First and foremost, I just wanna say thanks in advance to whoever spends their time looking at my work. As someone who just starts to learn how to write properly by myself, I truly appreciate that I get your help along the way. Thanks for your kindness. Have a day that is as lovely as you.

Some people argue that individuals' freedom should be in accordance with laws and rules, otherwise, society cannot function as it should be.
TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE?


There are several arguments that society cannot function the way it should without individuals' freedom in harmony with laws and rules. To my way of thinking, this is such right a way to address the topic.

First and foremost, were there no correlation between individuals' freedom and rules and laws, society would turn into chaos. There would be no barriers to keep people within limits, which in response would result in the rise of crimes such as murders, robberies, thefts - to name a few. In addition to political benefits, laws and rules also are used to orient people to moral values, to guide people to behave with manners. Moreover, as people didn't adhere to anything collectively, nothing would exist as social standards to justify whether a specific action was right or wrong, and people's judgments about legal actions as well as misdeeds would vary dramatically. In return, it would lead to no conflict-solving taking place. As the conflicts kept escalating, there was no safety or security, and society could not thrive.

While there are no doubts to be cast that one needs to adjust their own freedom within social's discipline, all the rules and laws out there must be a combination of reasonable, beneficial, and able to represent human rights. As for how it was expressed crystal clear in the history of mankind, whenever rules and laws were no longer for the good of each and every member of the whole, people got dissatisfied, and those of which were initially born as the means to regulate the society ended as obstacles to the prominence of it. Therefore, laws and orders should be viewed as a way to both ensure and promo citizen's legal rights, not to contradict them at any means. Maintaining individuals' freedom within the existing legal frame helps people act and behave freely, but not in a way that disrupts society's development.

In short, as more and more people consider individual's freedom an essential part, things should be taken into account how people utilize them to facilitate the public's good, or whether they will just be used as an excuse to be selfish and show no respect to social standards. Not only does discipline set people free, but it also ensures society can function exactly as it should. On the other hand, people have the right to raise the voice, and as a matter of fact that all rules and laws are created by humans, all their subjective flaws need to be addressed and discarded regularly.

1 2

First and foremost, I just wanna say thanks in advance to whoever spends their time looking at my work. As someone who just starts to learn how to write properly by myself, I truly appreciate that I get your help along the way. Thanks for your kindness. Have a day that is as lovely as you.

Some people argue that individuals' freedom should be in accordance with laws and rules, otherwise, society cannot function as it should be.
TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE?


There are several arguments that society cannot function the way it should without individuals' freedom in harmony with laws and rules. To my way of thinking, this is such right a way to address the topic.

First and foremost, were there no correlation between individuals' freedom and rules and laws, society would turn into chaos. There would be no barriers to keep people within limits, which in response would result in the rise of crimes such as murders, robberies, thefts - to name a few. In addition to political benefits, laws and rules also are used to orient people to moral values, to guide people to behave with manners. Moreover, as people didn't adhere to anything collectively, nothing would exist as social standards to justify whether a specific action was right or wrong, and people's judgments about legal actions as well as misdeeds would vary dramatically. In return, it would lead to no conflict-solving taking place. As the conflicts kept escalating, there was no safety or security, and society could not thrive.

While there are no doubts to be cast that one needs to adjust their own freedom within social's discipline, all the rules and laws out there must be a combination of reasonable, beneficial, and able to represent human rights. As for how it was expressed crystal clear in the history of mankind, whenever rules and laws were no longer for the good of each and every member of the whole, people got dissatisfied, and those of which were initially born as the means to regulate the society ended as obstacles to the prominence of it. Therefore, laws and orders should be viewed as a way to both ensure and promo citizen's legal rights, not to contradict them at any means. Maintaining individuals' freedom within the existing legal frame helps people act and behave freely, but not in a way that disrupts society's development.

