please help me evaluate this essay? Thanks a lot for the effort

QuestionsCategory: Opinionplease help me evaluate this essay? Thanks a lot for the effort
great asked 3 months ago

Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In today’s rapidly changing world, transport network plays a vital role in the development of all spheres of any country. Populations are also heavily dependent on transports such vehicles and railroads to commute or travel to short or mid distances. In my opinion, governments’ investment on the improvement of railways but not roads cannot be supported because of the inability of trains to serve as the main transport network in the streets and comparatively higher cost of railroads to be built to serve multiple purposes.
First and foremost, trains cannot serve as the main network for any city. This can be explained by the fact that railroads need specially prepared lines, they cannot carry rapid turns or changes of direction which is specific of the urban infrastructure. For example, trains cannot run in all streets forming traffic like vehicles that we are used to observing in our everyday life. For this reasons the idea cannot be supported.
Secondly, railways have limited capacity in terms of heavy traffic and therefore they cannot support lines of thousands of trains running at the same time. For instance, taxis and buses can run minute by minute taking and dropping passengers in any directions, which is not to say about trains of course.
Finally, roads are easier to construct and maintain because they already have the base that has been formed by human activity. Governments need not spend as much amount of the funds as they spend to set and develop railway network. Of course, the latter is an integral part of the system, however, it does not mean that railway should be developed more.
To sum up, I believe that countries should set subsidize roads more than railroads because the former is the main transportation and communication system and the latter serve as an alternative network. For these reasons I disagree that railways can serve as the main system for the economy of a country.

please help me evaluate this essay? Thanks a lot for the effort
5 (100%) 1 vote

great replied 3 months ago

Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In today’s rapidly changing world, transport network plays a vital role in the development of all spheres of any country. Populations are also heavily dependent on transports such vehicles and railroads to commute or travel to short or mid distances. In my opinion, governments’ investment on the improvement of railways but not roads cannot be supported because of the inability of trains to serve as the main transport network in the streets and comparatively higher cost of railroads to be built to serve multiple purposes.

First and foremost, trains cannot serve as the main network for any city. This can be explained by the fact that railroads need specially prepared lines, they cannot carry rapid turns or changes of direction which is specific of the urban infrastructure. For example, trains cannot run in all streets forming traffic like vehicles that we are used to observing in our everyday life. For this reasons the idea cannot be supported.

Secondly, railways have limited capacity in terms of heavy traffic and therefore they cannot support lines of thousands of trains running at the same time. For instance, taxis and buses can run minute by minute taking and dropping passengers in any directions, which is not to say about trains of course.

Finally, roads are easier to construct and maintain because they already have the base that has been formed by human activity. Governments need not spend as much amount of the funds as they spend to set and develop railway network. Of course, the latter is an integral part of the system, however, it does not mean that railway should be developed more.

To sum up, I believe that countries should set subsidize roads more than railroads because the former is the main transportation and communication system and the latter serve as an alternative network. For these reasons I disagree that railways can serve as the main system for the economy of a country.

great replied 3 months ago

Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In today’s rapidly changing world, transport network plays a vital role in the development of all spheres of any country. Populations are also heavily dependent on transports such vehicles and railroads to commute or travel to short or mid distances. In my opinion, governments’ investment on the improvement of railways but not roads cannot be supported because of the inability of trains to serve as the main transport network in the streets and comparatively higher cost of railroads to be built to serve multiple purposes.

First and foremost, trains cannot serve as the main network for any city. This can be explained by the fact that railroads need specially prepared lines, they cannot carry rapid turns or changes of direction which is specific of the urban infrastructure. For example, trains cannot run in all streets forming traffic like vehicles that we are used to observing in our everyday life. For this reasons the idea cannot be supported.

Secondly, railways have limited capacity in terms of heavy traffic and therefore they cannot support lines of thousands of trains running at the same time. For instance, taxis and buses can run minute by minute taking and dropping passengers in any directions, which is not to say about trains of course.

Finally, roads are easier to construct and maintain because they already have the base that has been formed by human activity. Governments need not spend as much amount of the funds as they spend to set and develop railway network. Of course, the latter is an integral part of the system, however, it does not mean that railway should be developed more.

