IELTS Writing Sample Essays and Model Answers

Many people believe that media coverage of celebrities is having a negative effect on children. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

I agree to a large degree that celebrities coverage by medias is negatively impact on childs. Firstly, childs are easy to copying behaviour of others and when they seeing celebrities do bad things like use drug or drunk driving, they might think its is normal and acceptible behavior. For example, when a famous actrees get cought using drugs, it sending message to childrens that using drugs are okay. Secondly, medias often focus on negative aspect of celebrity lifes like relationship problems and scandels rather then they positive contributions. This can giving childs a distorded view of what is important in life. They mights start to belief that fame and money are more important then hard work and be a good persons. Finally, the constant attention on celebrities can make childs feel like thier own lives are boring and unimportant by compare. They mights start to thinking that unless you famous and rich, your life dont matter. This cans lead to low self esteem and unhappines. In conclusions, I strong agree that media covrage of celebrities is harmfull to childrens. It cans encourage bad behaviours, promote wrong values and make childs feel bad about themselfs. Parents and medias need to be more responsible in what they showing and teaching to the next generations.

Many people think there is a need to stop children from using social media. Do you agree or disagree?

In recent years, the use of social media has become increasingly popular among children. While some people believe that it is necessary to prevent children from using these platforms, I personally disagree with this view. Firstly, social media can be a valuable tool for children to learn and develop important skills. For example, by using social media, children can learn how to communicate effectively with others, express their thoughts and ideas, and develop their creativity through sharing photos, videos, and other content. Additionally, social media can also help children to stay connected with friends and family members who live far away, which can be especially important for children who may feel isolated or lonely. However, it is also important to recognize that there are potential risks associated with children using social media. For instance, children may be exposed to inappropriate content or cyberbullying, which can have negative impacts on their mental health and well-being. Therefore, it is crucial for parents and caregivers to monitor children's social media use and provide guidance and support to help them navigate these challenges. In conclusion, while there are valid concerns about children using social media, I believe that the benefits outweigh the risks. By providing children with the tools and support they need to use social media responsibly, we can help them to reap the many benefits of these platforms while minimizing the potential negative impacts.

Your English-speaking friend has asked for your help with a college project he/she is doing about celebrating New Year in different countries. Write a letter to your friend. In your letter say how important New Year is to people in your country describe how New Year is celebrated in your country explain what you like about New Year celebrations in your country

Dear friend, I hope you are well and doing good. I am writing this letter to tell you about how we celebrating the New Year in my country, as you asked me for your college project. In my country, the New Year is a very important holiday for all people. It is time when families and friend get together to celebrate the end of one year and start of new one. Many peoples see it as a chance for new beginings and make resolutions for the coming year. On New Year's Eve, there are big partys in homes and also in public places like city squares. People eat special foods, drink champain, and watch firework displays at midnight time. Some cities have concerts or other events leading up to the countdown too midnight. After the clock strikes 12, everyone wishes each other "Happy New Year!" and sings song. I really like the New Year cellebrations in my country because it is such a happy and exiting time. I enjoy spendnig time with my family and friends, eating good food, and watching the beautiful fireworks. It is also a time for reflection and thinking about goals for the new year ahead. I hope this information is helpful for your project! Let me know if you have any other questions. I am happy to help. Best wishes for a Happy New Year to you! Your friend, [Your Name]

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task. Write about the following topic: Some people prefer to communicate face-to-face, while others prefer to communicate via email or phone calls. Which method of communication do you prefer and why? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

I am prefering communication face to face rather than through the emails or phone calls. There are several of reasons for my preference: Firstly, when talk face-to-face, it is easier to express yourself and ensure that the other person understands what you are saying. You are able using body language, facial expressions to convey meaning and emotion, which is not possible through email or phone. For example, if i am trying to explain a complex idea to my colleague, i can use gestures and draw diagrams, which help to get my point across more effectively than words alone. Secondly, face-to-face interaction allows for real-time feedback and clarification. If the other person do not understand something you said, they can ask you to clarify immediately. This back-and-forth exchange is much more difficult via email or phone, where there can be delays in get a response or misunderstandings due to lack of context. I remember when I was working on a group project in university, we tried to coordinate over email but there were constant confusions and misinterpretations. When we finally met in person, we were able to clear everything up and made much better progress. Finally, I believes that face-to-face communication is important for building relationships and trust. When you are talking to someone in person, you can pick up on subtle nuances and develop a rapport that is harder to establish through email or phone. In my opinion, email and phone are useful for quick exchanges of information, but for deeper discussions and collaborations, meeting in person is essential. At my workplace, we have regular team meetings where we can connect on a personal level and brainstorm ideas together - something that would not be possible if we only communicated remotely. In conclusion, while email and phone calls have their place, I much prefered face-to-face communication for its clarity, interactivity, and relationship-building aspects. It allows for richer, more nuanced expression and understanding, which is crucial for effective collaboration and connection.