In short, as more and more people consider individual's freedom an essential part, things should be taken into account how people utilize them to facilitate the public's good, or whether they will just be used as an excuse to be selfish and show no respect to social standards. Not only does discipline set people free, but it also ensures society can function exactly as it should. On the other hand, people have the right to raise the voice, and as a matter of fact that all rules and laws are created by humans, all their subjective flaws need to be addressed and discarded regularly.

Please post essays, paragraphs, dialogues and other writing in the essay forum so a moderator does not have to move your post.
https://www.englishforums.com/English/EssayReportCompositionWriting/Forum9.htm

Is this an IELTS practice essay? The topic is not well-written.

NgTh. HgDSome people argue that individuals' freedom should be curtailed / limited in accordance with laws and rules, otherwise, society cannot function as it should be.
TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE?
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.

There are several arguments that society cannot function the way it should without individuals' freedom being constrained by in harmony with laws and rules. To my way of thinking, this is such right a way to address the topic. (That does not make sense. You have to answer the essay prompt: To what extent do you agree or disagree?

You need to answer this question with an adverb of extent. Do you know these adverbs? This sentence will be your essay's thesis statement.

)

First and foremost, were there no correlation between individuals' freedom and rules and laws and people could do anything they desired, society would turn into chaos. There would be no barriers to keep people within limits, which in response would result in the rise of crimes such as murders, robberies, and thefts - to name a few. In addition to political benefits, (I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mean electing people to positions in government?) laws and rules also are used to orient people to moral values, to guide people to behave politely and respectfully towards each other. with manners. Moreover, as people didn't (Do not use contractions in formal essays.) adhere to anything (I do not understand what you mean.) collectively, nothing would exist as social standards to justify whether a specific action was right or wrong, and people's judgments about legal actions their rights and privileges as well as misdeeds would vary dramatically. In return, it would lead to conflicts going unresolved. no conflict-solving taking place. As the conflicts keep kept escalating, there was no safety or security diminish, and society could not thrive. (You used the wrong tenses here.)

While there are no doubts to be cast is no doubt that one needs to adjust their own freedom within social's (wrong usage. Social is an adjective.) discipline, all the rules and laws out there must be a combination of reasonable, beneficial, (ungrammatical) and able to represent human rights. (...all the rules and laws must be both reasonable and beneficial and be enacted in accordance with human rights.) As for how it was expressed crystal clear in the history of mankind, We can see many instances in history that whenever rules and laws were no longer for the good of each and every citizen, member of the whole, people got dissatisfied, and those of which were initially born as the means to regulate the society ended as obstacles to the prominence of it. ( This is very unnatural and awkward.) Therefore, laws and orders (wrong word. Do you mean the phrase "law and order"?) should be viewed as a way to both ensure and promo (A promo is a short advertisement.) citizen's legal rights, not to contradict them at any means. Maintaining individuals' freedom within the existing legal frame framework helps people act and behave freely, but not in a way that disrupts society's development.

In short, as more and more people consider individual's freedom an essential part, (Part of what?) things should be taken into account how people utilize them (What does "them" refer to?) to facilitate the public's good, or whether they (What does "they" refer to?) will just be used as an excuse to be selfish and show no respect for to social standards. (I cannot make out what you mean in that sentence. ) Not only does discipline set people free, but it also ensures society can function exactly as it should. On the other hand, people have the right to raise the voice, and as a matter of fact that all rules and laws are created by humans, all their subjective flaws need to be addressed and discarded regularly. (You did not answer the essay prompt. Do not offer a remedy unless the topic asks for a solution.)


I'm sorry I put this in the wrong place. It is from an IELTS test taking place last year, as my teacher said. I just typed the words I got. I will ask my teacher about this. Thanks.

Hi, in this part In addition to political benefits, (I don't understand what you mean here.

I was trying to say that laws n rules can help regulate society legally. Sorry I wasn't unable to figure out the right words to use.

And in this Moreover, as people didn't (Do not use contractions in formal essays.) adhere to anything (I do not understand what you mean.)

I wanted to express that people don't obey to the same rules and laws as each other.

