TASK2 PLEAsE CHECK IT FOR THE MEANING.

[Doni Nacho]

It is often argued that children must be protected from suitable on Tv and the internet by government censorship.Others say it is parents responsibility to control what their children do and watch.Discuss both views and give your opinion.
It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that obtaining information from the cyberspace has become a number one objective of todays individuals.A growing number of people ascertain that children must be protected from a suitable material on TV and the internet by government censorship whilst opponents hold the view that it is the parents responsibility to control.Both points hold merit but on condition that parents accountibility to control what their children do and watch is the plausible way to protect them from external threat.In this essay both views will be analyzed before a detailed conclusion is drawn.
The argument in favour of that not all information in world wide web (www)is accurate and sometimes we can get wrong data.On this ocassion parents should control accesses of their child.For example in the USA three youngsters are joined to terrorism owing to the cyberspace as the result they become juvenile offenders.As this shows parents should limit usage of online accesses of their children in order not to become a victim of cyber.
Equally in favour of protecting child from proper information on TV and the web base their arguments on the fact that this should not be supported by the government censorship due to financial problems.In many developing countries for instance if government spend a lot of money on protecting children from online access.As a result of it economic growth in country will decline.
As the above discussions show it is difficult to say that government censorship is only vitally important phenomenon to protect young generation from the internet albeit parents are more responsible to control their child.

[David.IELTS.Examiner]

Hi Doni!
I'm glad that you are still contributing to this writing forum! A dedicated member!

Introduction - The first sentence is a bit of an over-generalisation. I'm not sure what you mean by 'on condition that'.

First main paragraph - It's shorter than the introduction! An interesting point, but not developed. The example doesn't make it clear that the information the teenagers got was wrong. Can't adults also be subjected to wrong information?

Second main paragraph - Also shorter than the introduction. The first sentence doesn't make clear who you are talking about. The point about money doesn't really seem to make much sense and needs further explanation.

Conclusion - Also unclear. At the beginning you talk about wrong information, but what about governments that provide inaccurate information to their citizens?

Overall, I find this essay quite simplistic and under-developed. The basic points may be good, but are not very clear.

All the best,
David