نمونه های writing کاربران و بررسی آنها

[chemistrymaste]

سلام عرض میکنم خدمت دوستان ررایتینگ نویس عزیز، همگی خسته نباشین، و اعتراف میکنم که رایتینگ نوشتن کاری بس دشوار است!!!
عرض ارادت دارم خدمت مصححین گرامی که از وقتشون برای ما رایتینگ نویسا! مایه میذارن، مخصوصا خدمت خانم مینوی عزیز ،که این روزها یه تنه بار مسئولیت تصحیح رایتینگای ما رو به دوش میکشن.
این رایتینگ ما رو عزیزان اگه نگاهی بکنن ازشون ممنون میشم.

Should children grow up in the countryside or in a city?

There are advantages and disadvantages for a child to grow up in the country or in a city. Growing up in the country might result being isolated, being separated from different kind of people and being connected to a limited number of people with few diversities. On the contrary, in city we are in communication with a large number of people in an extended variety. As far as I am concerned, it is more convenient for a child to grow up in countryside until age of seven, and then (what should I use instead of then?), parents should bring him / her to grow up in city. I would like to explain why I believe in such an opinion. Since until age seven the only issue a child faces is to play, eat and sleep, he / she doesn’t know about theatre, cinema, concert, galleries, life, people and so forth. Living in countryside, is considered as a relatively safe, secure, convenient, comfortable, and fanciful with a limited number of people but very friendly. A child can play at vast playgrounds, swim in rivers and lakes, breathe in clean weather and drink clearer water rather than city. Being close to nature, children in the countryside are likely to improve both physical and mental behaviors better than those who are in the city. On the contrary, city cannot provide such places for children (or such a place? Which one is better?); they can only stay at home and watch television (which is better? TV or television???). But after age seven or eight, living in the countryside may prevent children from fitting into the society according to following reasons.

In the first place, a person can pursue his / her dreams better in the city. One (or he / she? Which one is better?) can attend different kinds of social, sport, art courses in order to blossom (or flourish? Which one?! I ask too much questions! I am sorry!) their talents. Experience has shown that successful people have started pursuing their interests from childhood. Also, schools are more up-to-date in cities rather than countryside. As a result, children have more choices to choose the better class.

In like manner, children meet a variety of people; such an environment helps children reach a better vision about the world they live in. they learn to have interaction with nice people, avoid dangerous people and attract towards like-minded one. They will make friends with interesting people and will participate in different teams and bonds. They will learn how to work together and pursue their wishes in groups. Moreover, after age seven, children can have many hobbies in city, they can go to museums, concerts, galleries, zoos, theatre, enroll in different teams and bands, and all these together help them broaden their horizon and to decide better in their life. They can also develop many hobbies. On the contrary, children in the countryside or village, don’t have a lot of these activities.

Not to mention, children can see multitude people with different jobs in city, which helps them and choose a bona fide job as their future career. In countryside, they won’t see a variety of careers; as a result, they will limit themselves to the available jobs. Living in city, helps them be more innovative and they can even start a new job.

On the whole, I prefer to grow up my children at countryside until seven year old; they can play in a convenient and secure place without any limited boundaries, with clean weather and clearer water, besides friendly people. And then move to city, so they can participate in different courses, modern high schools, meet large number of people, develop their hobbies, choose an appropriate, satisfactory and favorable career and pursue their dreams.

[minoosaba]

سلام عرض میکنم خدمت دوستان ررایتینگ نویس عزیز، همگی خسته نباشین، و اعتراف میکنم که رایتینگ نوشتن کاری بس دشوار است!!!
عرض ارادت دارم خدمت مصححین گرامی که از وقتشون برای ما رایتینگ نویسا! مایه میذارن، مخصوصا خدمت خانم مینوی عزیز ،که این روزها یه تنه بار مسئولیت تصحیح رایتینگای ما رو به دوش میکشن.
این رایتینگ ما رو عزیزان اگه نگاهی بکنن ازشون ممنون میشم.

Should children grow up in the countryside or in a city?

