WRITINGS
OUR WORKS
ผลงานการเขียนจากผู้เรียนคอร์ส IELTS สำหรับผู้ที่ไม่มีพื้นฐาน
Our personalities are predefined as a result of our genes before we are born and there is nothing can be done to change our character traits. To what extent do you agree?
Genes are crucial components in living creatures that can define what they are, including character traits. In humans, many people believe that human’s personalities are set by genes, and no one can change it. I argue that while genetics have a role to predefine human traits, but it does not a whole; 21 days rule and cosmetic surgery significantly alter people character traits.
First, applying the 21 days rule is an effective way to reorganize human’s internal traits. By practicing something new that individuals want to be at least 21 days in a row, resulting in people can have new behaviors that do not depend on personal’s genetics. For example, a finding from Oxford University claims that 95% of woman participants who do not like exercise experiencing 21 days rule success to wake up early and run after the program. Consequently, personal behavior can be different from the original by this rule.
Furthermore, in the high beauty technology world, cosmetic surgery can easily modify individuals’ external characteristics that are the products of genetics codes. Both male and female who unpleasant about physical appearances such as eyes, nose, mount, and legs, spending some money to doctor in order to make it better. For instance, according to the World Bank’s financial report shows that Korea, the top five financial strength country worldwide, gains the most income from the beauty surgery businesses. Moreover, Korea University claims that 99% of individuals who attended to cosmetic surgery reporting that they have better look and life.
To sum up, although human’s traits are pre-set by DNA before we are born, it still has an alternative maneuvers like 21 days rule and cosmetic surgery to alter the behaviors and appearances.
Written by Burin (Boom) Wuttipanyarattanakun
Student ID 67012
Course Attended: To Study
Women and men are commonly seen as having different strengths and weaknesses. Is it right to exclude males or females from certain professions because of their gender? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
As we can see, strengths and weaknesses are varied depending on gender. It is argued whether or not it’s right to discrete each from obvious careers as a result of gender. I opine that the idea is partially correct.
On one hand, in any gender, abilities can be practised so as to enhance more skills. In this day and age, some occupations need individuals with creativity. For instance, architects, the profession working with designing constructions with their own creativity, can be any sex whether men or women since the workers can interact with a dearth of any strengths. For another instance, the teachers are recruited for passing on their knowledge to the students without limitation on their appearances.
On the other hand, strength is still considered a must in loads of work fields because some jobs contribute to labouring without any creativity needed. For example, endurance usually outweighs ability in most athletes whose responsibility is mainly to steadily strive hard to be the winner. Moreover, during the competition, it is important to be stronger than the rivals which men are seen to be more effective. In parallel, most women are commonly seen as better at jobs that need detailed people such as an accountant, who has to verify finance every single day.
To conclude, it seems to me that some occupations should separate people by their sex in order to increase worker effectiveness because each sex has different merits and drawbacks in any side either strengths or giving careful attention.
Written by Nutthan (Sun) Audthakapinthanon
Student ID 65028
Course Attended: To Study