To sum up, I believe that countries should set subsidize roads more than railroads because the former is the main transportation and communication system and the latter serve as an alternative network. For these reasons I disagree that railways can serve as the main system for the economy of a country.

great replied 3 months ago

Sorry, there was a problem editing the essay in the mobile version so I had to post again

great replied 2 months ago

Thank you a lot for checking. This is what I wanted to know about my writing. I got my weak points to work on. I appreciate this.

4 Answers
Thuy Dung Pham answered 3 months ago

In today’s rapidly changing world, transport network plays a vital role in the development of all spheres of any country[ies]. Populations are also heavily dependent on transports such [as] vehicles and railroads to commute or travel to short or mid distances. In my opinion, governments’ investment on [in] the improvement of railways but not roads cannot be supported because of the inability of trains to serve as the main transport network in the streets and comparatively higher cost of railroads to be built to serve multiple purposes. (too detailed for Intro)
First and foremost, trains cannot serve as the main network for any city. This can be explained by the fact that railroads need specially prepared lines, they cannot carry rapid turns or changes of direction which is specific of [for] the urban infrastructure. For example, trains cannot run in all streets forming traffic like vehicles that we are used to observing in our everyday life. For this reasons the idea cannot be supported.
Secondly, railways have limited capacity in terms of heavy traffic and therefore they cannot support lines of thousands of trains running at the same time (lenghthy explanation). For instance, taxis and buses can run minute by minute taking and dropping passengers in any directions, which is not to say about trains of course (spoken language should be avoid, explain that “unlike taxis and buses, which have a flaxible schedule as well as a number of stops on the streets, trains must follow a fixed schedule and have a more limited number of stations.”)
Finally, roads are easier to construct and maintain because they already have (wrong tense) [have] the base that has been formed [because their base has been formed] by human activity. Governments need not [to] spend as much amount of the funds as they spend to set and develop railway network. Of course (informal) [Apparently/Definitely/Certainly/Obviously] the latter is an integral part of the system, however, it does not mean that railway should be developed more.(spoken language!!!)
To sum up, I believe that countries should set subsidize[d] roads more than railroads because the former is the main transportation and communication system and [while] the latter serve as an alternative network. For these reasons I disagree that railways can serve as the main system for the economy of a country.
Feedback
Task Achievement: 6.0 (acceptable response to the tasks, odeas are not explained well, too much spoken language)
Cohesion and Coherence: 6.0 (acceptable organization)
Lexical Resource: 6.5 (average range of vocabs, yet not academic enough, especially when explaining a point)
Grammar Range: 6.0 (make grammar error, complex structures are poorly maintained)
Overall: 6.0

please help me evaluate this essay? Thanks a lot for the effort
5 (100%) 1 vote

great replied 3 months ago

Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In today’s rapidly changing world, transport network plays a vital role in the development of all spheres of any country. Populations are also heavily dependent on transports such vehicles and railroads to commute or travel to short or mid distances. In my opinion, governments’ investment on the improvement of railways but not roads cannot be supported because of the inability of trains to serve as the main transport network in the streets and comparatively higher cost of railroads to be built to serve multiple purposes.

First and foremost, trains cannot serve as the main network for any city. This can be explained by the fact that railroads need specially prepared lines, they cannot carry rapid turns or changes of direction which is specific of the urban infrastructure. For example, trains cannot run in all streets forming traffic like vehicles that we are used to observing in our everyday life. For this reasons the idea cannot be supported.

Secondly, railways have limited capacity in terms of heavy traffic and therefore they cannot support lines of thousands of trains running at the same time. For instance, taxis and buses can run minute by minute taking and dropping passengers in any directions, which is not to say about trains of course.

Finally, roads are easier to construct and maintain because they already have the base that has been formed by human activity. Governments need not spend as much amount of the funds as they spend to set and develop railway network. Of course, the latter is an integral part of the system, however, it does not mean that railway should be developed more.

