мᴜʜᴀммᴀᴅ | IELTS 8.0 | Multilevel C1

Good luck to everyone who are taking the IELTS exam tomorrow✊🏻

May Allah ease our exam, broaden our knowledge, and help us achieve our desired score🤲🏻

Some people say that all people should stay in full-time education until they are at least 18 years old.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

There is a widely held view that full-time education should be compulsory for all people until they turn 18. I am fully in favor of this opinion for some underlying reasons, including the importance of education at younger ages, time shortage after 18, and the opportunities that it provides in the future.

First of all, the main reason why people should continue learning until 18 is that people’s brains are fresher between 7 and 18, meaning that they can acquire a great deal of knowledge in this period of time. This is because if students get interested in earning money at an early age, they cannot focus on both their education and work simultaneously. This will, in turn, lead to inefficiency in their studies. However, as long as they stay concentrated on acquiring knowledge until graduating from school, it will help them make the most of their time productively.

Another crucial aspect of studying until 18 is time deficiency. In other words, numerous young people consider delaying their academic careers further in their lives. For instance, after graduating high school, students might reckon finding jobs without realizing the fact that they may find it hard to get back to education after making a living for some time. Not only does it affect their level of knowledge, but delaying university or college might make them lose interest in education, resulting in abandoning it.

Lastly, there are a number of benefits to studying at school before turning 18. Many parents want their children to get an education at universities and earn a diploma. This is mainly because qualification at university may guarantee a well-paid job, not to mention it can provide people with social status in the long term. To achieve this, students should not get interrupted by thoughts, such as finding money, that may significantly influence their academic performance.

To conclude, I agree with the assertion that full-time education should be a part of life until people are 18 years old. This is because this period is the most suitable time for all people to obtain knowledge. Moreover, a lack of time after 18 can be another reason for this opinion, and also it can confirm the next stage of education, including college and university studies. Thus, mandatory education should be applied to young people’s lives until their age is 18.

Task response: 8
Coherence and Cohesion: 8
Lexical Resource: 7
Grammar Range and Accuracy: 7
Overall: 7.5

Assessed by @yusupaliyevulugbek

#writingtask2

@xudoyberganov

#reading

Passage:

Adding more clay to the mixture helped make the pencil harder, sharper, and more precise in its mark. More graphite helped make a pencil mark that was softer, thicker, and darker.

Question:

More clay in a pencil makes it write more darkly.

In some countries, there has been an increase in the number of parents who are choosing to educate their children themselves at home instead of sending them to school.
Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages?

There is a growing trend that, in some parts of the globe, children are being educated by their parents at home without going to school. In my opinion, there are a number of disadvantages to this development, such as a lack of teaching abilities in parents and insufficient time allocated by them, that can easily outweigh its benefits.

On the one hand, there are a couple of merits to this phenomenon. The most crucial benefit of parents educating their children is that this can create a strong bond between parents and their children. It is undoubtedly true that, nowadays, a lot of people are not able to spend time with their children. This may lead to some challenges in the relationship between them. For example, in western communities, it has already become common among adults not to live with their parents for several reasons, including a lack of mutual love and respect. However, if parents consider this matter from the beginning, in the future, there may be fewer cases related to separation between parents and children. In addition to the benefit for relationships in families, children can learn more easily from their parents. In other words, from a young age, children are likely to learn new information from their mothers, and they grow up considering their father a role model. In my view, if parental education replaces the traditional schooling method, children will not be unwilling to get an education even when they are teenagers.

Nevertheless, I tend to think that this development has many negative sides for children’s futures. One of the most significant reasons is that not all parents have enough knowledge to educate their children. This means that a lack of teaching skills may result in a poor academic background. Not only does it affect children’s future careers, but without proper education, people may not contribute to the development of their countries. Another reason why parents should not take the responsibility of teaching their children is time constraints. Most parents have a responsibility to make a living for their families. In this modern era, not only are males breadwinners in families, but women also tend to pursue a career. As a consequence, it might be difficult for both to invest a substantial amount of time in their children’s education.

In conclusion, despite the positives to parental education at home, including the enhancement of bonds and being more engaged in studying under parents’ control, I think these are outweighed by demerits ranging from parents’ inability to educate to a lack of time investment by parents. Therefore, schools are by far the best places for children to obtain knowledge.

#writingtask2

@xudoyberganov

#Reading

Passage:

Today we take it for granted that we travel around the world to admire the monuments of the past. We prepare for such trips by reading about what we are going to see, set out on the journey with a good idea of how we will get there and where we will stay and have a sense of what we will encounter on location. Cyriacus of Ancona (1391-1452), the first cultural tourist since antiquity, lacked these advantages when, in the first half of the 15th century, he sailed around the Mediterranean in search of the remains of Greek and Roman civilisations.

Question:

Cyriacus was unable to research his journey before he left.

#day22

Could you support by starting the bot and verifying?)

#day21

#day20
Sunday mock exam

#day19
two weeks left.