As the number of private cars has increased, so too has the level of pollution in many cities. What can be done to tackle this increasingly common problem?

In recent years, the number of people having cars is getting more and more in many cities around world. This is causing the pollution level to rise in direct proportion. Tackling this problem that is becoming increasingly common requires a multi-faceted approach. Firstly, governments should investing more in public transportation infrastructure to provide citizens with convenient and affordable alternatives to driving private cars. This could include expanding bus and train networks, as well as introducing incentives for people to using public transport, such as discounted fares or free rides during off-peak hours. In addition, cities could also invest in bike-sharing programs and improve bike lanes to encourages more people to cycle instead of driving. Secondly, cities could implement policies to discourage the use of private cars, particularly in areas with high levels of pollution. For example, they could introduce congestion charges for vehicles entering busy urban centers, or increase parking fees in these areas. They could also restrict the number of cars allowed to enter certain zones based on their license plate numbers, as has been done in some cities in China. Finally, there needs to be a shift in mindset among individuals about the impact of their transportation choices on the environment. Governments and organizations could launch public awareness campaigns to educating people on the effects of air pollution and encourage them to make more environmentally friendly choices. Schools could also incorporate lessons on sustainability and the importance of reducing carbon footprint into their curriculum. In conclusion, tackling the problem of rising pollution levels due to increased car ownership requires a comprehensive approach that includes investing in public transportation, implementing policies to discourage car usage, and raising awareness about the impact of individual actions on the environment. By taking these steps, cities can work towards creating a cleaner and healthier living environment for their inhabitants.

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task. Write about the following topic: In many big cities, the use of public transportation like buses, trains and subways is encouraged. What are the reasons for this? Do you think that this is a positive or negative development? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

Nowdays, many big citys are encouraging using public transport such buses, trains and subways. There are many reason for doing this. I think that overall this is a positive developments. One main reason why using public transport is encouraged is because it reduce traffic congestion. When more peoples use buses and trains instead of drive their own cars, it means less cars on the road. This lead to less traffic jams, especially during rushhour times in the mornings and evenings. Less traffic also mean that people who still need to drive, like taxi driver and delivery trucks, can get to there destination faster. Another reason public transportation is encourage is because it is better for the enviroment. Buses and trains can carry many passenger in one vehicle. This is much more efficient use of fuel compare to each person driving their own car. Reducing the number of cars on the road lead to less air polution in the city. Better air quality is healthier for people living in the city, especially childrens and elder people. I believe encouraging use of public transport is a very positive development for citys. It make transportation in the city more efficient and reduce harm to the environment from to much air pollution. Everyone in the city can benefit from this, even if they dont use public transport themself. The government should continue to invest in buses and trains to make public transportation even more convenient and affordable in the future. In conclusion, I strongly agree that encouraging use of public transport like buses and trains in big citys is a positive development. It helps to solve problems of traffic congestion and air pollution. Although some people may prefer the convenience of driving their own car, the overall benefits of public transport for the city and enviroment are clear.

Task2: Some people want governments to spend money looking for life on other planets. Others, however, think this is a waste of public money when there are so many problems on earth. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Some peoples want government to spending money for searching life on another planets. Others thinking it is waste of public money because we having so many problems in earth. I will discussing both this views and give my opinion. On the one hand, it is very excite if we find alien life. Would be huge advance for science and maybe we learn many new technology from them. Could help us travel to stars and have colonies on other planets, ensuring survival of human race. Also, if there are other intelligent lifes out there, it would mean we are not alone. This give people hope and inspiration. On other hand, many peoples point to problems we face on Earth like poverty, pollution, disease and war. They say it wrong to waste money on space exploration when this money could help solve real problem that affecting billions here and now on our home planet. There are many starve childrens, homeless peoples, and sick peoples who need help. Sending rockets to space doesn't help them. In conclusion, while I understand why some people opposing spending on space exploration, I believing that it is important to funding this research. The potential benefits is huge and could help all of humanity in long term. And even if we don't find alien life, the scientific advances and technology we develop in process of searching will still benefit us greatly. So in my opinion, goverments should continuing to invest in space exploration while also address problems on Earth.

