There are three types of letter:

1) Formal Letter

2) Semi-Formal Letter

3) Informal Letter

Please check their definition and an approach to write their beginning and ending.

1) Formal Letter:

                   A formal letter is usually to a company or to someone you don’t know for-example a letter to a bank or an insurance company. You should write its beginning and ending as follows:

Dear Sir, OR Dear Madam OR Dear Sir/Madam,

— Body —

Yours Faithfully,

2) Semi-Formal Letter:

                  A semi-formal letter is usually to someone whom you know for-example a letter to landlord or a letter to an employer etc. You should write its beginning and ending as follows:

Dear Mr.Smith,

— Body —

Yours sincerely,

3) Informal Letter:

An informal letter is usually to a friend of yours. The beginning and ending of such a letter should be as follows:

Suppose you are writing a letter to John Smith OR Mary Jones. You should write as:

Dear John OR Dear Mary,

— Body —

Best Wishes OR Best Regards,

In such a letter, you will be using an informal language to address a person in contrast to the language used in the other two types of a letter.

There is a specific structure of the letter which you have to write down if you are taking the general module IELTS exam. If you don’t follow the structure, marks would be deducted. Following videos show a detailed lesson with an example to write down a letter.

************************************

************************************

*************************************

*************************************

Are parents really helping their children by teaching them at home?

In most countries in the world, governments require children to attend schools in which trained teachers are responsible for educating the children using an approved curriculum. However a significant number of parents believe that it is much better for their children to be educated at home by the people who know them and their needs best. This essay will examine the question of home schooling and discuss which the best option for the child is

An increasing number of parents are deciding that home schooling is the best option for their children. They are unhappy with the quality or depth of education offered in the schools, or have other reasons why they feel that traditional schools are not suitable for their children. One reason is social factors. Parents worry that their children will suffer from bullying or will be forced into antisocial behavior by peer pressure. They believe that the good behavior they have taught the child will be lost in school. Another reason is concern over the quality of schooling available. Schools frequently have large classes. They are often under-funded, and staffed by teachers without sufficient knowledge of their subjects. Subjects such as the family’s religion or language may not even be available in the school. Other parents may disagree with the aims of the school curriculum, preferring for academic, social or cultural reasons to keep their children separate. Finally, some children with special needs may need particular parental care.

However, there are many arguments in favor of sending children to conventional schools. The first is that the children will be exposed to other children. These children may represent either a cross-section of society or a narrow group, but in either case the children will interact with each other and develop social skills. A second point is that the children will learn to function outside the family. They will not be dependent on their parents for their educational, emotional and social needs. A third point is that the children will find it easier to integrate when they finish school, as they eventually will, when they start work or college.

Overall, while many parents work hard to teach their children at home, conventional schools are still the right choice for most children. Schools are not perfect, but they seem to be a proven way of preparing our children for the real world.

(This essay has been taken from www.writefix.com)

Many students are obliged to share accommodation with another student while in college. Sharing may seem awkward at first, but it may prove to be a very good experience. In this essay, the benefits and disadvantages of living with a roommate will be discussed, as well as the qualities needed in a good roommate.

If you have never shared with someone, you may have some difficulties adjusting. You may find that the other person is very different in character and he or she doesn’t suit you as a companion. Will he person be clean and tidy? Will she eat the same food or enjoy the same music? How should you react to your roommate’s friends? And of course, there is the issue of telephone bills and shared expenses. For some people, the lack of privacy is the biggest challenge, while others may find their roommates over-sensitive or distant. It is essential to try to understand each other and make living together more pleasant and even fun.

Yes, fun, because there are many positive aspects to sharing. New students are often far away from their families and friends, and may experience loneliness and homesickness. Both may also be facing new challenges in their studies. Sharing offers companionship to people who might otherwise have to face these problems alone. Furthermore, since college is not just about academic learning, sharing is an opportunity to develop communication skills so that a good atmosphere is established. Both students can learn from each other about new interests and explore new activities. However, it is important to realize that your roommate does not have to be your best friend. In fact, the most desirable feature when living with someone else is respect for the other person’s needs. Neither you nor your roommate will be right all the time.

In conclusion, I think that there are more benefits than disadvantages in having a roommate, but it depends on both dealing with concerns honestly and sensitively in order to make student life as happy as possible.

(This essay has been taken from www.writefix.com)

Many students are obliged to share accommodation with another student while in college. Sharing may seem awkward at first, but it may prove to be a very good experience. In this essay, the benefits and disadvantages of living with a roommate will be discussed, as well as the qualities needed in a good roommate.

