Should government spend public money on saving small languages? Hi there! this is my IELTS writing homework. I really appreciate it if you could correct it! ======= Several languages are in danger of extinction because they are spoken by very small numbers of people. Some people say that governments should spend public money on saving these languages, while others believe that would be a waste of money. Discuss both these views and give your opinion. In recent years, the issue of whether government should spend money on saving some languages which are spoken by minority of people has sparked a series of controversies. While Someone said it is necessary, others believe it is meaningless. From my opinion, I support the later one. On the one hand, language is regarded as the representation of culture, because it often constants a local and unique style of thinking form a certain region. Thus, saving a language means saving the regional culture in some extents. For example, the language form XinLi where is located in the rural area in China, is spoken by only 10 thousand residences. But, there are nearly 100 thousand people learn it on the internet due to it’s special logic and pronunciation. If the government did not protect this language from extinction, no one could get the beauty of this delicate language and the culture behind it. On the other hand, the importance of other issues that ought to be addressed by the government should not be underestimated, such as starvation and health issue. Compared with saving language, saving lives is more urgent, because we are nothing without lives. In some developing countries, even in some developed countries, a number of people are suffering from starvation or poverty, if the public departments could take their responsibility to deal with it, like investing more money on food production or basic healthy insurance, many people might have a hope of life. A report from The Economists indicated that in Guizhou, China, 1000 dollars can matin a poor family’s live for a year. The budget of the government is limited, using this 1000 dollar on saving a less well-known language means taking away that family’s hope. In summary, from the points given, I believe the governments should invest more on some more urgent issues rather than a language.

Please help me to correct the writing Hi there! This is my IELTS writing homework. I really appreciate it if you could correct it! ======= This line graph illustrates the number of fish and meat consumption perversion per week in the US between 1979 and 2004. Overall, it is clear that the figure for chicken had a dramatic growth and became the biggest one in 2004, while beef and lamb saw downward trends during this period. To be more specific, although beef consumption was the highest number in 1979 with nearly 220g and reached the peak at roughly 240g in 1982, it dropped sharply from 298g to 2004 falling from 235g to only 120g. Similarly, there was also a huge reduction in the volume of lamb. It had decreased by approximately 100g, from 155g to 60g, despite there were three small increases in 1987, 1997 and 2003. By contrast, people in the UK consumed more and more chicken. The number of the consumption increased dramatically, growing from 245g to 250g during this time, and overweighed lamb in 1980 and beef in 1990. Compared with that, the trend of fish was relatively stable, which fell by 5g from 2919to 2980, then it remain stable between 25g to 55g in the flowing years.

Help! Which sentence is correct? I want to say: I found a problem when I filled out the form. But I want to express it differently Which one is correct and nature? (and what are these grammars called) 1. I found a problem filling out the form 2. I found a problem, filling out the form 3. I found a problem while filling out the form 4. I found a problem when filling out the form

Help! Restrictive and Non—Restrictive attributive clauses! which one is correct and nature? 1 I hate those companies that emit pollutants 2 I hate those companies which emit pollutants 3 I hate those companies, which emit pollutants 4 I hate those companies who emit pollutants 5 I like to go to places where there have natural scenery. 6 I like to go to places, where can borden my horizons. 7 I like to go to places that have natural scenery. 8 I like to go to places which have natural scenery.

WHAT THE DIFFERENT: dweller/citizen/resident/inhabitant WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE: dweller/citizen/resident/inhabitant and how to use them

HELP! How to use this compare sentence?? Are these two sentences correct? 1. The risk of having heart disease for the people who exercise regularly is 30% lower than those who don't 2.People who exercise regularly have a more than 30% lower risk of heart disease than those who don't