Is freedom of speech necessary in a free society? Give reasons for your answer.

Todays world is a global village and freedom of specch is very important topic. Every one like to live in a free socity but debate is going on if freedom of speech is realy necessarie. In my openion, it is very important and required thing for the people to live freely and happyly. I will explan my reasons in folloing paragraphs. First and formost, freedom of speech allow people to share there ideas and thoughts without fear. It is basic human write to express ourselfs and communicate with others. If people are not allowed to speek freely, they will feel opressed and unhappy. It can led to many problms in society such as voilence and crime. Freedom of speech also help to create a divirse and tolerent society where different viewpoints are respected. Secondly, freedom of speech is essential for the progrss and development of sociaty. When people are free to express there ideas, it leads to inovation and creativity. New ideas and inventons can emerje that can benefit the whole society. For example, many scientfic discoveries and tecknological advancments have been made possible because of freedom of speech. If people were not allowed to share there ideas freely, progress would be stoped. In conclusion, freedom of speech is a fundamental right that is necesary for a free and thriving society. It allow people to express themselfs, creates a tolerent and diverse environment, and promotes progress and development. Although there may be some limitations on freedom of speech to prevent harm, overall it is a essential aspect of a democratic sociaty. Without freedom of speech, people would feel opressed and society would stagnat.

If the world were to switch to using electric cars instead of all gasoline-powered vehicles, what would be the energy-related implications?

If the world were to switch to electric cars instead of gasoline-powered cars. There would be profound energy-related impacts. This could has significant consequences for energy demand, infrastructure, and the environment. Firstly, the full transition to electric vehicles would lead to a massive rise in electricity demand. All the energy currently used for gasoline would need to come form the electrical grid instead. The electrisity infrastructure in most countries is not yet prepared for this. It would requires massive investments and upgrades to handle the incresed load from charging millions of EV batteries. Without proper planning, it could strain and overload existing power plants and transmission lines. Additionally, the environmental impact of this transition depends on how the extra electricity is being generated. If it primarily coming from renewable sources like solar, wind and hydro, it could significantly reduces carbon emission and help combat climate change. However, if the added electricity demand is being met by burning more coal and natural gas, some of the environmental benefit of EVs may be offset. Ideally, the adoption of electic cars should happen in paralel with a transition to clean electricity production. In conclusion, while swithcing to electric vehicles could have major benefits, it is not without challenges. Massively expanding electrisity infrastructure and clean energy generation in tandem will be critucal to realizing the full potential of this world-changing technological shift. Only with careful planing and polisy can we power an electric vehicle future in a sustainable way.

If the world were to switch to electric cars instead of all gasoline-powered vehicles, what would be the energy-related implications?

If teh world were to switching to electric car instead of all gasoline-powered vehicle's, there would be many energy-related implicatins. One implication is that we would need to generate much more electricity to power all of the electric cars. This means building more power plants, which could be expensive and take a long time to build. Another implication is that we would need to upgrading the electrical grid to handle the increased demand for electricity that all the electric cars would create. this would also be expensive and take a long time to do. Another implication is that we would need to find ways to produce electricity that are clean and renewable. If we just burn coal or natural gas to generate electricity for the electric vehicles, then we are not really solving the problem of pollution and climate change. We need to use solar, wind, nuclear, and other clean energy sources to generate the electricity for the electric vehicles. This is a challenge, but it is possible if we invest in these technologies. In conclusion, switching to electric cars would have significant energy-related implications. We would need to generate much more electricity, upgrade the electrical grid, and find clean and renewable ways to produce that electricity. These are challenges, but they are challenges that we can overcome if we are committed to solving the problem of pollution and climate change caused by gasoline-powered vehicles.