There are advantages and disadvantages for a child to grow up in the country or in a city. Growing up in the country might result being isolated, being separated from different kind of people and being connected to a limited number of people with few diversities. On the contrary, in city we are in communication with a large number of people in an extended variety. As far as I am concerned, it is more convenient for a child to grow up in countryside until age of seven, and then (what should I use instead of then?), parents should bring him / her to grow up in city. I would like to explain why I believe in such an opinion. Since until age seven the only issue a child faces is to play, eat and sleep, he / she doesn’t know about theatre, cinema, concert, galleries, life, people and so forth. Living in countryside, is considered as a relatively safe, secure, convenient, comfortable, and fanciful with a limited number of people but very friendly. A child can play at vast playgrounds, swim in rivers and lakes, breathe in clean weather and drink clearer water rather than city. Being close to nature, children in the countryside are likely to improve both physical and mental behaviors better than those who are in the city. On the contrary, city cannot provide such places for children (or such a place? Which one is better?); they can only stay at home and watch television (which is better? TV or television???). But after age seven or eight, living in the countryside may prevent children from fitting into the society according to following reasons.

In the first place, a person can pursue his / her dreams better in the city. One (or he / she? Which one is better?) can attend different kinds of social, sport, art courses in order to blossom (or flourish? Which one?! I ask too much questions! I am sorry!) their talents. Experience has shown that successful people have started pursuing their interests from childhood. Also, schools are more up-to-date in cities rather than countryside. As a result, children have more choices to choose the better class.

In like manner, children meet a variety of people; such an environment helps children reach a better vision about the world they live in. they learn to have interaction with nice people, avoid dangerous people and attract towards like-minded one. They will make friends with interesting people and will participate in different teams and bonds. They will learn how to work together and pursue their wishes in groups. Moreover, after age seven, children can have many hobbies in city, they can go to museums, concerts, galleries, zoos, theatre, enroll in different teams and bands, and all these together help them broaden their horizon and to decide better in their life. They can also develop many hobbies. On the contrary, children in the countryside or village, don’t have a lot of these activities.

Not to mention, children can see multitude people with different jobs in city, which helps them and choose a bona fide job as their future career. In countryside, they won’t see a variety of careers; as a result, they will limit themselves to the available jobs. Living in city, helps them be more innovative and they can even start a new job.

On the whole, I prefer to grow up my children at countryside until seven year old; they can play in a convenient and secure place without any limited boundaries, with clean weather and clearer water, besides friendly people. And then move to city, so they can participate in different courses, modern high schools, meet large number of people, develop their hobbies, choose an appropriate, satisfactory and favorable career and pursue their dreams.

درود
فایل ضمیمه گردید
موفق باشید

[anil87]

سلام و خسته نباشید .
این انشا من 2 غلط املایی داشت که تصحیح کردم و چند اشتباه تایپی.
خوشحال میشم نظر دوستان بدونم هه فنی هم از نظر نمره

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Television has destroyed communication among friends and family. Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.



Obviously Television has affected our lives to a great extent, having various pros and cons. Some people say Television has ruined communication among families and friends. I think, this idea is a kind of exaggeration. TV programs not only don’t degrade the level of communications but also they can improve it in different ways such as family gathering to watch a movie or friends discussions on a documentary.
First, although being so much involved in TV programs could be destructive but it depends on the types of programs and more important on the viewers themselves. For example, some adolescents put too much time watching different sports games on TV , forgetting their family and also not allowing any one else to use the TV. These people gradually plunge into TV programs and don’t enjoy family time anymore. On the other hand, many families come together to watch TV shows, for instance a comedy, unanimously to have fun, talk, make jokes. Further more, some parents follow psychological documentaries to learn techniques to communicate efficiently with their unruly children.
In addition, many TV shows, like American Idols, are so much popular that many people talk about it for hours. Even strangers in public places such as subway, bus stops or social networks like facebook ,analyze such programs through long interesting debates and not only enjoy but also find some new friends. People get familiar with various personalities, such as a maimed person, which may have never faced before and get experience how to behave when some day run into such personalities.
Last but not least, people communicate with themselves when they watch movies and serials. In fact, when they show too much enthuasiasim to a super star or a specific characteristic in a film, this means that they are accompanying him like a friend or even putting themselves in his shoes, getting sad, disappointed, thankful and trying to make decisions as the going thorough the movie. This is a sort of life practice, actually it is a simulation which may prepare them psychically to face urgent situations.
In a whole, upon the aforementioned reasons, I believe that degradation of communications is neither because of television nor other social medias. It inherently , origins the individuals.

