The world is consuming natural resources faster than they can be renewed. Therefore, it is important that products are made to last. Governments should discourage people from constantly buying up-to-date or fashionable products.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

You should write at least 250 words.

In today’s world exploitation and exploration of natural resources, at its peak for the sake of personal benefit. This is an alarming situation and there is dire need of taking precautionary measures. Despite of this, I did not agree to some extent to limit the use of modern products and encourage companies to make long lasting products. By doing so, we are compromising safety issues and depriving people to take benefits from modern and advance technology.

There is no doubt that modern products are designed in accordance to latest technology and safety measures. For instance, todays car are much better in performance and more secure than older cars, as new car have state of the art features such as air bag, camera and internet connectivity etc. Those functions make car more reliable and durable and comfortable for its users. Additionally, being as a part of modern and diverse world, one should be equipped with modern products to create ease and comfort in their life.

Durable and long lasting products will create discrimination among people, as such products require huge amount for its development and would not be in reach of poor people. Moreover, this will have negative impact on new and inexperienced companies to develop kind of products that demand enormous funds and time. Thus, it will cause unemployment as not too many businesses would able to bear huge expenses.

To sum up, I would like to say that government should come up with pragmatic approach to devise alternative to natural resources than confiding people not to use latest and modern products.
1 2
In today’s world exploitation and exploration of natural resources, at its peak for the sake of personal benefit. (There is no verb in your sentence.)

This is an alarming situation (why?) and there is dire need of taking precautionary measures. Despite of this, I do not agree to some extent to limit the use of modern products and encourage companies to make long-lasting products. By doing so, we are compromising safety issues (? I don't understand. Long-lasting products are often much safer because they are made with materials that do not break or fail easily. When something breaks, people can get hurt.) and depriving people from enjoying the benefits of modern and advanced technology.

There is no doubt that modern products are designed in accordance to latest technology and safety measures. For instance, today's cars are much better in performance and more secure than older cars, as new car have state-of-the-art features such as air bags, cameras and internet connectivity etc. Those functions make car more reliable and durable (Please explain how internet connectivity makes a car more reliable or durable.) and comfortable for its users. Additionally, being as a part of modern and diverse world, one should be equipped with modern products to create ease and comfort in their life.

Durable and long-lasting products will create discrimination among people, as such products require huge amounts for its development (Can you give any example?) and would not be in the reach of poor people. (Really? If a product is long-lasting and durable, the rich people will buy new. Their used products are still good, because they were built to be long-lasting. The poor people will be able to afford them and benefit from high-quality, durable used products.) Moreover, this will have negative impact on new and inexperienced companies to develop kind of products that demand enormous funds and time. Thus, it will cause unemployment as not too many businesses would able to bear huge expenses.

To sum up, I would like to say that government should come up (This is your first mention of government in your essay. You need to explain what you mean. Why can't private companies devise alternatives to natural resources?) with pragmatic approach to devise alternatives to natural resources than confiding (convincing?) people not to use the latest and modern products.
In today’s world exploitation and exploration of natural resources, at its peak for the sake of personal benefit.(There is no verb in your sentence.)

Please give me example by adding verb in this line.

This is an alarming situation (why?) Shall i write why it alarming ?

(? I don't understand. Long-lasting products are often much safer because they are made with materials that do not break or fail easily. When something breaks, people can get hurt.)
I mean to say old cars not have air bag, ABS breaks etc for safety.

today's vs todays : both are not same?

(Please explain how internet connectivity makes a car more reliable or durable.)
Internet helps us finding path by the use of GPS etc.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
fahad123Please give me example by adding verb in this line.
In today’s world, natural resources are being depleted at higher and higher rates for the sake of personal benefit.
fahad123This is an alarming situation (why?) Shall I write why it is alarming ?
Yes, this is an argument, so you must back up your assertions with reasons.
fahad123I mean to say old cars not have air bags, ABS brakes etc for safety.
You wrote: "air bags, cameras and internet connectivity etc. Those functions make car more reliable and durable"

It might make the car safer, but you claimed that these things make the car more reliable and durable.

The Volkswagen "Beetle" was very well-constructed, simple and inexpensive. Owners could repair them without needing training and sophisticated tools. They almost never broke down. They had very good gas mileage, too. This is an example of an old car that was reliable and durable and inexpensive.