Museums and art galleries should concentrate on local works rather than showing the cultures or artworks from other countries. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

I am disagree that museums or art galleries only need to focus for local works instead showing art and culture from outside. I believe it is very important to show the both local and international arts. Firstly, by showing the artworks from other countries, it will increasing our knowledge and understanding of different culture in the world. For example, when I visit museum in my hometown last year, I saw many paintings and sculptures from Europe and Asia countries. It was very interesting experience for me to learn about their unique style and techniques which is different than our local arts. This exposure broaden my perspective and appreciation towards diversity of arts globally. Furthermore, displaying international works can inspire for local artists to create new and innovative pieces. They can learn from techniques and styles used by foreign artists, and incorporate into their own work . This fusion of ideas lead to development of arts scene locally. Museums and galleries play important role in facilitating this cultural exchange and growth. However, I also agree that we shouldn't neglect our own cultural heritage and artworks. It is crucial to showcase and preserve local talents so younger generation can learn about their roots. Perhaps, the museums could dedicated one section specially for local arts while also including international works in other part of building. In conclusion, while it is essential to promote local artists, I believe museums should not limit themselves only to that. By finding the right balance between showcasing both local and international works, we can enrich our arts scene and foster greater cultural understanding globally.

Many high-level positions in companies are filled by men even though the workforce in many developed countries is more than 50 per cent female. Companies should be required to allocate a certain percentage of these positions to women. To what extent do you agree?

In todays world, there are many companies that have higher positions mostly occupied by mens, even though the workforce of females are more than 50 percent in many developed country. I agree with the statement that companies must be required to allocate a certain percentages of these positions to womens. Firstly, womens are equally capable and talented as mens. They can handle high-level positions with same efficiency and effectiveness as mens. Many studies have shown that companies with gender diversity in leadership positions perform better. Therefore, it is important to give equal opportunities to womens in higher positions. This will not only benefit the womens but also the company as a whole. Secondly, allocating certain percentage of high-level positions to females will help in reducing gender inequality in the workplace. Women often face discrimination and bias in the workplace, which can limit their career growth and advancement. By requiring companies to allocate a certain percentages of high-level positions to womens, it will ensure that they get fair and equal representation in leadership roles. This will also encourage more womens to pursue careers in male-dominated fields. In conclusion, I strongly agree that companies should be required to allocate a certain percentage of high-level positions to womens. This will not only benefit the womens but also the company and society as a whole. It will help in reducing gender inequality and promoting diversity in the workplace. It is important for companies to recognize the talents and capabilities of womens and give them equal opportunities to excel in their careers.

The best way to get people to use their cars less is to make them pay a road toll to drive on busy roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Pepole have been driven their cars more for the last years than before in the past. This havve caused mani problems like traffiic jams and the polluted airs. One way to reduction the use of cars are to charged toll for drive on the busiest roads. I disagree that this is a best way to get people use less car. Firstly, make people pay for toll on the busy roads migh not stop from use their cars. Maybe some people has enough money to pay any toll. For them, doess not make any difference if there are toll or no toll on road they drive on. But for poorer pepole, they cannot pay extra money for use the rite road. This is unfair for diffrent people with different income. The rich and poor shoud have the same rites for use roads which they allreddy pay taxes. Making toll on only busy roads will make traffic jams on other roads where there no toll charaged. Everyone will crowd up in the available road if they want a voided paying extra money. So the toll will not solve that problem. I think best way to make people use their cars less are provide better public transportations. Government can invests more on many busses and tranes so poeple can easily and conveniently go anywher without using own cars. They need to first encourage pepole use public transports more through give incentive, like lower prise for use buses and trians. When more poeple take public transport, slowly they will realized that they don't need drive cars anymore ecause public transports are convenient enuf. Cars will stop using slowly, leading to lesser traffic on the roads and lesser polluting by the cars. This is much more fair and efective way than toll charging on road. In conclusion, charging extra tell on busier roads is not good solution. It will not reduce the cars on road, it will only make unfair for some people. The better ways are encourage public transports.