[tirlin]

سلام، ممنون میشم اگه دوستان انشای من رو هم یک نیگاهی بندازن و نظر بدن و بگن نمرش حدودن چنده و چیکارا کنم که تو یک هفته بهتر شه.
خیلی ممنونم

Question: Educating children is a more difficult task today than it was in the past because they spend so much time on cell phones, online games, and social networking Web site.

Educating children is a very important issue that every parent should pay attention to it. Different people hold diverse perspective about the subject. Some believe that educating children has become more difficult with recent technologies while others disagree. In my view, new entertainment tools has made teaching kids harder than what it was before for two important reasons.

First, I think in past as they did not have many choices for entertaining themselves, they had to convince themselves that education is something interesting and as a result, parents and teachers could teach them much easier than today. For example, couple of years ago my grandmother told me about her own childhood. She described studying and reading books as one of the most interesting activities she and other kids had at that time. She said that her mother used to teach her social behavior and other stuff using Sa'di poets. She described that moments as her most brilliant events. I personally think that not only do recent technology achievements has made us so lazy, but also has made our education process more chalenging than before. As you can see, nowadays it is harder to educate children with current entertainment tools.

Second, Using such tools in the classroom has a big danger for educating students as they are now just playing games or texting via their brand new smart phones inside classes. I think these facilities have many advantages, nevertheless, their disadvantages overweighs advantages in sum situations. For instance, albeit you may google an unknown word or expression in a fraction of a second, you may miss rest of the class just because of an unrelated result presented in results. Of course this depends on the way you use such tools, but statistics has shown that majority of students misuse them and it has resulted in a great reduction on scores of students getting diploma compared to students of previous decade. Neither do students want such decrease, nor do teachers prefer it. The better results, the more inventions in the next coming decades. So, teaching people has become a major problem these days because of these tools.

Considering what has been discussed in previous paragraphs, one cannot overlook the fact that new technologies have made life easier and have many benefits, but on the other hand, it has many disadvantages that can be hazardous for humanity's progress and I hope we would solve such issues to have a better and brighter future for mankind.

[mani_faz]

Hi every one. No one has corrected my writings for a long time, and it’s really disappointing and saddening for me.

Integrated:
The professor truly believes that the arguments suggested in the passage to support the decreasing population of birds, are at best inconclusive and lack sufficient strength to be persuasive.

Contrary to what has been outlined in the text, the effect the increasing area to inhabit people and the decline of natural habitats for birds engenders, is not a sheer destructive impact. But in fact, the continuing trade of replacements of bird habitats by apartments, have actually made the conditions for some species of bird like pigeons and crows, to preliterate and reproduce exponentially, up to the point where some city dwellers are complaining about their vexatious abundance in urban areas. Therefore, even though some species of birds are at a loss, the effect is not entirely and uniformly detrimental.

Although it's an indisputable fact that the incessant increase in the human population, requires us to produce more food and hence need more agricultural products, this increased need is not met with the act of turning wilderness milieus into field to cultivate plants, as is indicated in the reading. Instead, this need is compensated by invention of crops that have exceptionally higher nutritional value and cultivating and harvesting this crops instead of traditional less dietary valuable plants. What's more, the present advances in agricultural technologies and machinery also boost the total amount of crops yielded, through increasing efficiency.

On her last remark, the lecturer points out to the fact that the adverse effects associated with pesticides have also decreased substantially. Pesticides produced today contain less toxic components and consequently do not harm bird’s reproduction and survival rates as is mentioned in the passage. In addition to that, there is an increasing trend to develop resilient crops that are pesticide- resistant, and this in turn, significantly decrease the need for use of pesticides in agriculture industry, thus eliminating the possible harmful effect pesticides could pose for population of birds.