If you have never shared with someone, you may have some difficulties adjusting. You may find that the other person is very different in character and he or she doesn’t suit you as a companion. Will he person be clean and tidy? Will she eat the same food or enjoy the same music? How should you react to your roommate’s friends? And of course, there is the issue of telephone bills and shared expenses. For some people, the lack of privacy is the biggest challenge, while others may find their roommates over-sensitive or distant. It is essential to try to understand each other and make living together more pleasant and even fun.

Yes, fun, because there are many positive aspects to sharing. New students are often far away from their families and friends, and may experience loneliness and homesickness. Both may also be facing new challenges in their studies. Sharing offers companionship to people who might otherwise have to face these problems alone. Furthermore, since college is not just about academic learning, sharing is an opportunity to develop communication skills so that a good atmosphere is established. Both students can learn from each other about new interests and explore new activities. However, it is important to realize that your roommate does not have to be your best friend. In fact, the most desirable feature when living with someone else is respect for the other person’s needs. Neither you nor your roommate will be right all the time.

In conclusion, I think that there are more benefits than disadvantages in having a roommate, but it depends on both dealing with concerns honestly and sensitively in order to make student life as happy as possible.

(This essay has been taken from www.writefix.com)

Being famous is not as easy as you think. Newspapers, television and the internet can make you very well-known, but they can also take away your privacy. This essay will discuss whether celebrities are treated fairly by the media.

Famous people depend on the media. Without films, television, magazines, radio, and other media, there would be no money for actors or musicians, and politicians would not get elected. Without advertisements, Beckham would not get huge contracts. However, in return for publicity and even more fame and money, celebrities sell part of their personal and professional lives. Often, their friends and families suffer too.

The media, in turn, depends on celebrity. Sports heroes, supermodels, and politicians fill the pages of our papers and our television screens. But the relationship can easily go wrong. Too much attention from the media can drive some celebrities crazy. The families are affected, and relationships break down. Their work or social life suffers, leading to even more rumors and media stories. Like a pack of wild dogs, the press feeds on its victims and fights over the bones. Sometimes, the media has a duty to do. It must tell the public about some wrongdoing or some crooked business deal. But usually the main business of the media is to sell more magazines or advertisements, and when it has chewed up one victim, the pack will move on to the next.

In conclusion, there is a constant battle between media and celebrities, and often there are human victims. The next time you read about the latest footballer or singer, think about the human behind the story.

(This essay has been taken from www.writefix.com)

When should people be made to retire? 55? 65? Should there be a compulsory age limit?

Many old people work well into their 70s and 80s, running families, countries or corporations. Other people, however, despite being fit and highly talented, are forced to retire in their or even earlier because of company or national regulations. This essay will examine whether people should be allowed to continue working for as long as they want or whether they should be encouraged to retire at a particular stage.

There are several arguments for allowing older people to continue working as long as they are able. First of all, older employees have an immense amount of knowledge and experience which can be lost to a business or organization if they are made to retire. A second point is that older employees are often extremely loyal employees and are more willing to implement company policies than younger less committed staff. However, a more important point is regarding the attitudes in society to old people. To force someone to resign or retire at 60 or 65 indicates that the society does not value the input of these people and that effectively their useful life is over.

Allowing older people to work indefinitely however is not always a good policy. Age alone is no guarantee of ability. Many younger employees have more experience or skills than older staff, who may have been stuck in one area or unit for most of their working lives. Having compulsory retirement allows new ideas in an organization. In addition, without age limits, however arbitrary, many people would continue to work purely because they did not have any other plans or roles. A third point of view is that older people should be rewarded by society for their life’s labor by being given generous pensions and the freedom to enjoy their leisure.

With many young people unemployed or frustrated in low-level positions, there are often calls to compulsorily retire older workers. However, this can affect the older individual’s freedom – and right – to work and can deprive society of valuable experience and insights. I feel that giving workers more flexibility and choice over their retirement age will benefit society and the individual.

(This essay has been taken from www.writefix.com)

When should people be made to retire? 55? 65? Should there be a compulsory age limit?

Many old people work well into their 70s and 80s, running families, countries or corporations. Other people, however, despite being fit and highly talented, are forced to retire in their or even earlier because of company or national regulations. This essay will examine whether people should be allowed to continue working for as long as they want or whether they should be encouraged to retire at a particular stage.

