BAFOYEV'S IELTS | 9.0

eng ko'p 👍 olganiga LIVE SAMPLE yozamiz

Referral link to register for IDP IELTS Tests throughout Uzbekistan

https://ielts.idp.com/book/IELTS?RA=63a1c13e-d40c-45d7-b904-cb1efa2bc8c0

Shu link orqali ...
✔️ IDP IELTSga registratsiya qiling;
✔️ To'lov kvitansiyangizni @Bafoyev_Farrukh ga yuboring;
🆓 IELTS SCHOOL📚 dan doimiy bepul IELTS onlayn darslar va Speaking testlar 🎙 guruhiga a'zo bo'ling!

Offline SAT at IELTS SCHOOL NAVOI

Don't forget to sign up for a free class!
@ielts_school_admin
+998902352350

#bf_samples_2
Long distance flight consumes the amount of fuel that a car uses for many years and pollutes the air. Some people think that we should discourage non-essential flights, such as tourists travel, rather than limit the use of cars.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Long-haul flights are believed to use the same amount of fuel per flight that a single automobile would use in many years of service. This has naturally led to the idea that deterring people from such unnecessary travelling as holidays is more effective in curbing the level of air pollution than limiting the use of car. I disagree with this view since it causes a great economic damage. On the contrary, I believe that regulating industrial processes more rigidly is a key to this issue.

Discouraging people from travelling can lead to economic distress for a host country. Some countries build their economy around their potential for tourism. Hence, a drop in the number of tourists could jeopardize the daily stable income of many involved in the industry. For instance, places such as Nevsehir in Turkiye create jobs almost exclusively based on tourism. With fewer holidaymakers visiting this place, and many other similar tourist destinations across the globe, the household living off the seasonal influx of tourists may simply be deprived of a constant source of livelihood.

Not only does discouraging international tourism affect the economy of a host country, but also airlines may have to lay off some of their personnel. In other words, a fall in the number of international tourists directly leads to reduced number of flights, thereby displacing many in the industry. This, yet again, adds to the level of unemployment. A salient example is airline companies that have scheduled flights to Maldives who reported that with the surge in the number of tourists travelling to Maldives, they have been able to take on more flight personnel. Once halted or reduced, most of the new contractees would be left out of work.

What seems to be a better measure to me is establishing a stricter monitoring over how factories operate. After all, it is environmentally-detrimental ways that factories are run that has caused imminent strain on ecological resources, including air, water and soil, around them. Therefore, if these plants are controlled, and supported to switch to cleaner operations where needed, a more successful attempt to alleviate the level of air contamination can be accomplished.

In conclusion, dissuading long-haul international leisure travels for the sake of environment puts host countries’ economy under a great risk as the rate of redundancy is inevitable. However, a better solution than limiting such journeys or personal use of cars could be a more concerted effort to align industrial processes with environmental agenda.

Word count: 411
Band score estimate: 8.0 - 8.5

©️@BFIELTS

#bf_samples_2
When asked to choose between a life without work and working most of the time, people would always choose not to work.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Some view that if people were asked whether they would rather spend most of their time working or not work at all, they would invariably opt for the latter. Despite the comfort of not having to work anymore, I disagree with this view due to two clear reasons why most would still choose to toil.

One factor why people would choose to work is that, for many, their profession is a premise to exercise their talents and interests. In other words, people cannot simply quit working at the expense of never having to do what they love because their job is their daily dose of social contribution and self-expression, just as our bodies would rather choose to eat too much than never eat whatsoever. Whatever domain they may be in, they see work as a way to continuously hone their skills and stay mentally active. For instance, an artist or a performer of any kind might never quit creating as they went into the entertainment business motivated by their passion, whether to paint, act, dance or sing.

Another reason is financial stability. Most people would work excessively rather than never work again given that they simply want to improve their financial capacity. That is, even if never going to work guaranteed all our basic needs such as food and shelter, we are intrinsically programmed to explore the world, grow professionally in our fields and, perhaps, leave our legacy. Without work, none of these would be achievable, leaving many in the realm of an aimless life without any meaningful contribution to their society.

Some who do choose not to work for the rest of their lives probably see convenience of avoiding physical and mental strain. This, surely, enables sufficient time to spend with their family members with whom they can interact to better bond while carrying out a variety of shared activities. They might also argue that their choice could give them extended time to do what they love, considering that some actually do the jobs they despise to merely sustain themselves. However, I still believe that most would not live without work for the fact that it could inevitably lead to social collapse as we live off of each other’s effort.

In conclusion, I disagree that majority of active employees would prefer not working at all as it might deprive them of their opportunities to express their talents and constantly prosper as a professional as well as hinder their financial welfare. That people would choose to never work is probably true for a very small minority as a massive quitting would lead to dire social consequences.

Word count: 436
Band score: 7.5 – 8.0
©️@BFIELTS

#bf_samples_2
In many countries, too much money is spent by governments and individuals on national days such as new year and religious festivals.

To what extent you agree or disagree?

There is a view that the amount of revenue allocated for celebrating festivals, including those of a religious nature, is overly larger than it is supposed to be. While some may argue that taxpayers’ money is wasted in the process, I disagree with this view due to two obvious reasons why governments and people should not hesitate to spend heftily when it comes to celebrations.

Firstly, despite the amount, the expenditure on celebrating international and religious festivals is justified as it can be construed as an investment into economic growth. In other words, when governments spend a large amount of money facilitating a festive atmosphere in their country, people usually purchase a wide range of services, which is basically a tax return for the state budget. These nationwide celebrations also render a country attractive to potential foreign investors whose influx of foreign currency further strengthens economic development.

Secondly, without extravagant spending, it is difficult to attain social welfare. That is, only through a series of general and religious celebrations can people in societies grow more tolerant towards one another. For instance, in Uzbekistan, some of taxpayers’ money is directed to celebrating the religious holidays of the minority, which ensures that these people’s voices are heard and their faith is respected. Otherwise, a certain kind of tension could arise in the society due to misunderstandings among people of differing beliefs.

However, there are some who argue that the expenses are not reasonable. The typical argument is that too much of taxpayers’ contribution is spent on unnecessary decorations and large events such as concerts. In their eyes, it is an unreasonable waste of their economic share that could be spent more wisely elsewhere. At an individual level, meanwhile, they argue that, attempting to match the celebratory craze, many incur debts or loans that essentially do not bring them any benefit in the long run.

Despite this, I would like to conclude that for the economic prosperity of a country and the welfare of the people living in it, any amount of money spent with festivals, including religious ones, in mind is understandable. The fact that it may appear to be squandering of taxpayers’ money or that some may make unwise financial decisions should not prevent this from happening.

Word count: 376
Approximate band score: 7.5 – 8.0
©️@BFIELTS