Independent: Advertisements claim the product to be much better than they actually are.
Despite the wisdom that the saying "Don't judge a book by its cover" endorses, there is no doubt that we are psychologically shaped in a way by evolution to be inclined to make abrupt decisions based on what we see in a glance. Being cognizant of such a characteristic, many people in the advertisement industry have attempted to exploit their customers, by embellishing the outside facet of products to lure them into buying them. Therefore, I will argue that the majority of advertisements try to make their products look much better that they really are. I will delve into the details of arguments which my view is grounded in.

The unpredictable economy and the unceasing number of producers we witness nowadays, has incentivized more producers to distinguish themselves from analogous competitors, as a way, to ensure that they can have sufficient consumers to keep their business running. Consumers have a much wider range of choices nowadays, and they will go for the product that shows the greatest amount of uniqueness and originality. Thus, many business owners incorporate some degree of mendacity into advertisements of products, to satisfy that uniqueness demanded by consumers, even though, rationally there's is not much difference between what they produce and what others provide in the market.

Furthermore, it's just intuitive and commonsensical for advertisement experts, to exaggerate the potential benefit of their products, and entirely ignore the adverse effects caused by the use of products. Since, no sensible customer will choose to buy a product honest about its possible dangers, over the one that using hyperbole, gives an instant, although false sense of choosing something healthy and helpful for their purpose. This makes the whole idea of exaggeration in ads more appealing to businesses since it result in more revenues.

Looking from a different perspective, we only by products we feel we need to have, and the whole advertisement industry revolves around artificially creating that need, even if it's a fugacious one up to the point that it last at least to the point to prompt us to pay for the product. One of the key strategies to induce such false need, is use of hyperbole in descriptions and words used in ads.

To sum it up, I believe I have provided enough arguments to support the idea that many of the statements found in ads are meretricious ones, only there to lure us into buying the products and have no credibility whatsoever.

[Saman_R]

Hey friends, could you take a glace at my essay. I appreciate it

Here is the correction file, attached
Best

[masoud677]

با سلام
شاید چندمین رایتینگه که اینجا میگذارم اگر دوستان نگاهی بندازند ممنون میشم در مجموع 6 تا غلط تایپی داشت. اگر نمره هم در نظر بگیرید که بسیار عالی خواهد بود
Do you agree or disagree with this idea?
Parents are best teachers for their children.
Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer

Teaching is one of the main goals in every society. Some arguments try to introduce parents as the best teachers for children. Although children should be educated in schools, we can expect from the parent to teach lots of things like responsibility, culture and other norms; therefore, I think we can consider the parents as the most efficient and best teacher due to following reasons.

Parents can influence in the children and prepare them to get more information due to closer relationships. Psychologists believe that the main role of education in children`s world is close relationship with their teacher. Therefore, some teachers in primary schools are encouraged to prepare the classes more friendly. As a result, we can expect that homes are better place to learn more things; because parents can provide more appropriate conditions compared to schools.

Children feel safer at homes rather than official schools because they can talk better to their parents. This fact is so important that there are some departments in educational ministry to assess the educational environments especially in primary schools. Therefore, it is so obvious that children can learn better in communication with their parents, and as a result, parents can teach more effective compared to the official teachers. This mutual relationship can help the children to ask everything because they know that their parents would answer all questions in a more friendly way.

Parents are really more sensitive to the education of their children. I think no parents in the world want to have a superficial attitude toward their own children. Parent can enhance the quality of education by evaluating the educational conditions of their children. Therefore, they can give more effective advice to their children. Some teachers, perhaps, don`t have enough time to concentrate on all students, but parents always feel this responsibility; thus, they can solve educational problems more well.

In conclusion, I think parents have more power in education because children can trust them better and fell safer. In addition, parents are more sensitive toward their children; thus, all these factors can make them as the most efficient teachers.

[chemistrymaste]

سلام عرض میکنم خدمت دوستانی که وقتشونو مثل من با نوشتن رایتینگ میگذرونن و امیدوارم نوشته هاتون هر روز بهتر از دیروز باشه
ارادت داریم خدمت خانم مینو و آقای سامان عزیز،
دوستان عزیز اگه نگاهی به رایتینگ ما بندازن ازشون بی نهایت ممنون میشم.


