IELTS BRO| EVEREST

Cr7 is still the best for me

Goalkeeper is the hero!

This is the reason why you don’t grow. I mention it again and again, DO YOUR DMN HW

Well, ChatGPT knows how to complicate the life👀

My version In some countries, it is illegal for employers to reject job applications on the basis of age criteria. Is it a positive or negative development? In recent years, there has been a heated debate over the legal prohibition of job providers rejecting job applications based on candidates’ ages. Although there are some upsides to such a law, I would argue that companies should allow people to work regardless of their age. On the one hand, there are concerns that such laws could create challenges for employers. First and foremost, hiring older employees might cause increased costs, as they may demand higher salaries or have higher healthcare costs. Additionally, it is possible that some people would be incompetent for work because of their age. In other words, while the elderly may lack physical capabilities necessary for work, such as stamina for long working hours, inexperienced youngsters may not have sufficient expertise to cope with the company’s tasks. However, I believe that rejecting job applications just because the candidates are under or over the required age range is unjustifiable for several reasons. Firstly, this practice can perpetuate age discrimination, which not only undermines the principles of fairness and equality but also deprives the job market of diverse talents. Moreover, younger or older employees can bring unique perspectives and innovation to the workplace. This, in turn, can foster a more inclusive and dynamic work environment. Secondly, implementing laws that prevent age-based job rejections can lead to a more experienced and stable workforce. Older employees often bring a wealth of experience and a strong work ethic, which can be invaluable to employers. Their presence in the workplace can also provide mentorship opportunities for younger employees, facilitating knowledge transfer and professional development. Conversely, younger employees often bring fresh ideas and technological proficiency, which can drive innovation and adaptability within a company. Furthermore, making it illegal to reject job applicants based on age can contribute to a more just and equitable society. It promotes the idea that everyone, regardless of age, should have equal opportunities to contribute to the workforce and achieve economic independence. This can lead to greater job satisfaction, higher morale, and reduced turnover rates, as employees feel valued and respected. In conclusion, prohibiting age-based job rejections fosters fairness and diversity in the workplace. By embracing inclusive hiring practices, companies can benefit from the unique skills and perspectives of both younger and older employees. This approach not only enhances job satisfaction and morale but also promotes a more equitable and dynamic work environment. @IELTS_bro

Version by ChatGPT In recent years, the legal prohibition against employers rejecting job applications based on candidates’ ages has sparked considerable debate. While there are potential challenges associated with such laws, I firmly believe that this legislation is a positive development, fostering inclusivity and diversity in the workplace. On the one hand, there are legitimate concerns regarding the implementation of age-inclusive hiring laws. Primarily, hiring older employees might lead to increased costs for companies, as they may require higher salaries and incur higher healthcare expenses. Furthermore, there is a possibility that individuals may lack the necessary competencies due to their age. For instance, older individuals might struggle with the physical demands of certain jobs, while younger applicants might lack the requisite experience and expertise. However, I contend that rejecting job applications solely on the basis of age is fundamentally unjustifiable. Such practices perpetuate age discrimination, undermining the principles of fairness and equality, and depriving the job market of diverse talents. Younger and older employees can bring unique perspectives and innovations to the workplace, fostering a more inclusive and dynamic environment. Moreover, implementing laws that prevent age-based job rejections can lead to a more experienced and stable workforce. Older employees often bring a wealth of experience and a strong work ethic, which are invaluable to employers. Their presence in the workplace can also provide mentorship opportunities for younger employees, facilitating knowledge transfer and professional development. Conversely, younger employees often bring fresh ideas and technological proficiency, driving innovation and adaptability within a company. Furthermore, making it illegal to reject job applicants based on age contributes to a more just and equitable society. It promotes the idea that everyone, regardless of age, should have equal opportunities to participate in the workforce and achieve economic independence. This can lead to greater job satisfaction, higher morale, and reduced turnover rates, as employees feel valued and respected. In conclusion, prohibiting age-based job rejections fosters fairness and diversity in the workplace. By embracing inclusive hiring practices, companies can benefit from the unique skills and perspectives of both younger and older employees. This approach not only enhances job satisfaction and morale but also promotes a more equitable and dynamic work environment. @IELTS_bro

I don’t understand only one thing: why the h.. its paragraphing looks so wierd😄🤷‍♂️

In recent years, there has been a significant debate between those advocating for stylistic consistency with older homes in the local area and those opting for individuals’ freedom to build houses in a style of their own choice. In my opinion, although a standard-for-all policy has some merits, the benefits of allowing individuals the freedom to choose their own house designs outweigh the advantages of strict uniformity. Proponents of building new houses in the same style as older ones argue that this approach preserves the architectural heritage and visual harmony of a locality. Traditional architectural styles often reflect historical and cultural values, creating a sense of continuity and identity within the community. For instance, in historic districts or towns with distinct architectural characteristics, uniformity in housing styles can enhance the area’s charm, making it attractive to tourists and residents. Furthermore, uniformity in housing design can simplify maintenance and renovations, as materials and construction techniques are more standardized. This standardization means that repairs and upgrades can be more easily managed and cost-effective, as builders and homeowners can rely on a consistent set of resources and methods. However, this perspective may overlook the importance of progress and innovation in architecture. Historical preservation should not stifle modern advancements and personal expression. On the other hand, allowing individuals to build houses in styles of their own choice champions personal expression and modern innovation. This perspective emphasizes the importance of individual rights and the freedom to design homes that meet personal tastes and contemporary needs. Modern architecture often incorporates advanced materials and technologies, leading to more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly homes. Diverse architectural styles can also reflect the multicultural nature of modern societies, celebrating diversity and inclusivity. Moreover, innovative designs can inspire creativity and progress in architectural practices, potentially leading to more sustainable and resilient housing solutions. For instance, incorporating solar panels and green roofs into modern house designs can significantly reduce energy consumption and promote environmental sustainability. In my opinion, it is better to let people choose designs for their own houses. Firstly, personal expression in home design can lead to greater homeowner satisfaction and well-being, as people feel a deeper connection to spaces that reflect their individuality. Secondly, the evolution of architectural styles is a natural process that reflects societal progress and changing needs. Encouraging diverse designs can lead to architectural breakthroughs that better address modern challenges such as climate change, urbanization, and efficiently accommodating large families. Finally, allowing individuals to choose their own house designs lets them adjust their homes to their specific needs. For example, a family with a limited budget will not have to match their design with other local ones but instead build a house that suits their financial status. Furthermore, flexibility in design can accommodate future changes in family dynamics or lifestyle needs, making homes more adaptable and long-lasting. In conclusion, while building new houses in the same style as older ones preserves historical continuity and aesthetic harmony, allowing individual choice in design promotes personal expression and architectural innovation. It also helps individuals build homes based on their financial capabilities. Therefore, I believe that local governments should let citizens choose their own designs for homes. Balancing historical preservation with modern innovation can lead to vibrant, diverse communities that respect the past while embracing the future.

Anyway, here it is

Btw, I asked ChatGPT to improve my essay and recreate one worth band 9.0. And then Boom💥 it wrote an amazing essay which is I think far better and smoother than mine