In this one As the conflicts keep kept escalating, there was no safety or security diminish, and society could not thrive. (You used the wrong tenses here.)

I was intentionally using the past form to express an If 2 sentence.

As in this those of which were initially born as the means to regulate the society ended as obstacles to the prominence of it. ( This is very unnatural and awkward.)

How can I express myself better?

I also made some changes in this part, hopefully, this time I have made myself clearer.

In short, more and more people consider individual's freedom an essential part of their lives. Therefore, things should be taken into account how people utilize this kind of human right to facilitate the public's good, or whether it will just be used as an excuse to be selfish and show no respect for social standards.


Also, I didn't try to give a solution at the end of the essay. Since there were 2 main points in my work, I just wanted to summarize them both in my conclusion. How can I do that better?

As usual, thanks for your help and kindness.

Have a lovely day!

Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
NgTh. HgDIn addition to political benefits, laws and rules also are used to orient people to moral values,
NgTh. HgDI was trying to say that laws n rules can help regulate society legally. Sorry I wasn't unable to figure out the right words to use.

In addition to maintaining a peaceful and civil society, ...
NgTh. HgDAnd in this Moreover, as people do not adhere to anything (I do not understand what you mean.)

A suggestion:

Moreover, as people have different attitudes towards what behaviours are permissible or not, without written laws nothing would exist as a standard to judge whether a specific action is right or wrong. And without a standard, people's judgments of what constitutes a misdemeanor and what the penalty should be would vary dramatically. And that would lead to endless debates and conflicts. 
NgTh. HgDIn this one As the conflicts keep kept escalating, there was no safety or security diminish, and society could not thrive. (You used the wrong tenses here.)

I was intentionally using the past form to express an If 2 sentence.

A conditional sentence must have a clause beginning with "if" or "unless".

Your sentence did not have one. Besides, the entire situation you are describing is hypothetical. So you need to continue the argument in the same tense.

These conflicts will inevitably escalate into violence, resulting in no safety or security for the society as a whole. 
NgTh. HgDAs in this those of which were initially born as the means to regulate the society ended as obstacles to the prominence of it. ( This is very unnatural and awkward.)

I am guessing that this is what you want to say.

Look how much you can improve your essay by giving very specific examples. These make your point and convince the reader that you know this topic on a personal basis.

But laws, regulations and punishments for infractions can not be set in stone. As society changes, and their beliefs and attitudes change, old laws need to be modified or eliminated, and new laws need to be added. There are many examples. Before there were cars, traffic laws such as speeding violations would have been considered ridiculous.  Also, there are new laws requiring all children to attend public schools. Furthermore, the firing squad method for capital punishment has recently been revoked as being too cruel, and execution is mandated for only the most serious and extreme crimes. 
NgTh. HgDAlso, I didn't try to give a solution at the end of the essay.

The last paragraph should be very short, restating your thesis statement and briefly mentioning the argument points.

Yours is way too lengthy, and adds points that were not in the body paragraphs.

You had not written anything about selfishness or subjective flaws, and reviewing the existing laws.

In short, a civil society requires a careful balance between individuals' freedom of action and the laws governing their behavior.  I completely agree that a body of just laws and punishments, which are continuously reviewed, is essential to avoid the society going into a state of chaos. 


Hi, I get what you suggested with this

In addition to maintaining a peaceful and civil society, 

but I wanted the mention more about the legal side so that in the next words I can mention the moral side.

And about the If 2, I wrote the whole paragraph 2 in the past tense to indicate that this was a hypothetical situation, except the sentence "In addition to political benefits" because that was me stating a fact. Did my approach was wrong?

As usual, thanks for your help and kindness.

Have a lovely day!

NgTh. HgD Did Was my approach was wrong?

I do not understand your proposal. Please post the paragraphs you want to use.

By the way, "laws" are, by definition, rules and regulations that are in the legal system. "Legal laws," like "dead corpses," and "unmarried bachelor" are nonsensical phrases.

Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Show more