Why are people living longer?

It is a common phenomenon and an indisputable fact which states people are living longer in the present era rather than past. Undoubtedly, reasons to explain this opinion exceed numbers. I intend (which one is better? Intend? Am going to? Or I’d like to?) express (or explain?) three major reasons for such an incident.

In the first place, development of science and technology has been led to high-qualified living conditions. Due to better clothing, people can protect their bodies against unfavorable weather. Latterly, houses and buildings are built tenacious and well-found; as a result, when facing heat, cold, natural disasters and any other upcoming event, people can benefit all facilities to survive. Nowadays, mankind’s lifestyle has been altered entirely; people live with more welfare rather than past. They don’t migrate to different places in order to explore for food, water, shelter or safety. Using transportation facilities, people are more eager to travel to different countries and continents. On the other hand, they avoid unnecessary travels and communicate with other people around the world with ease using internet, telephone and other communication media. They have found that one must avoid smoke and drug, and eat healthy to live longer. They exercise, go vacation, do hobbies and all these together has led to a better life.

In like manner, many ordinary people and many kings like Karim-Khan-Zand have been deceased due to illnesses which are not fatal anymore. Using medical improvements (please tell me another phrase? I couldn’t find any, many thanks) scientists diagnose diseases better than ever, and cure almost every illness. In the present, they cure diseases which had been considered as fatal cases. Nowadays, we are sure that there is always a cure for almost every disease.

Coupled with, due to medical and technological improvements, people consume healthier foods. Using refrigerators and modern instruments, they can cook and eat with more sanitation (am I wrong???).

Given these points, human being is living longer rather than the past, due to Pasteurized and healthier food, improved medical treatment, living conditions and altered lifestyle which has been joint with welfare and facilities. As we could predict and announced by scientists, human life is going to live even longer in the future.

[mani_faz]

This is for tpo 18. I’m looking forward to hearing your suggestion.
Integrated:
Based on the lecture, the professor firmly believes that none of the solutions proposed in the passage are actually going to help Torreya trees to flourish once again. She meticulously repudiates all 3 of them with distinct reasons.

Regarding the first solution suggested in the text, planting the trees manually in the regions were they thrived for a long period, there is sufficient reason to believe such a plan won't work and will be futile. This is due to the fact that the overall climate of Florida region has been affected by global warming, and as a result the temperature outside the microclimate has dramatically increased, and in addition to that, many of the wetlands are entirely arid and dry nowadays. Thus, this adverse conditions imposed on Torreya populations, will make the desired growth of them very unlikely, since Torreya trees won't be able to tolerate such harsh circumstances.

Furthermore, the attempt to plant Torreya trees in another location, which we believe to be one of its old ancient habitats, can have potentially unforeseen and catastrophic effects. Another similar incident, in which we did the same assisted migration to another species of trees, called black locus, has taught us a valuable lesson, not to interfere with the working of nature, since after the introduction of these trees, they had an exponential growth in the new region and soon become enough rampant that they threatened the existence of other trees and plant, which in turn tragically led to the extinction of some of them. The same thing may happen with assited migration of Torreya, so it's unwise to go down this path considering it's perilous implications on the overall ecology of the new habitat.


Unfortunately, taking care and preserving Torreya trees in research labs, is also not a prudent and viable solutions because of some points. First, in order for a tree specie to survive, there are some requirement that has to be met in the environment, namely genetic diversity and a large number of members of the mentioned species. The first factor cannot be satisfied, because of the limited space of research centers, that can't possibly accommodate a legion of trees. What's more it will be really hard for researchers to prepare the same kind of diversity that Torreya experiences in its wild habitat.

Independent: Friends are more influential on student than teachers.
If science has taught us one thing, it is that the interworking of human mind and brain is so intricate and complex, that no one can pinpoint the cause of a certain observed behavior in one individual with impeccable confidence. The same goes for the question at hand, whether students are affected mostly by their pedagogues and teachers or by their peers and friends. Nevertheless, in light of the credible experiments done in social psychology and my own experience as a student, I claim that in fact, it is the friends who mold and shape student's personality to a greater deal. Below, I go about elucidating the reasoning behind such a belief.