What is your favorite hobby

From a young age, my favorite hobby have been playing the guitar. I was inspired to learn the instrument after going to a concert of my favorite band and seeing the guitarist play amazing solos on stage. It looked so fun and I wanted to be able to play beautiful music like that too. I started taking lessons when I was 12 years old. At first it was challenging, my finger hurt from pressing down the metal strings and making cords. But I practice every day, determined to get better. Slowly I improved and was able to play simple songs. The more I practiced, the more I enjoyed it. Playing guitar became my passion and favorite way to spend my free time. Now, many years later, guitar is still my most beloved hobby. When I play, I feel a sense of joy and relaxation. It help me express my emotions and forget about the stresses of daily life. I love learning new songs and technique, and challenging myself to improve. Sometimes I play with friends or even perform at small local events. Guitar will always be an important part of my life and my favorite hobby. It has taught me discipline, creativity, and the satisfaction of dedicate myself to a skill. I am grateful for the happiness and fulfillment it brings me, and I hope to continue playing for many years to come.

The charts below show the percentage of secondary school students at a school in the UK taking different subjects in 1995 and this year.

The charts is showing the percentage of students in secondery school taking various subjects in a UK school in 1995 and this year now. Overall, the percentage of students take the most popular subjects have decreased, while the percentage of students taking the least popular subjects has stay the same or increased. In 1995, the most popular subjects was Physics, which was taken by just over 60% of students. History and Geography was also popular, with around 40% of students taking these subjects each one. In contrast, only about 20% of students were taking Art and less then 10% were studing Music. This year, the percentage of students taking Physics has decreesed significantly to around 40%. History and Geography have also become less populer, with only about 30% and 20% of students taking these subjects respectivly. However, the percentage of students taking Art has remained steady at around 20%, while the percantage taking Music has doubled to roughly 20%. In summary, there have been notable changes in the popiularity of different subjects at this UK secondary school over the past nearly three decades. While the most popular subjects in 1995 have seen a decline in student numbers, subjects that were less populer back then, such as Music, have seen an increase in uptake.

Task 2: Many people think cheap air travel should be encouraged because it gives ordinary people freedom to travel further. However, others think this leads to environmental problems and should be more expensive in order to discourage people from having it. Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.

Nowadays air travel are become more accessible for regular people because prices go down over years past. Some peoples think this good since give opportunity for travel to many more who could not afford it before. While other side argue that cheap flights is bad for environment, so tickets cost should increase to stop too many people flying. I will show consideration of both views below. One side say cheaper plane ticket prices means freedom to travel for many more persons. Before only rich people could travel a lot by plane because was too expensive but now more average income families save up money to take airplane trips. This is good for people who want to see the world and experience other cultures. Traveling broadens minds and help us understand others better. Also sometimes we must travel to other places in short time like for emergency, so cheap flights is very helpful in this cases. But the other side worry about impact of increased air travel to the environment. Airplanes cause a lot of pollution with the fuel burn and contribute to global warming. If more people fly because of cheap tickets then this problem only get worse. People take unnecessary trips which they would not take if flights were more costly. So increasing prices of plane tickets is seen as solution by some to protect the planet from bad effects of too much air travel. In my thoughts, both sides have valid points. I agree that cheap flights give chance for more people to have experience of travel, but I also understand the concern about environmental damage. I think the best solution is to have balance. Keep some low-cost options so not only rich can travel, but also add extra tax or fee for environmental impact. This money can go towards developing cleaner airplane technologies. Peoples should also be educated to only take necessary trips and find other transportation when possible to help control pollution from planes. In conclusion, cheap airfares have benefits for travellers but drawbacks for environment. The right approach is to find middle ground that still allows affordable travel but also discourages wasteful flights and invests in greener air technologies. Only by considerate both sides concerns can we have responsible air travel system.

You have recently been on a trip to Canada. Write a letter to your friend in which you describe your experience there. Include details about the places you visited, the people you met, and how you felt during your trip.

Hi Elena! I am write to tell you about my trip to Canada I has been last week. I was really exciting to going because I has never been there before. I arrive in Toronto and stay with my friend who live there. She show me around the city and we go to many place like CN Tower and Niagara Falls. The CN Tower is very high and I was a little scary but the view from top is amazing! I take many picture. Niagara Falls also very beautiful and loud. I get wet from the mist. I also go to Montreal for few day. The city have many old building and pretty park. I try some food call poutine, which is french fry with gravy and cheese. It sound strange but actually quite tasty! I meet some nice people in hostel and we explore city together. They from different country like France and Australia. My favourite part of trip was when I go hiking in Banff National Park. The mountain and lake are stunning, like painting. I see some wild animal like deer and even bear! It was little scary but also exciting. The air so fresh and I feel very peaceful in nature. Overall, I have wonderful time in Canada. The people very friendly and welcoming. The nature beautiful and city interesting. I definitely want to go back someday and see more of the country. I highly recommend visit Canada if you have chance! Let me know if you want to see some photo from my trip. Talk to you soon! Love, Maria

Modern lifestyles mean that many parents have little time for their children. Many children suffer because they do not get as much attention from their parents as children did in the past. Do you agree or disagree?