To sum up, I believe that countries should set subsidize roads more than railroads because the former is the main transportation and communication system and the latter serve as an alternative network. For these reasons I disagree that railways can serve as the main system for the economy of a country.

great replied 3 months ago

Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In today’s rapidly changing world, transport network plays a vital role in the development of all spheres of any country. Populations are also heavily dependent on transports such vehicles and railroads to commute or travel to short or mid distances. In my opinion, governments’ investment on the improvement of railways but not roads cannot be supported because of the inability of trains to serve as the main transport network in the streets and comparatively higher cost of railroads to be built to serve multiple purposes.

First and foremost, trains cannot serve as the main network for any city. This can be explained by the fact that railroads need specially prepared lines, they cannot carry rapid turns or changes of direction which is specific of the urban infrastructure. For example, trains cannot run in all streets forming traffic like vehicles that we are used to observing in our everyday life. For this reasons the idea cannot be supported.

Secondly, railways have limited capacity in terms of heavy traffic and therefore they cannot support lines of thousands of trains running at the same time. For instance, taxis and buses can run minute by minute taking and dropping passengers in any directions, which is not to say about trains of course.

Finally, roads are easier to construct and maintain because they already have the base that has been formed by human activity. Governments need not spend as much amount of the funds as they spend to set and develop railway network. Of course, the latter is an integral part of the system, however, it does not mean that railway should be developed more.

To sum up, I believe that countries should set subsidize roads more than railroads because the former is the main transportation and communication system and the latter serve as an alternative network. For these reasons I disagree that railways can serve as the main system for the economy of a country.

great replied 3 months ago

Sorry, there was a problem editing the essay in the mobile version so I had to post again

great replied 2 months ago

Thank you a lot for checking. This is what I wanted to know about my writing. I got my weak points to work on. I appreciate this.

muhammad saleem answered 2 months ago

Please check my essay and furnishment please 

Task-2

Every year several languages dies out. Some people think that this is not important because life will be easier if there are fewer languages in the world

to what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

It is argued that annually extinction of numerous languages will lead to be a more convenient life. Some people believe that disappearance of various languages is not a crucial problem as it renders a lot of benefits while others opine that it would cause adverse impact on the cultural values. I believe that diversity of languages provides many benefits to individual and society as well. In this essay, I will dilate both schools of thought in broad spectrum, followed by a reason conclusion.

To being with, it is undeniable fact that many languages are existing in the world. From which few dialects are prominent on all over the world such as English, German and France. Since globalization and westernization these languages have become first language for communication and discussion in offices and other works. A goof illustration is that during international matches of cricket, football and hockey in other countries only English commentary is allowed. Moreover, people from less affluent nations are trying hard to grasp this language to get quality education from foreign university and some in process to settle in Europe, USA and UK. These specific languages cater huge advantages to get jobs in world renown firms. Consequently, people spend happy, prosper and peaceful in their dream countries.

On the other hand, a group of people apprise that due to significance of few languages would cause detrimental impacts on less spoken languages. Subsequently the people loss their culture, identity, norms and conventional skills. Because, the people from under developed countries cannot speak English and to communicate, write down, negotiate and discuss the things in their native tongue.

In conclusion, in view of above perspective, all languages are paramount important. By adopting more and more languages will increase richness of civilization and these must be passed to next generation.

please help me evaluate this essay? Thanks a lot for the effort
5 (100%) 1 vote

great replied 3 months ago

Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In today’s rapidly changing world, transport network plays a vital role in the development of all spheres of any country. Populations are also heavily dependent on transports such vehicles and railroads to commute or travel to short or mid distances. In my opinion, governments’ investment on the improvement of railways but not roads cannot be supported because of the inability of trains to serve as the main transport network in the streets and comparatively higher cost of railroads to be built to serve multiple purposes.

First and foremost, trains cannot serve as the main network for any city. This can be explained by the fact that railroads need specially prepared lines, they cannot carry rapid turns or changes of direction which is specific of the urban infrastructure. For example, trains cannot run in all streets forming traffic like vehicles that we are used to observing in our everyday life. For this reasons the idea cannot be supported.

Secondly, railways have limited capacity in terms of heavy traffic and therefore they cannot support lines of thousands of trains running at the same time. For instance, taxis and buses can run minute by minute taking and dropping passengers in any directions, which is not to say about trains of course.