There are several arguments for allowing older people to continue working as long as they are able. First of all, older employees have an immense amount of knowledge and experience which can be lost to a business or organization if they are made to retire. A second point is that older employees are often extremely loyal employees and are more willing to implement company policies than younger less committed staff. However, a more important point is regarding the attitudes in society to old people. To force someone to resign or retire at 60 or 65 indicates that the society does not value the input of these people and that effectively their useful life is over.

Allowing older people to work indefinitely however is not always a good policy. Age alone is no guarantee of ability. Many younger employees have more experience or skills than older staff, who may have been stuck in one area or unit for most of their working lives. Having compulsory retirement allows new ideas in an organization. In addition, without age limits, however arbitrary, many people would continue to work purely because they did not have any other plans or roles. A third point of view is that older people should be rewarded by society for their life’s labor by being given generous pensions and the freedom to enjoy their leisure.

With many young people unemployed or frustrated in low-level positions, there are often calls to compulsorily retire older workers. However, this can affect the older individual’s freedom – and right – to work and can deprive society of valuable experience and insights. I feel that giving workers more flexibility and choice over their retirement age will benefit society and the individual.

(This essay has been taken from www.writefix.com)

Does the individual have a right to privacy?

Security cameras have become ubiquitous in many countries. Whereas before they appeared only in banks and at high-security areas, they are now entering public places such as malls, streets, stadiums and transport. Many people feel this affects their privacy. This essay will examine whether the advantages of these cameras outweigh their negative impact.

Surveillance cameras have several benefits. An obvious benefit is that the police can catch criminals in the act, thus reducing crime. This will make the streets safer for ordinary people. A more important point is that criminals, particularly young offenders or petty criminals will be deterred. They will not be tempted to carry out crimes, and thus society will be a lot safer. Cameras are also cost-effective and unobtrusive. Authorities do not need to spend large amounts of money on police.

However, security cameras are far from being a perfect solution. The biggest objection concerns privacy. Many people feel that they should be free to travel or move around a shop, mall, street or country without being photographed or recorded. They feel that being watched constantly is like being in a jail, and that ordinary people are losing their freedom because of these devices. Another point is that although the police say that only criminals have something to fear from the cameras, many people do not trust governments with too much information. Corrupt authorities could use information in the wrong way or twist it to victimize some groups. Thirdly, cameras and computers can make mistakes.

In conclusion, although there are definite advantages to using surveillance devices such as cameras, we need to balance the need for security with respect for the individual’s privacy and freedom. If we do not trust the members of society, a situation like George Orwell’s "1984" could be the result.

(This essay has been taken from www.writefix.com)

Art is a basic human need. Governments have a responsibility to spend money on art for their citizens.

Throughout the ages, man has tried to create beauty through painting, music, sculpture and other artistic expression. It seems to be a basic need of humans to surround themselves with art. However some people feel that government money spent on art is wasted, particularly when there are so many other demands on it. This essay will examine the conflict between those who say art is important and those who feel it is a waste of money.

It can be wrong for governments to spend large sums of money on art. Too often, governments spend unwisely. They spend money on art not because a picture is good or a museum is needed, but for political reasons. Cities end up with huge statues or empty expensive buildings that are used only by a few people or the elite. Another point is that the artworks are often chosen to represent social or political rather than artistic ideas. The city gets yet another statue of the leader or an ugly monument to national aspirations. A third point is that governments often respond to fashions, and tastes in art can change very rapidly. Without careful advice an expensive collection of worthless paintings or tasteless productions can be the result.

However, it would be wrong to say that governments should not spend any money at all on art. Painters, musicians, and composers cannot survive without financial support. Rich people or large companies do finance art, but then it is often inaccessible to ordinary people. Governments have a duty to make this art available to everyone. However, the most important reason why governments should support the arts is because an appreciation of art is one of the things that makes life worthwhile. Humans do not need just shelter and food. Creative people have always tried to look at things in a new way and to make the world a better place through painting, music, poetry, calligraphy, sculpture, dance, and numerous other forms of expression. While art may not make us immortal, it does make the world a richer place for future generations.

In conclusion, although people do need to be provided with the necessities of life, such as housing and medical care, governments also have a duty to provide their citizens with something more. They should make sure that they pass on beauty, ideas and expression to the next generation and make art available to all instead of being the possession of only the few. I firmly believe that spending money on art is a vital part of a government’s responsibility, and I am confident that my country will be able to contribute its share to the richness of the world’s art and creativity.

(This essay has been taken from www.writefix.com)