reduce the violence and crimes as well as to safeguard human rights in an effective manner. However, it should be considered as the last option by the jury and all circumstances must be taken into account before pronouncing the final verdict.

[Bear Lac Loi]

Hi thầy Bear,

Reading your comments on my writing today give me an motivation to write new topics . I hope you don't mind correcting me.

Question: You can get up-to-date news from the radio, TV and the Internet. Which kind of media do you think is the best to get the news?

Today, there are many channels for people to update news and information, for examples, radio, television, internet, paper-based newspapers. However, in my point of view, internet is the most useful one among those because of many objective reasons.

First of all, internet is the fastest channel to obtain news. Radio, television and the likes usually take time running through stages of a program production process such as researching, scriptwriting, place and shooting scheduling, recording, filming, rough editing and final editing. Therefore, the information sometimes does not come timely. However, internet, in other side, is more flexible, quicker and timing. People usually get information almost immediately online after an event happens while other channels usually take two or three days to make it public.

Other reason for the writer to consider internet a preferential choice is its diversity of methods in approaching news. Internet users are not only obtaining news through reading, listening, watching but also through the all three methods. That makes internet more friendly and interesting for users.

The introduction of many smart searching tools such as google, yahoo, bing also makes internet more efficient and satisfying. The applications make the researching process much easier than ever. People used to have to follow the schedule of broadcasting a television program, publishing a newspaper to get the information. However, with internet, it is much convenient because there is no bound of personal time or storage for getting that kind of information.

To summarize, internet is the most timing, convenient, quickest way to update daily news and look for information so far.

Today, there are many channels for people to update news and information, for examples, radio, television, internet, paper-based newspapers. However, in my point of view, internet (the Internet) is the most useful one among those because of many objective reasons.

First of all, internet (the Internet) is the fastest channel to obtain news. Radio, television and the likes usually take time running through stages of a program production process such as researching, scriptwriting, place and shooting scheduling, recording, filming, rough editing (comma) and final editing. Therefore, the information sometimes does not come timely. However, internet (the Internet), in (on) other side, is more flexible, quicker (comma) and timing. People usually get information almost immediately online after an event happens while other channels usually take two or three days to make it public.

Other reason for the writer to consider internet (the Internet) a preferential choice is its diversity of methods in approaching news. Internet users are not only obtaining news through reading, listening, (add: or) watching but also through the all three methods (what are the three methods?). That makes internet (the Internet) more friendly and interesting for users.

The introduction of many smart searching tools such as google, yahoo, (add: or) bing (capitalize proper names such as Google, Yahoo, or Bing) also makes internet (the Internet) more efficient and satisfying. The applications make the researching process much easier than ever. People used to have to follow the schedule of broadcasting a television program, (replace the comma by “or”) publishing a newspaper to get the information. However, with internet (the Internet), it is much convenient because there is no bound of personal time or storage (what do you mean by “personal time or storage?) for getting that kind of information.

To summarize, internet is the most timing, convenient, (add: and) quickest way to update daily news and (add: to) look for information so far.

--- o0o ---

Next essay, you should identify the objective for each body paragraph, which is similar to what you did in the first body paragraph.

You start your first body paragraph by saying, “The Internet is the fastest channel to obtain news.” When the readers read your first sentence, they understand that you are going to discuss the timing advantage of the Internet.

However, you did not do that on the second and third body paragraphs.

You could have started the second paragraph with, “The Internet offers news through text, audio, or video.” After that, you can elaborate further to prove your point. For the last reason, you could say, “The Internet allows people to search for additional information on interesting news.”

To summarize, you could rephrase these sentences: “I believe the Internet is a better way to get news because of its timing, its availability of various methods, and its search ability.”

--- o0o ---

Here is something else for you to think of. If possible, you should also mention an opposite view in order to prove that you still prefer the Internet despite its negative aspects. For example, the reliability of news from the Internet is questionable. Since everyone can post news, it is hard to differentiate between the truth and the lies from unknown posters.

[Bear Lac Loi]

Dear Mr. Bear Lac Loi
Would you please correct my essay? Thank you so much.

Without capital punishment our lives are less secure and crimes or violence increase. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

The government makes the law to ensure the security for the society and prevent violence. There are many punishments for wrongdoers and at the highest level, death penalty is used. Overall, I agree with the idea that capital punishment is really necessary and unremovable. Without it, the crimes will definitely increase and we cannot create a good environment to develop economy to make the life better.