I agree that in now days parents they are spending lesser time with their childrens as compare to past. Because of this reason there are many childrens who are suffering. Firstly, in this modern life both parents are working. They go to office very early at morning time and coming back to home late night. Due to this, they cannot giving proper attantion and time to their childs. In the past, usually only fathers working outside and mothers stay at home to taking care of family and children. So mothers give full attantion and care to child. But now scenario is changed. Second, because parents busy with work, many child are taken care by baby sitter or send to child care centre. In this places, childs not getting enough love and care like parents can gave. Child sitters only doing their job, they not feel emotional connection with child like parents feels. This lack of love and care, effect on child's mental growth. Many studys shows that, children who getting less attantion and love from parents, they may facing many mental problems in future like depression, anxiety etc. In conclusoon, i strongly agree that now days parents giving less time to their child compare to past. And this are very bed for child mental and physical growth. Parents should trying to giving more time to childs, because nothing can replace parents love and care in child's life.

Around the world, many adults are working from home, and more children are beginning to study from home because technology has become cheaper and more accessible. Do you think this is a positive or negative development?

In my opinion I belive that this trend of work and study from home have both positive and negative influence. On the one hand, it allow people to have more flexiblity in they daily routines. They can manage there own time and dont need to waste time on commuting. This can lead to better work-life balance and reduced stress levels. Also, it can be good for environment as less people will be traveling by cars or public transprot, which can lower the carbon footprint. However, on the another hand, working and studing from home can also have some drawbacks. Firstly, it can be harder to separate work and personel life when everything happen in the same space. This can lead to overworking and burnout. Secondly, it can be more dificult to colaborate with colleagues or classmates when your not in the same physical space. This can impact on productivity and inovation. Finaly, it can be isolating and lonely to spend all days at home without interacting with others in person. In conclusion, I think that while working and studying from homes has some benefits, it is important to find a balance. Companies and schools shuld provide support and resources to help people manage the challanges of remote work and learning. They shuld also create oportunities for social interaction and colaboration. Only by doing this we can ensure that this trend has a positive impact on society as a whole.

The chart shows the percentage of women and men in one Asian country who passed when they took their driving test between 1980 and 2010.

The chart is showing data about one Asian nation and how many percent of females and males was succeed when doing the driving exam in period from 1980 to 2010. From looking at data it is clear that in all the years, more higher percent of mens pass the driving test compare to womens. Both genders have increase passing rate over the 30 years period but male have much bigger improvment. In 1980, only 40% of men are pass driving exam but this percent go up a lot to over 80% passed in 2010 at end. For woman, 1980 passing number very low around 30% only. And even tho it also get higher by 2010, still only around 50% of women who take test are pass it. So the gap between men and women get wider in this time. In summary, we can seen that mens have much greater success on driving tests than woman based on this information from a country in Asia betwn 1980 to 2010. The diff in passing rates is grow over those years.

Some people believe that once a person becomes a criminal, he will always be a criminal. Do you agree with this statement? Provide specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.

I am not agree with the statement that once a person become a criminal, he will always be a criminal. There are many reasons why I think this way. First of all, people can change. Just because someone made a mistake in the past, it does not mean they will continue to make the same mistake in the future. Many criminals realize the error of their ways and work hard to turn their life around. With the right support and guidance, they can become productive members of society again. Secondly, not all crimes are equal. Some crimes are more serious than others. For example, a person who committed a minor offense like shoplifting is not the same as someone who committed a violent crime like murder. It is unfair to label all criminals as the same and assume they will always be criminals. Lastly, it is important to give people second chances. If we do not believe that people can change, then we are not giving them the opportunity to prove themselves. Everyone deserves a chance to redeem themselves and make a better life for themselves. In conclusion, I disagree with the statement that once a person becomes a criminal, they will always be a criminal. People can change, not all crimes are equal, and everyone deserves a second chance. We should not judge people based on their past mistakes, but rather on their present actions and intentions.