My car has air bags. Air bags do not make it more reliable or durable. They didn't even make it safer because this type of air bag was defective and sometimes exploded and killed the driver and passenger. I had to take the car back to replace the air bags but I had driven it for 10 years in a very dangerous state. Air bags made it (and millions of other cars) less safe.
fahad123today's vs todays : both are not same?
No.
Todays = more than one "today." There were five todays in the movie "Groundhog Day."
Today's = belonging to "today". An expression meaning stuff that is new and modern; stuff that did not exist "yesterday."
Today's technology supersedes yesterday's technology.
fahad123(Please explain how internet connectivity makes a car more reliable or durable.)Internet helps us finding path by the use of GPS etc.
GPS can make the car more dangerous because the driver can be distracted while watching the GPS instead of the road. It does not make a car more reliable or durable. The only thing a GPS does is help you not get lost.
Internet connectivity lets the driver text and do email, watch movies, surf the web, and Google while driving. Do you think that makes the car safer? Do you think that makes the car last longer? Besides, what does that have to do with your topic - the exploitation of natural resources?

You need to make your arguments logically sound. You need to give explanations that make sense.
Your explanation is extremely helpful and make many things clear to me.

I really appreciate your efforts.

From the last few decades, people are always keen on luxurious lifestyle, which motivate them to use new version or up to date technological items. This is because, more industry is growing up to fulfill the demand and water, gas and so on natural resources are being exhausted day by day. some people claim that, government should demotivate the more consuming trend and recycling can be motivated instead of this. I agree with this statement.

The profound who are against my opinion may argue that, new technological instruments make our life more easy and comfortable. By using this type of instruments, women can save time in their daily household chores. For instance, a woman is using a cooker to cook rice, vegetable, meat and so on. This cooker do not make any fume and take only 7 to 8 minutes to cook rice, while, in the past, it took around an hour to cook a item.

However, there are lots of arguments I can put forward on my arguments, first of all, to make different technological items, a lots of industries is growing up in different parts of the world. These industries use huge amount of raw materials, which are being derived from our natural sources like water, trees, gas and so on. The natural resources exhausted quickly and the amount become shortage for future use. For example, in Bangladesh, people do not get adequate drinking water, due to excess use in garments sector and this water was available in last decades. Apart from this, extra use of technological items, industrial waste increased in concerning figure. The amount of landfill is going up and different chemical is polluting our environment. To solve this problem, governments should encourage to the people recycling the product and save the natural resources and environment.

In conclusion, although the technological instruments make life easy, it also affects our natural asset and environment. Therefore, people should aware about consuming and think about recycling process.

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
cobra navy 556From the last few decades, people are always keen on luxurious lifestyle,

Your post is completely unrelated to the topic of this thread. If you have a new question, start a new topic.

From the last few decades, people are always keen on luxurious lifestyle, which motivate them to use new version or up to date technological items. This is because, more industry is growing up to fulfill the demand and water, gas and so on natural resources are being exhausted day by day. Some environmentalist claim that, government should de - motivate the more consuming trend and recycling can be motivated instead of this. I agree with this statement.

The profound who are against my opinion may argue that, new technological instruments make our life more easy and comfortable. By using this type of instruments, women can save time in their daily household chores. For instance, a woman is using a cooker in cooking rice, vegetable, Meat and so on. This cooker do not make any fume and take only 7 to 8 minutes to cook rice, while, in the past, it took around an hour to cook a item.

However, there are lots of arguments I can put forward on my arguments, first of all, to make different technological items, a lots of industries is growing up in different parts of the world. These industries use huge amount of raw materials, which are being derived from our natural sources like water, trees, gas and so on. The natural resources exhausted quickly and the amount become shortage for future use. For example, in Bangladesh, people do not get adequate drinking water, due to excess use in garments sector and this water was available in last decades. Apart from this, extra use of technological items, industrial waste increased in concerning figure. The amount of landfill is going up and different chemical is polluting our environment. To solve this problem, governments should encourage to the people recycling the product and save the natural resources and environment.

In conclusion, although the technological instruments make life easy, it also affects our natural asset and environment. Therefore, people should aware about consuming and think about recycling process.

Please I will be benefited, if you explain which part is unrelated.

Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Show more