+0

TASK 1

The graph below shows how money was spent on different forms of entertainment over a five year period.

Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.


The chart demonstrates the ways that money was used for various entertainment purposes in the given years.

Generally, the amount of money used in Asia was the lowest whereas that of the United States was the highest in both years. The figures of money paid on cinema and video were the lowest in both years for all three countries.

In Asia, the money paid on television always remained lower than that of publishing, about 25 and nearly 48 in 1995 and 2000, respectively.

In European countries and America, this trend was no longer applicable, which means the television field received a little bit higher amount of money than the publishing one. The gap between these two figures was hardly seen in Europe since it was only approximately 3 in either years while in the US, the gap accounted for about 50 in the year 1995 and just more than 25 in the year 2000.


TASK 2

Present a written argument or case to an educated non-specialist audience on the following topic:

Under British and Australian laws a jury in a criminal case has no access to information about the defendant's past criminal record. This protects the person who is being accused of the crime.

Some lawyers have suggested that this practice should be changed and that a jury should be given all the past facts before they reach their decision about the case.

Do you agree or disagree?

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


According to British and Australian laws, a jury will not be accessible to the former criminal documentation of the accused person to protect them from the personalized verdict. However, some lawyers have given an argument of reconsidering this practice since they believe that the jury should be given total access to the past incidents in advance of the deduction. I totally disagree with this statement due to several reasons below.


There is nothing quite like a jury who decides a fair and justice verdict. Therefore, giving them full access to former crimes is quite a thoughtless idea. Firstly, even if they have a steel mind, somehow they still can not totally immune from personal emotions and thus, would lead to an unfair verdict. Secondly, if this elimination was enacted, the accusing side would be very beneficial since they could lead the court in a way that supports them and minors the arguments and the evidences of the opposite side.


Moreover, there is a likelihood that things people have done in the past have nothing to do with what they are in the present. By letting the head of the court access to the previous criminal cases of the accused person, people are indirectly insisting that he or she is bound to do it again. This is a very fatal and untrustworthy implied prejudice that nobody deserves to be embedded in. The government giving consent to eliminate this practice would lead to a society with no sympathy and kindness. Instead, people should give those criminals a second chance to contribute, devote, and fix what they have caused in the past.


With all of the above reasons, I strongly reckon that the suggestion of changing this law should not be put into force in order to maintain fair and honest courts.


+0

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


For Task 1:

Please attach an image of what you are writing about. We cannot help you if we can't see the figure.

Read my advice for Task 1 essays. If you have made any of the common mistakes that are described, revise your writing before posting it.

IELTS TASK 1: Hints, Tips And Advice

Vocabulary Words For Task 1: Reference Post


Please do not put two essays in one post. Each ne takes a lot of time for feedback. Put one essay in one post.

---------------------

+0
Hà BùiTASK 2
Present a written argument or case to an educated non-specialist audience on the following topic:

Under British and Australian laws a jury in a criminal case has no access to information about the defendant's past criminal record. This protects the person who is being accused of the crime. Some lawyers have suggested that this practice should be changed and that a jury should be given all the past facts before they reach their decision about the case.

Do you agree or disagree?

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

According to British and Australian laws, a jury will not be accessible to (That means that the documents are not permitted to talk to the jury. It does not make sense.) the former criminal documentation of the accused person to protect them from the (wrong article) personalized (wrong word) verdict. However, some lawyers have given an argument of reconsidering this practice since they believe that the jury should be given total access to the past incidents in advance of the deliberations. deduction. (wrong word) I totally disagree with this statement because it is likely to bias the jury against the defendant. due to several reasons below.

(Be more specific. Give the main reason.)

There is nothing quite like a jury who decides a fair and justice verdict. Therefore, giving them full access to former crimes is quite a thoughtless idea. Firstly, First, even if they have a steel (wrong word) an open mind, somehow they still can not totally immune (ungrammatical - immune is not a verb. ) from personal emotions and thus, would lead to an unfair verdict. Secondly, Second, if this elimination (wrong word) was enacted, the accusing side would be very beneficial (Ungrammatical. wrong usages. A side is not beneficial. Good food and exercise is beneficial to one's health.) since they could lead the court in a way that supports them and minors (wrong word) the arguments and the evidences (wrong word, or wrong form) of the opposite side.


Moreover, there is a likelihood that things people have done in the past have nothing to do with what they are in the present. By letting the head (wrong word) of the court access to (wrong word) the previous criminal cases of the accused person, people are indirectly insisting that they are he or she is bound to do it again. This is a very fatal and untrustworthy implied prejudice that nobody deserves to be embedded in. The government giving consent to eliminate this practice would lead to a society with no sympathy and kindness. Instead, people should give those criminals a second chance to contribute, devote, (wrong word) and fix what they have caused in the past.


With all of the above reasons, I strongly reckon (wrong word - reckon is very casual, almost slang) that the suggestion of changing this law should not be put into force in order to maintain fair and honest courts.