First, I have to emphasize that death penalty is a strict punishment that will take a life of a person. That is for dangerous and unforgivable actions such as: murders kill innocent people or those who damage valuable properties…They cause bad consequences for society and cannot be reeducated as well as they return to their bad days after being in jail again and again. The last solution is to make them cannot commit crimes anymore by death penalty. “Once you owe something, you have to pay for it”, if they do bad thing that unforgivable, it is unavoidable to punish them. This is the only way to help people live in peaceful environment, without being scared by blood thirsty killers.

Moreover, death penalty is one of the most effective ways to impress people, make them afraid of law and do not break it. For example, when a teenager wants to rob something, he has to think about the worst consequence will happen to him. If he hurts or kills someone while robbing, he will be punished strictly even by death. Obviously, the government tightens the law can make people be reluctant to commit crimes. Hence, capital punishment curbs the inspiration and prospects of crimes. In addition, capital punishment saves a lot of government funding which is wasted in maintaining prisons or camps.

Last but not the least, careful investigations must be done seriously to make sure that correct culprit is caught. Human life is precious so that law-making institute must makes the laws as precise as possible. If wrongdoers feel ashamed and well-behaved as well as they have good attitude in camp prison renovation, tolerantly, the society should welcome them to come back to community.
In conclusion, death penalty is strict but unremovable. This punishment is necessary for the government to reduce the violence and crimes as well as to safeguard human rights in an effective manner. However, it should be considered as the last option by the jury and all circumstances must be taken into account before pronouncing the final verdict.

The government makes the law to ensure the security for the society (better: to ensure public safety) and prevent violence. There are many punishments for wrongdoers (comma) and at the highest level, death penalty is used. Overall, I agree with the idea that capital punishment is really necessary and unremovable (and should not be removed). Without it, the crimes will definitely increase (comma) and we cannot create a good environment to develop economy to make the (delete: the) life better.

First, I have to emphasize that death penalty is a strict punishment that will take a life (take away the life) of a person (better: take away a person’s life). That is for dangerous and unforgivable actions (crimes)such as: murders kill innocent people or those who damage valuable properties… (such as murdering or damaging valuable properties) They cause bad consequences for (add: the) society and cannot be reeducated as well as they return to their bad days after being in jail again and again (I’m not really sure what you meant with the “as well as” phrase). The last solution is to make them cannot commit crimes anymore by death penalty (The last solution to stop them from committing crimes is death penalty). “Once you owe something, you have to pay for it” (Why did you put that inside quotation mark? Whose quote is it?), if they do bad thing that unforgivable, it is unavoidable to punish them (better: It is said that “once you owe something, you have to pay for it. Therefore, if the criminals do bad thing, they must be punished). This is the only way to help people live in peaceful environment, without being scared by blood thirsty (one word) killers.

Moreover, death penalty is one of the most effective ways to impress people (to send criminals a serious message), make (making) them afraid of (add: the) law and do (delete: do) not break it. For example, when a teenager wants to rob something, he has to think about the worst consequence (add: that) will happen to him. If he hurts or kills someone while robbing, he will be punished strictly even by death (including a death sentence). Obviously, the government tightens (tightening) the law can make people be (delete: be) reluctant to commit crimes. Hence, capital punishment curbs the inspiration and prospects of crimes. In addition, capital punishment saves a lot of government funding which is wasted in maintaining prisons or camps.

Last but not the least, careful investigations must be done seriously to make sure that correct culprit (the right culprit) is caught. Human life is precious so that (; therefore,) law-making institute (lawmakers) must makes the laws as precise as possible. If wrongdoers feel ashamed and well-behaved as well as they have (as well as having) good attitude in camp prison renovation (prison camp), tolerantly, (delete: tolerantly,) the society should welcome them to come back to community.

In conclusion, death penalty is strict but unremovable (should not be removed). This punishment is necessary for the government to reduce the violence and crimes as well as to safeguard human rights in an effective manner. However, it should be considered as the last option by the jury (comma) and all circumstances must be taken into account before pronouncing the final verdict.

[xanhxanh]

Hi thay Bear, I haven't seen you for long! How are you?

Thank you so much for your correction and comments, I will bear in mind whenever I write .

I have attempted new essay. Hope that you could correct me .

Question: Some people believe that it is wrong to keep animals in zoos, while others think that zoos are both entertaining and ecologically important. Discuss both views.

It can be said that almost all problems are usually given different sides of thought. Keeping animal in zoo or not is not an exception. Some are supporting the zoo maintaining idea, while others are against that.