Finally, roads are easier to construct and maintain because they already have the base that has been formed by human activity. Governments need not spend as much amount of the funds as they spend to set and develop railway network. Of course, the latter is an integral part of the system, however, it does not mean that railway should be developed more.

To sum up, I believe that countries should set subsidize roads more than railroads because the former is the main transportation and communication system and the latter serve as an alternative network. For these reasons I disagree that railways can serve as the main system for the economy of a country.

great replied 3 months ago

Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In today’s rapidly changing world, transport network plays a vital role in the development of all spheres of any country. Populations are also heavily dependent on transports such vehicles and railroads to commute or travel to short or mid distances. In my opinion, governments’ investment on the improvement of railways but not roads cannot be supported because of the inability of trains to serve as the main transport network in the streets and comparatively higher cost of railroads to be built to serve multiple purposes.

First and foremost, trains cannot serve as the main network for any city. This can be explained by the fact that railroads need specially prepared lines, they cannot carry rapid turns or changes of direction which is specific of the urban infrastructure. For example, trains cannot run in all streets forming traffic like vehicles that we are used to observing in our everyday life. For this reasons the idea cannot be supported.

Secondly, railways have limited capacity in terms of heavy traffic and therefore they cannot support lines of thousands of trains running at the same time. For instance, taxis and buses can run minute by minute taking and dropping passengers in any directions, which is not to say about trains of course.

Finally, roads are easier to construct and maintain because they already have the base that has been formed by human activity. Governments need not spend as much amount of the funds as they spend to set and develop railway network. Of course, the latter is an integral part of the system, however, it does not mean that railway should be developed more.

To sum up, I believe that countries should set subsidize roads more than railroads because the former is the main transportation and communication system and the latter serve as an alternative network. For these reasons I disagree that railways can serve as the main system for the economy of a country.

great replied 3 months ago

Sorry, there was a problem editing the essay in the mobile version so I had to post again

great replied 2 months ago

Thank you a lot for checking. This is what I wanted to know about my writing. I got my weak points to work on. I appreciate this.

Rachel Evans answered 2 months ago

In today’s rapidly changing world, transport network plays a vital role in the development of all spheres of any country [countries]. Populations are also heavily dependent on transports such vehicles (why using such vehicles here?) and railroads to commute or travel to short or mid distances. In my opinion, governments’ investment on the improvement of railways but not roads cannot be supported because of the inability of trains to serve as the main transport network (train is not a network  inappropriate word choice) in the streets and comparatively higher cost of railroads to be built to serve multiple purposes.

First and foremost, trains cannot serve as the main network for any city. This can be explained by the fact that railroads need specially prepared lines; [and] they cannot carry rapid turns or changes of direction which is specific of the urban infrastructure. For example, trains cannot run in all streets forming traffic like vehicles that we are used/ [using] to observing in our everyday life. (I don’t really get what you want to say in this sentence). For this reasons the idea cannot be supported.

*After ‘any’, countable nouns should be in plural form

Secondly, railways have limited capacity in terms of heavy traffic and therefore they cannot support lines of thousands of trains running at the same time. For instance, taxis and buses can run minute by minute taking and dropping passengers in any directions, which is not to say about trains of course. (inappropriate language – this way is more like speaking language than academic writing’s language)

Finally, roads are easier to construct and maintain because they already have the base that has been formed by human activity. Governments need not spend as much amount of the funds as they (spend)/ [do] to set and develop railway network. Of course, the latter is an integral part of the system, however, it does not mean that railway should be developed more.

To sum up, I believe that countries should set subsidize roads more than railroads because the former is the main transportation and communication (?!) system and the latter serve as an alternative network. For these reasons I disagree that railways can serve as the main system for the economy of a country.

Hi Great, here’s something about your essay.

The conclusion was not well written. It has summarized the points but there appears some new information that was not mentioned on the body paragraphs (the 2nd half of the 1st sentence).

You have clear ideas what you are going to say and presented them quite well, but they are not sufficiently supported.

Also, you should pay more attention to the use of language and nuance of words.

