Xác định các loại mệnh đề (danh từ, tính từ) trong bài sau:
Spoken communication is more powerful than writen communication. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some people believe that the power of verbal forms of communication outstrips that of their written counterparts. Personally, I think there is little to disagree with in this observation.
Spoken words carry more weight than written ones for several reasons, the most important of which are related to facial expressions and emotions. These could range from smiling with one’s eyes, which indicates a genuine smile and the genuineness of the message, to only smilling with one’s mouth, which can be perceived as a fake smile, and raising one’s eyebrows, which show disapproval or surprise, while he is enunciating a word. Of course, one might argue that a writer can simply add some extra adverbs to illustrate how a person feels more accurately, but we all too often find ourselves in loss of words when it comes to describing humans’ feelings.
Besides this, I note the fact that one’s way of speaking also affects how his message is perceived. Take, for example, a speech dellivered by a confident speaker who, at the same time, possesses clear pronunciation, a deep voice and a good pace of speech. What he hopes to deliver surely gets through more effectively than handing out to the same audience the transcript of what he says. This can clearly be seen in the way politicians often choose press conferences, and public speeches to best connect and persuade voters over any written forms of communication
In conclusion, the power of written communication seems to pale in comparison with that of spoken words. I take this view on account of the fact that the latter consists of many powerful elements such as facial expressions, emotions and ways of speaking, all of which are hardly ever successfully portrayed in any written texts.
Hãy nhập câu hỏi của bạn vào đây, nếu là tài khoản VIP, bạn sẽ được ưu tiên trả lời.
Some people believe that printed newspapers are becoming worthless in the contemporary life. While there are a variety of ground supporting this view, I would argue that printed newspapers continue to play an essential role in life.
Continuous advancement in technology provides people with more convenient options for gathering news which are alternatives for printed newspapers. First, an enormous number of articles or reports nowadays could be assessed merely via smartphones or computer with the internet connection, and not only does the news contain a broad spectrum of contents but it can also be updated by the minute. It is obviously more convenient than the traditional measure of reading news, for example, on daily newspapers with limited content in few pages. Second, the spread of alternative options namely the radio or the internet which reach almost every corner of the world has reduced the dependence on printed newspapers as a main source of information.
Despite such advantages of the news conveys by other faster means, I consider that there is still a continuing need for printed newspapers today. One reason is that reading a newspaper is a daily habit which many people, especially the elderly, still enjoy. They are really interested in the leisurely routine of reading newspapers over breakfast or drinking cups of coffee. Another consideration is people can share the newspapers with others since printed newspapers can simply be picked up or put down at a will. For example, I often read a newspaper on the train or bus and then leave the paper on the seat for other passengers if they wish.
In conclusion, albeit the increasing availability of other high-speed sources of news, newspapers still contribute a certain value to human life today.
For centuries, deforestation, farming, urbanisation and other human activities have wreaked havoc with wild animal species and sent them to the verge of extinction. Regarding wildlife protection, awareness has been raised and attempts have been made. However, some hold the idea that the protection of endangered species has been given inordinate amount of attention and resources. Personally, I do not see eye to eye with this point of view.In the first place, wildlife protection has never taken centre stage on the media.Compared with celebrities, for example, the amount of coverage of wild animals isinfinitesimal. Clearly, the reason is profits. In other words, programs featuring wildanimals do not generate interest of the public and accordingly returns for theproducers. The absence of educational programs concerning the lives of wild animalshas blinded people to the reality that wild animals are dying and the ecological systemare being disrupted severely. In addition, governments around the world do not prioritise wildlife conservation in their agenda’s. As a matter of fact, laws to save wild animals have been introduced, but they are loosely enforced. Because of this, every man can freely exploit land, chop down forests, and divert the water sources, all of which combine to destroy the natural habitats of threatened animals. In every corners of the world, with or without intention, human are still causing changes in climatic and geopgraphical conditions, which accelerates of animal extinction. In light of this fact, I feel that not enough attention and resources are being given in the conservation of wild flora and fauna and stronger actions need to be taken to save them.
Music is a great way to bring people of different cultures and ages together” -I totally agree with this point. I think EDM (Electronic Dance Music) is the best music that I've heard. people create. Music plays an important role in our modern world. It can eliminate cultural and generational differences. Music has the ability to broaden people's horizons and welcome different cultures from all over the world. Needless to say, each country has its own traditions to enforce their culture and norms. Music can bridge this cultural gap and is a great way to help individuals collaborate better with others. For example, music parties like Tomorrowland are held all over the world, giving citizens from all over the world the opportunity to get in touch with the national culture and gain a deeper understanding of it. Overall, we cannot deny the importance of music in our lives and its ability to connect people from different cultural backgrounds and ages.
Sample Answer :
In many countries, especially in developing countries, foreign movies are more popular than the locally made films. There are several reasons for this trend and the government can and should greatly contribute to promoting domestic movies for the overall progress of the industry.
The main reason people prefer movies from other countries is the quality of the movie. It is often noticed that locally made films in many countries lack better plots and the characters do not have the necessary depth to touch the hearts of the audiences. Moreover, foreign films have a great variation and they are more enjoyable than the domestic films. This happens because large film industries like the Hollywood can allocate a huge budget and have talented producers and directors while films made in developing countries have a small amount to spend on a movie and do not have many talented movie makers. For instance, the type of animated movies and special effects developing countries produce these days are unimaginable in most of the developing countries and this is why movie lovers from these countries prefer to watch movies made in other countries. The poor quality of acting and low-budget filmmaking in most of the developing countries discourage the audiences to enjoy local films.
