Search from various English teachers...
Russia flagHelga
IELTS writing 2. Essay 1. Charity Some people think that charity organizations should only offer help to people of their own country. But others believe that these organizations should give aid to people in great need wherever they live. Discuss both views and give your opinion. (Discussion essay) Charity organizations give gratuitous support to people in need. A great variety of charity organizations around the world give people free medical treatment, food and other goods, habitation and social support. A great number of them act within a local area, but there are as well a worldwide funds and institutions. Some people believe that it's not acceptable to spent charity resources to people in foreign countries. On the other hand there are numerous opinions that people in great need should get aid regardless their place of residence. Both points of view have a ground to stand and will be discussed in this essay. Looking first at the supporters of local charity implementation, it's hard to argue with their position. Citizens of a country who give money for the charity usually prefer them to be spent for enhancing life around them. It's a natural human feature to help a fellow men, no wonder that people often share this opinion. It is especially acute for not really wealthy countries. It's is sort of strange to help foreigners when your own neighbors suffer and this is why I support this standpoint. In contrast it is believed that charity shouldn't diversify people in distress by their residence. For instance, "Doctors without borders" is an international humanitarian-aid organization best known for it's projects in war-torn regions and developing countries. They believe that all people have a right for medical care and their needs outweigh respect for national borders. It's hard to argue with this position, people can volunteer their money and time for anything they consider important.

Corrections · 5

1
After analyzing these standpoints, we can see that both of them are quite viable. Division according to national borders is usually relevant in one situation and not really acceptable in the others. As for me, in realitiesy, of such in the case of an almost developing country as Russia, the first opinion seems more appropriate closer. I guess that we can't help everyone, but we can improve life around us, at least a little bit. Maybe in the future, the wealth of the whole world will grow to the point where charity will be relevant only in situations of natural catastrophes and two thirds of the world won't be in everyday need of basic thing like food, water and medical treatment.

0

Pretty amazing English! Well written!

IELTS writing 2. Essay 1. Charity

Some people think that charity organizations should only offer help to people of their own country. Bbut others believe that these organizations should give aid to people in great need wherever they live. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

(Discussion essay)
Charity organizations give gratuitous free (gratuitous tends to be used to mean "done for no good reason", rather than free) support to people in need. A great variety of charityable organizations around the world give people free medical treatment, food and other goods, habitation housing and social support. A great number of them act within a local area, but there are as wellalso a worldwide funds and institutions. Some people believe that it's not acceptable to spent charity resources toon people in foreign countries. On the other hand, there are numerous opinions that people in great need should get aid regardless their place of residence. Both points of view have a ground to stand can be defended and will be discussed in this essay.

Looking first at the supporters of local charity implementation, it's hard to argue with their position (but then you do argue with their position later on?). Citizens of a country who give money for the charity usually prefer themit to be spent foron enhancing life around them. It's a natural human feature to help a fellow men,; no wonder that people often share this opinion. It is especially acute for not really wealthy countries that are not particularly wealthy. It's is sort of strange to help foreigners when your own neighbors suffer and this is why I support this standpoint.

In contrast it is believed that charity shouldn't diversify differentiate between people in distress by their place of residence. For instance, "Doctors without borders" is an international humanitarian-aid organization best known for it's (that's a deleted apostrophe, in case it is too small for you to see!) projects in war-torn regions and developing countries. They believe that all people have a right for to medical care and their needs outweigh respect for national borders. It's hard to argue with this position,; people can volunteer their money and time for anything they consider important.
0
(too long essay, couldn't put all the symbols in one notebook entry) Words: 377/ Time: 2 hours (with tea and some work)/ + internet using (realised, that I didn't clearly understand the concept of charity)
0
After analyzing these standpoints we can see that both of them are quite viable. Division according to national borders is usually relevant in one situation and not really acceptable in the others. As for me, in realities of such an almost developing country as Russia the first opinion seems closer. I guess that we can't help everyone, but we can improve life around us, at least a little bit. Maybe in the future the wealth of the whole world will grow to the point where charity will be relevant only in situations of natural catastrophes and two thirds of the world won't be in everyday need basic thing like food, water and medical treatment.

Want to progress faster?

Join this learning community and try out free exercises!

Don’t miss out on the opportunity to learn a language from the comfort of your own home. Browse our selection of experienced language tutors and enroll in your first lesson now!

Start Learning Today