Empirical studies done by prominent social psychologists, tell us that biologically, as we grow up and enter teen years, the brain regions associated with risk taking and social needs like attracting attention and interacting with others, simultaneously become more activated and formed. This type of risk taking behavior, is not appreciated and welcomed by our parents, or other adults whom we associate with like our teachers. On the other hand, this type of adventurous, partly inane ideas that pop up in our head, are totally welcomed by our peers, since they are experiencing the same thing. Not only they encourage us to take such actions, they actively participate and help us and even become an accomplice in some cases. This is more than enough reasons for us to forget and neglect the advices of grownups and instead be totally attracted, and as a result immersed in interactions with our peers. Which in turn provides ample opportunity for them to alter and modify our behavior and shape our understanding of the world.


On another note, typically friendships last much longer, in comparison with the relationships we might have established with our teachers, as many of them change every year. Contrary to that, our friendships can last for decades, far beyond the time we were both students. This sheer longevity of amicable relationships substantially increase their chances at meaningfully influencing us. For instance, two former students who have been friends since high school, might go to the same college, and keep their relationship even after they marry and have children. This constant contact and exposure, make them more likely to be present and influential in many critical instances of their lives, and they might ask each other for advice in many cases.

Last but not the least, the nature of the relationship is a crucial contributor to the salience of friendships. Our relationships with teachers teach us how to be respectful and appreciative of authorities and how to effectively deal with similar people in the future. On contrast, in amicable relationships we tend to share more personal aspects of our lives, like our feeling and emotions. This increased intimacy, provides the other person to have a better more comprehensive idea of who we are, and thus leads the person to articulate about more important personal aspects of our lives, like our marriage and our career, that are significantly more important.


In a nutshell, in the light of the proposed reasons and arguments, I believe my view on this subjects is persuasive enough.

[nazhinee]

سلام
ممنون بابت زحمتای همگی بچه...خدا خیرتون بده
اینم لطفا یه ارزیابی کنید...ممنون...موضوع هم تی پی او 32...اینکه تغییرات سریع در جهان بتعث شده زندگی ها نسبت به گذشته کمتر شاد و راضی کننده باشن.


Technology revolution and its rapid evolution affects more or less all aspects of humankind. Transportation, healthcare, way of life and ample of other human needs is changing abruptly and consequently human way of thinking, self-esteem, and even satisfaction has changed, too. Nowadays, some may hold the opinion that this quick changes result in having less happy or less satisfied livings comparatively to lives of people in the past; however, others adopt a fully different attitude. As far as I am concerned, I am of the opinion that people nowadays are happier because of aforementioned changes. I will strive to elucidate my point of view through the ensuing paragraphs.

The prime reason to back up my opinion is that new technologies have improved people's connections a lot since their advent. Cellphones, online video streaming facilities, and many other new inventions that help everybody to keep in touch with each other presage my point of view. For example, I am an international student in Germany since 2010, but my family lives in Iran. Thanks to social internet applications such as skype, I can talk and even see my parents and vice versa. What can be surpassed for parents that the can see their child from miles away? If we did not such these positive changing in recent decades, maybe we could not endure difficulties of being alone. So, by providing better connections world changes make us happier.

There is also a more subtle point we can consider. Because of the quick changing, human improvements has changed quickly as well. Once, people had a smooth and routine way of life, nobody anticipates any significant improvements or it is better to say no one needs it. In other words, higher rate of changing lead to more incentives for active persons, in turn, happier lives is expected. A prime example from my experience may shed some light on this point. When I was in high school we used to write our statistical assignments on paper; but soon, after the computers became widespread and, furthermore, using applications like excel became popular, most of us had to learn these new facilities and we enjoyed a lot, because with a little effort we adapted to new alterations and eventually we were more satisfied with our lives. Thus, exploiting and adaptation to new change in order to be happier is easily feasible.

To put it briefly, I'm more inclined to go through massive changes and become more satisfied, than just recline my seat and repeat the slogan that:" lives in the past was much much better'. Although, nowadays some may assert that difficulties stem from rapid changes, still others have positive perspective toward them.