The examiner is not marking you based on whether you agree, disagree or partially agree. You can choose any answer you want. The examiner is only marking your ability to present a clear opinion and support it. Many teachers will tell students to avoid the partially agree answer because it is not easy to write. So many students make a mistake with it. You need to be trained to use a partially agree answer. This means that choosing one side is easier to write and avoids more errors. What is my opinion? I think if you are fully trained in the right way, you can choose the answer that suits your opinion. But if you are not sure, go for the one sided. If you are aiming for band 7, the problem might be in how you address the task, your organisation, your linking or the number of mistakes you make in grammar and vocabulary.
To regain the initiative on the war front, President Johnson signed off on Operational Plan 34-A on January 19, 1964. The plan called for graduated pressure on North Vietnam, proceeding in stages from surveillance and small hit-and-run raids by South Vietnamese commandos, then in operation, to more destructive “airborne and seaborne raids on important military and civilian installations” such as bridges, railways, and coastal fortifications, then to large-scale “aerial attacks conducted against critical DRV installations or facilities, industrial and/or military,” designed to destroy North Vietnam’s infrastructure and incapacitate its economy. This secret plan, now declassified, amounted to a declaration of war against North Vietnam. Although U.S. officials were well aware that the insurgency in the south was largely sustained by the rural population rather than by Hanoi, they reasoned that increased pressure on North Vietnam could reduce the flow of weapons and supplies to the NLF and, in any case, punish the DRV for supporting the NLF.
My introduction: Many countries are discussing child labour laws to find out a fair solution for it. Specifically,first world countries agree that the importation of manufactured work of minor age should be not allowed. I do believe that this statement is true but also we might take in consideration some drawbacks.
How r u
I need ur help,
Can u please answer if I am right?
Question :some people believe that hobbies need to be difficult to be enjoyable.
To wht extend do u agree or disagree?
Background statement: personally I believe that both type of hobbies can be fun, and I therefore disagree with the statement tht hobbies need to be difficult in order to be enjoyable
Body1:why easy hobby is fun
Body2:why difficult hobby gives pleasure.
Conclusion:in conclusion, simple hobbies can be fun and relaxing, but difficult hobbies can be equally pleasurable for different reasons.
Diem’s repression reached a new low in the spring of 1963. On May 8, the 2,527th birthday of the Buddha, the GVN decided to enforce a law banning the display of any flag other than the national flag. It was clearly selective enforcement as Vatican flags blanketed the city of Hue where Diem’s brother, Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc, resided. As the Buddhist celebrated with their flags, Diem’s troops opened fire, killing nine people. Two days later, ten thousand Buddhists marched in protest. Diem responded by jailing leading Buddhist monks and placing armed guards around pagodas. On the morning of June 11, a sixty-six-year old Buddhist monk, Quang Duc, sat in the middle of a busy Saigon intersection and assumed a lotus posture. As other monks chanted nearby, two helpers doused the seated monk with gasoline. Quang Duc then lit a match and set himself on fire, sitting motionless and silent as the flames consumed him. The press had been alerted beforehand and photographs were taken. They appeared on the front pages of newspapers around the world the following day.
In another mission from May 10-20, 1969, U.S. and ARVN troops fought an intense, uphill battle (literally) for Hill 937, or “Hamburger Hill,” near the Laotian border. The U.S.-ARVN forces succeeded in taking the hill, with significant casualties, but since no territory in the countryside could be permanently retained without sizable forces present, the hill was quietly abandoned on June 5. Two weeks later, military intelligence reported that more than 1,000 North Vietnamese Army troops had moved back into the area. In Washington, Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts asked on the Senate floor, “How can we justify sending our boys against a hill a dozen times, finally taking it, and then withdrawing a week later?”
For the questions including ( To what extent do you agree? Do you agree or disagree? Do you think this is a positive or negative trend? and questions like these) is it possible not to mention our opinion in the first paragraph, consider both aspects of it, and finally state our opinion? ( using argument-led approach) or we must put our opinion in the first paragraph and in the following paragraphs justify it?
All the best
In my school, our teachers taught us to consider both positive and negative aspects of the topic. Not just to write about the aspect you support but also to talk about the other side as counter balance. But in the essay given, it only talks about the supported aspect. Can you please tell me which is the best way of writing an argumentative essay?
The first major battle between U.S. and with North Vietnamese forces took place in Ia Drang Valley in mid-November 1965. The U.S. First Calvary Division, venturing deep into the Central Highlands, found itself surrounded by NLF-NVA forces. In the ensuing four-day combat, one out of every four American soldiers was killed or wounded. Up to that point, 1,100 Americans had been killed. The Ia Drang mission added 234 more. The U.S. command claimed victory, as an estimated 3,500 NLF-NVA soldiers were reportedly killed. Two weeks later, however, Secretary of Defense McNamara sent a top-secret memo to President Johnson predicting that, just “to hold our present geographical positions,” the U.S. would need the “addition of 28 U.S. battalions,” or about 200,000 troops. McNamara’s early optimism never returned after the Ia Drang Valley battle.
Still, President Nixon did what he could to ensure that South Vietnam would survive as long as possible. On April 30, 1970, he ordered U.S. troops into Cambodia to destroy NLF-NVA sanctuaries as well as back up the rightist coup d’etat of General Lon Nol. Nixon’s public announcement of this expansion of the war set off nationwide protests on college campuses, including one at Kent State where members of the National Guard shot and killed four students. U.S. troops were withdrawn from Cambodia after two months, but the bombing of Cambodia continued for another three years.
Is it good to write both side of the question for , To what extend do yo agree or disagree , type question. It is so confusing as many teachers giving different answers. I thought if I agree I only need to write why I agree, also the same for disagree. If I partially agree I can write why I am partially agreeing(one paragraph each)but I seen model answers like why others say it is the other way for the opposite side . Is it ok to write like that.( if I am agreeing can I write a paragraph why others disagree)
Dropped into war zones, without knowledge of the Vietnamese language and with little, if any, understanding of local culture, U.S. soldiers had problems distinguishing enemy from neutral from friend. They often became frustrated when making no contact with enemy soldiers for long periods, then seemingly out of the blue were interrupted by violent surprise attacks. Daily treks through insect-filled jungles in the heat and humidity also took a toll on GI nerves. In numerous documented cases, their frustrations were taken out on civilians. The approved routine of burning of huts, destruction of villages, and terrorizing of residents could and did lead to unauthorized sexual assaults, random shootings, and even massacres such as that in My Lai. Heonik Kwon lists thirteen large-scale massacres, including some by South Korean troops; Nick Turse, in Kill Anything That Moves, documents more. Even in villages with decent relations with local U.S. forces, other mobile U.S. forces were known to violently intervene.