Overall should be around 6.0

please help me evaluate this essay? Thanks a lot for the effort
5 (100%) 1 vote

great replied 3 months ago

Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In today’s rapidly changing world, transport network plays a vital role in the development of all spheres of any country. Populations are also heavily dependent on transports such vehicles and railroads to commute or travel to short or mid distances. In my opinion, governments’ investment on the improvement of railways but not roads cannot be supported because of the inability of trains to serve as the main transport network in the streets and comparatively higher cost of railroads to be built to serve multiple purposes.

First and foremost, trains cannot serve as the main network for any city. This can be explained by the fact that railroads need specially prepared lines, they cannot carry rapid turns or changes of direction which is specific of the urban infrastructure. For example, trains cannot run in all streets forming traffic like vehicles that we are used to observing in our everyday life. For this reasons the idea cannot be supported.

Secondly, railways have limited capacity in terms of heavy traffic and therefore they cannot support lines of thousands of trains running at the same time. For instance, taxis and buses can run minute by minute taking and dropping passengers in any directions, which is not to say about trains of course.

Finally, roads are easier to construct and maintain because they already have the base that has been formed by human activity. Governments need not spend as much amount of the funds as they spend to set and develop railway network. Of course, the latter is an integral part of the system, however, it does not mean that railway should be developed more.

To sum up, I believe that countries should set subsidize roads more than railroads because the former is the main transportation and communication system and the latter serve as an alternative network. For these reasons I disagree that railways can serve as the main system for the economy of a country.

great replied 3 months ago

Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In today’s rapidly changing world, transport network plays a vital role in the development of all spheres of any country. Populations are also heavily dependent on transports such vehicles and railroads to commute or travel to short or mid distances. In my opinion, governments’ investment on the improvement of railways but not roads cannot be supported because of the inability of trains to serve as the main transport network in the streets and comparatively higher cost of railroads to be built to serve multiple purposes.

First and foremost, trains cannot serve as the main network for any city. This can be explained by the fact that railroads need specially prepared lines, they cannot carry rapid turns or changes of direction which is specific of the urban infrastructure. For example, trains cannot run in all streets forming traffic like vehicles that we are used to observing in our everyday life. For this reasons the idea cannot be supported.

Secondly, railways have limited capacity in terms of heavy traffic and therefore they cannot support lines of thousands of trains running at the same time. For instance, taxis and buses can run minute by minute taking and dropping passengers in any directions, which is not to say about trains of course.

Finally, roads are easier to construct and maintain because they already have the base that has been formed by human activity. Governments need not spend as much amount of the funds as they spend to set and develop railway network. Of course, the latter is an integral part of the system, however, it does not mean that railway should be developed more.

To sum up, I believe that countries should set subsidize roads more than railroads because the former is the main transportation and communication system and the latter serve as an alternative network. For these reasons I disagree that railways can serve as the main system for the economy of a country.

great replied 3 months ago

Sorry, there was a problem editing the essay in the mobile version so I had to post again

great replied 2 months ago

Thank you a lot for checking. This is what I wanted to know about my writing. I got my weak points to work on. I appreciate this.

Rachel Evans answered 2 months ago

Every year several languages dies out. Some people think that this is not important because life will be easier if there are fewer languages in the world

to what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

It is argued that annually [annual] extinction of numerous languages will lead to (be) a more convenient life. Some people believe that [the] disappearance of various languages is not a crucial problem as it renders a lot of benefits while others opine that it would cause [an] adverse impact/ [adverse impacts] on the cultural values. I believe that diversity of languages provides many benefits to individual and society as well. In this essay, I will dilate both schools of thought in a broad spectrum, followed by a reason conclusion (?)

To (being) [begin] with, it is undeniable fact that many languages are existing/ exist in the world. From which (comma) few dialects (word choice) are prominent on all over the world such as English, German and France. (Punctuations) Since globalization and westernization (comma) these languages have become the first language for communication and discussion in offices and other works. A good illustration is that during international matches of cricket, football and hockey in other countries only English commentary is allowed. Moreover, people from less affluent nations are trying hard to grasp this language to get quality education from foreign university/ universities and some in [the] process to settle in Europe, USA and [the] UK. These specific languages cater huge advantages to get jobs in world renowned firms. Consequently, people spend (?) happy, prosper and peaceful in their dream countries.