For advocators, zoos are not only places for entertaining purpose but also places for ecological protecting. People usually know zoo as a useful option for families to camp at weekends’ or on holidays’ occasions. For many cities, zoos are the only safe and closest places in aspect of learning and studying wildlife and nature of children and scientists. However, the main benefit of zoos is that zoos play a significant role in wildlife conservation. Well-equipped with modern facilities and supervised by professionals, zoos would provide better shelters for the conservation of endangered species and the protection of species from human and wildlife hunting. Zoos’ ticket selling also helps raising money to fund for many conservation projects.

On the other hand, objectors also have no less convincing reasons. First, being isolated in zoos may gradually takes away animals’ natural and survival instinct; their instincts of hunting for food or adapting to natural changing environment are for examples. That makes them more and more depressing to be able to get back in their natural shelter one day. Second, zoos are only artificial environments and they cannot replace the natural ones. It would be much better to protect the wildlife natural habitats rather than capturing creatures with nets or cages.

Both sides considered, from the writer’s viewpoint, it is crucial to maintain and protect the two shelters, i.e. zoos and wildlife environment. While zoos are needed for the educating, researching and conservation purpose, natural forests are needed to balance ecological system and for wild animals to live their live.

[Bear Lac Loi]

Hi thay Bear, I haven't seen you for long! How are you?

Thank you so much for your correction and comments, I will bear in mind whenever I write .

I have attempted new essay. Hope that you could correct me .

Question: Some people believe that it is wrong to keep animals in zoos, while others think that zoos are both entertaining and ecologically important. Discuss both views.

It can be said that almost all problems are usually given different sides of thought. Keeping animal in zoo or not is not an exception. Some are supporting the zoo maintaining idea, while others are against that.

For advocators, zoos are not only places for entertaining purpose but also places for ecological protecting. People usually know zoo as a useful option for families to camp at weekends’ or on holidays’ occasions. For many cities, zoos are the only safe and closest places in aspect of learning and studying wildlife and nature of children and scientists. However, the main benefit of zoos is that zoos play a significant role in wildlife conservation. Well-equipped with modern facilities and supervised by professionals, zoos would provide better shelters for the conservation of endangered species and the protection of species from human and wildlife hunting. Zoos’ ticket selling also helps raising money to fund for many conservation projects.

On the other hand, objectors also have no less convincing reasons. First, being isolated in zoos may gradually takes away animals’ natural and survival instinct; their instincts of hunting for food or adapting to natural changing environment are for examples. That makes them more and more depressing to be able to get back in their natural shelter one day. Second, zoos are only artificial environments and they cannot replace the natural ones. It would be much better to protect the wildlife natural habitats rather than capturing creatures with nets or cages.

Both sides considered, from the writer’s viewpoint, it is crucial to maintain and protect the two shelters, i.e. zoos and wildlife environment. While zoos are needed for the educating, researching and conservation purpose, natural forests are needed to balance ecological system and for wild animals to live their live.

It can be said that almost all problems are usually given different sides of thought. Keeping animal (animals) in zoo (zoos) or not is not an exception. Some are supporting the zoo maintaining idea (some support the idea of maintaining the zoo), while others are against that.

For advocators, zoos are not only places for entertaining purpose but also places for ecological protecting (zoos are places for not only entertaining purposes but also for ecological protection). People usually know zoo as a useful option (place) for families to camp at weekends’ or on holidays’ occasions (to camp during weekends or holidays). For many cities, zoos are the only safe and closest places in aspect of learning and studying wildlife and nature of children and scientists (are the safest and closest places for children to learn and study wildlife and nature). However, the main benefit of zoos is that zoos play a significant role in wildlife conservation. Well-equipped with modern facilities and supervised (managed) by professionals, zoos would provide better shelters for the conservation of endangered species and the protection of species from human and wildlife hunting (better: zoos provide shelters for endangered species, protecting them from predators). Zoos’ ticket selling also helps raising money to fund for many conservation projects (Money from selling zoos’ tickets also helps funding many conservation projects).

On the other hand, objectors also have no less convincing reasons. First, being isolated in zoos may gradually takes away animals’ natural and survival instinct; (comma) their instincts of hunting for food or adapting to natural changing (add: in) environment are for examples (delete: are for example). That makes them more and more depressing to be able (more depressed with a stronger desire) to get back in their natural shelter one day. Second, zoos are only artificial environments and they cannot replace the natural ones. It would be much better to protect the wildlife natural habitats rather than capturing creatures with nets or cages (It would be better to protect the animals by protecting their natural habitats than keeping them in cages [or keeping them confined]).

Both sides considered, from the writer’s viewpoint, it is crucial to maintain and protect the two shelters, i.e. zoos and wildlife environment. While zoos are needed for the (delete “the”) educating, researching and conservation purpose (purposes), natural forests are needed to balance ecological system and for wild animals to live their live (lives).