In my opinion, the government should support the film industry in order to support this industry, encourage people to enjoy more domestically produced films and gain international acclimation for quality movies. Each country has some talented producers, actors and filmmakers who for the lack of financial and political support cannot bring out the best. They should be given a chance to prove themselves. No doubt big budget is required to make better quality films and the government should provide subsidiary to help local film industry progress. Government’s help for the movie industry would bring more audiences to the theatre to enjoy those films and earn more ticket money. Moreover, quality films would compete in international stages and bring fame for the country.
In conclusion, the film industry in each country should be supported by the government as it would make local films popular and earn money and fame for the country.
#Nhi ☺
There is a common belief that in a family, men’s role is to work and women take a responsibility for home. While I agree with that notion, I also believe that today, the task of both genders are equal on the society and at home
At the outset, it will better for families if the task of earning money is for males and females take care of the family. It is true that maternal instincts is necessary for children. What mothers do is likely to more careful than that of fathers in terms of housework. Therefore, a house which is taken care by mothers would be cozy and happy that contributes to a sustainable society for a nation. A typical example is in Japan, a high proportion of women would stop their career path for spending more time on home. Moreover, these days, the pressure of work has been significantly increasing day by day. Females tend to be more negatively affected than males in life. As a result, more and more divorces have occurred which the primary reason is that women cannot obtain a balance between work and family.
Despite those above arguments, nowadays, gender role is equality which both men and women have the same responsibility for family. Children need to be educated and nurtured from fathers and mothers for full development. Without father’s attention, children might not learn strong characters. In term of financial issues, If men only make money for whole family, not only males will be under heavily burden of monetary but also the family tend to deal with the risk of finance in case of unemployment. Additionally, the awareness of people in gender issues has been raisen in societies recently. Hence, women have rights to have a job outside for broadening their mind and helping family.In conclusion, although I argue that men’s role is to go to work and women’s main mission is to take care of family, I am of the opinion that females should obtain a job in a company.
Some people believe that children should spend all of their free time with their families. Others believe that this is unnecessary or even negative. Discuss the possible arguments on both sides, and say which side you personally support.
Nobody can deny that parental influence is important for children, at least in cases where children live with their parents, foster parents or guardians. However, it is by no means clear that children should spend exclusively in the family, as we will see.
On the one hand, it may appear advisable for parents to act as role models and establish ground rules for behaviour by spending as much time as possible with their children. This allows the youngers follow themselves, hopefully leading to an absence of problems such as bullying, truancy and deliquency later on. Furthermore, being with the family should reduce the risk of children falling victim to crimes such as abduction, or coming under the influence of negative peer pressure.
On the other hand, we have to ask whether this is a practical proposition. In a society where many families are dual-income, or where one parents’s role as breadwinner means he/she is away from the family for long periods, it is inevitable that children cannot spend all of their time with the family. Child-minding and after-school childcare are often used in these cases, and if managed properly, these can be perfectly viable alternatives. Equally, it seems that children can in some cases learn a considerable amount from their peers in addition to adults, and allowing them to play without direct supervision may be a benefit.
To conclude, it appears that while family time is essential for bonding and absorbing patterns of behaviour, there are definite advantages when children are outside the family too. This is provided that (only if) they are in a safe, well-behaved environment with peers who are themselves reasonably well brought-up.
It is common that the highest management of businesses is covered by senior and experienced leaders. However, some people believe in the fact, that young generation should take over. I'm partially agree with this statement. This essay will discuss this interesting topic and provide evidence and examples.
Firstly, business' success is depended on its leaders, who manage lower ranked managers, staff and labours. The Leadership is something individuals are born with or can be taught at universities. Many organisations are critically reliant on experienced staff who provides the best model role to others. In particular banks, businesses focused on human resources cannot be supervised by young staff. This named professions require highly qualified, trained and experienced individuals. Th experience is something people learn over the years, as a result of this, young people are not suitable to be in leading position.
From the other hand, many companies such as Apple, Google, Facebook etc. are seeking young experts with fresh and innovative ideas to boost their profit. Notwithstanding, senior and experienced managers are essential in matter of financial control, their ideas might be out of date. Young generation accommodated easily to new technology and software than their elder society, based on this fact, their performance in leadership will be highly appreciated. The named global companies are the clear example of business empowered by unexperienced, however, graduated individuals.
To sum up, so called older people in managers position might benefit any business, nevertheless, young leaders should be more innovative and experienced from their lifestyle.
bạn nên lập luận ra thì bài sẽ đầy đủ và nghe thuyết phục hơn!
Spoken communication is more powerful than writen communication. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some people believe that the power of verbal forms of communication outstrips that of their written counterparts. Personally, I think there is little to disagree with in this observation.
Spoken words carry more weight than written ones for several reasons, the most important of which are related to facial expressions and emotions. These could range from smiling with one’s eyes, which indicates a genuine smile and the genuineness of the message, to only smilling with one’s mouth, which can be perceived as a fake smile, and raising one’s eyebrows, which show disapproval or surprise, while he is enunciating a word. Of course, one might argue that a writer can simply add some extra adverbs to illustrate how a person feels more accurately, but we all too often find ourselves in loss of words when it comes to describing humans’ feelings.
Besides this, I note the fact that one’s way of speaking also affects how his message is perceived. Take, for example, a speech dellivered by a confident speaker who, at the same time, possesses clear pronunciation, a deep voice and a good pace of speech. What he hopes to deliver surely gets through more effectively than handing out to the same audience the transcript of what he says. This can clearly be seen in the way politicians often choose press conferences, and public speeches to best connect and persuade voters over any written forms of communication
In conclusion, the power of written communication seems to pale in comparison with that of spoken words. I take this view on account of the fact that the latter consists of many powerful elements such as facial expressions, emotions and ways of speaking, all of which are hardly ever successfully portrayed in any written texts.