On the other hand, a group of people apprises that (should clarify what ‘that’ is) due to [the] significance of few languages would cause detrimental impacts on less spoken languages. Subsequently *(comma) ***(the)/ [many/…] people (loss) [lose] their culture identity, norms and conventional skills. Because, the/ those people from under developed countries cannot speak English (and)** to communicate, write down, negotiate and discuss the things in their native tongue.

In conclusion, in view of above perspective, all languages are paramount important. By adopting more and more languages will increase the richness of civilization and these must be passed to next generation.

——————–

Muhammad, your introduction is too detail-oriented and also it led to a wrong direction, which failed to address the task question. They asked ‘to what extent do you agree or disagree’, not asking you to discuss both POV. Therefore the first impression of this essay is not really good. As the introduction is the first impression for readers and it also acts as the guideline for the whole essay, it should be properly written. First, just rephrase the given prompt, and then state your answer to the TQ. (2 to 4 sentences should be fine)

On grammar, first of all, you should be cautious when and when not to use comma, as it can make your sentence confusing or mess up with the grammatical accuracy of the sentence itself. Articles (a/ an/ the/…) also should be used more properly.

This essay should get around 4.5

please help me evaluate this essay? Thanks a lot for the effort
5 (100%) 1 vote

great replied 3 months ago

Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In today’s rapidly changing world, transport network plays a vital role in the development of all spheres of any country. Populations are also heavily dependent on transports such vehicles and railroads to commute or travel to short or mid distances. In my opinion, governments’ investment on the improvement of railways but not roads cannot be supported because of the inability of trains to serve as the main transport network in the streets and comparatively higher cost of railroads to be built to serve multiple purposes.

First and foremost, trains cannot serve as the main network for any city. This can be explained by the fact that railroads need specially prepared lines, they cannot carry rapid turns or changes of direction which is specific of the urban infrastructure. For example, trains cannot run in all streets forming traffic like vehicles that we are used to observing in our everyday life. For this reasons the idea cannot be supported.

Secondly, railways have limited capacity in terms of heavy traffic and therefore they cannot support lines of thousands of trains running at the same time. For instance, taxis and buses can run minute by minute taking and dropping passengers in any directions, which is not to say about trains of course.

Finally, roads are easier to construct and maintain because they already have the base that has been formed by human activity. Governments need not spend as much amount of the funds as they spend to set and develop railway network. Of course, the latter is an integral part of the system, however, it does not mean that railway should be developed more.

To sum up, I believe that countries should set subsidize roads more than railroads because the former is the main transportation and communication system and the latter serve as an alternative network. For these reasons I disagree that railways can serve as the main system for the economy of a country.

great replied 3 months ago

Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In today’s rapidly changing world, transport network plays a vital role in the development of all spheres of any country. Populations are also heavily dependent on transports such vehicles and railroads to commute or travel to short or mid distances. In my opinion, governments’ investment on the improvement of railways but not roads cannot be supported because of the inability of trains to serve as the main transport network in the streets and comparatively higher cost of railroads to be built to serve multiple purposes.

First and foremost, trains cannot serve as the main network for any city. This can be explained by the fact that railroads need specially prepared lines, they cannot carry rapid turns or changes of direction which is specific of the urban infrastructure. For example, trains cannot run in all streets forming traffic like vehicles that we are used to observing in our everyday life. For this reasons the idea cannot be supported.

Secondly, railways have limited capacity in terms of heavy traffic and therefore they cannot support lines of thousands of trains running at the same time. For instance, taxis and buses can run minute by minute taking and dropping passengers in any directions, which is not to say about trains of course.

Finally, roads are easier to construct and maintain because they already have the base that has been formed by human activity. Governments need not spend as much amount of the funds as they spend to set and develop railway network. Of course, the latter is an integral part of the system, however, it does not mean that railway should be developed more.

To sum up, I believe that countries should set subsidize roads more than railroads because the former is the main transportation and communication system and the latter serve as an alternative network. For these reasons I disagree that railways can serve as the main system for the economy of a country.

great replied 3 months ago

Sorry, there was a problem editing the essay in the mobile version so I had to post again

great replied 2 months ago

Thank you a lot for checking. This is what I wanted to know about my writing. I got my weak points to work on. I appreciate this.

Get more stuff like this
in your inbox

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.