0
Winniewenyi Posted 14 years ago
Essay & Composition Writing
Please correct my writing
Do you think that protecting children from unsuitable material on TV and the Internet should be the responsibility of the government or the parents?
Some argue that government should censor the unsuitable material on TV or the Internet. Others say that it is the parents’ duty to limit what their children do and watch. In my opinion, both government and parents have the responsibility to protect children from being polluted from improper material on TV or the Internet.
There is a rule in civil law that parents have the duty to feed and educate their children. Besides, it is human nature that parents love their kids and anticipate them going towards positive development. As everyone knows, educational environment plays a critical role in children’s development and learning. From a practical view, parents on the front line are the most appropriate people to take this responsibility to supervise the environment around children. Therefore, they should not to avoid the duty to protect children from improper material on TV or the Internet.
Even though parents want to do their best to protect children, only government has the power to ban unsuitable content to be broadcasted or regulate broadcasting time of improper material. Furthermore, the purpose of government is to service and help its people, especially for children who are immature. I believe that everyone expects government can provide children with a good environment, including high-quality TV programs and Internet websites. For children’s sake, government must prohibit unsuitable content produced by businessmen who just want to earn money.
In summary, it is not sufficient that only government or only parents keep children from being affected by improper material on TV or the Internet. I think that a good educational environment will be created for children through cooperation between government and parents.
Some argue that government should censor the unsuitable material on TV or the Internet. Others say that it is the parents’ duty to limit what their children do and watch. In my opinion, both government and parents have the responsibility to protect children from being polluted from improper material on TV or the Internet.
There is a rule in civil law that parents have the duty to feed and educate their children. Besides, it is human nature that parents love their kids and anticipate them going towards positive development. As everyone knows, educational environment plays a critical role in children’s development and learning. From a practical view, parents on the front line are the most appropriate people to take this responsibility to supervise the environment around children. Therefore, they should not to avoid the duty to protect children from improper material on TV or the Internet.
Even though parents want to do their best to protect children, only government has the power to ban unsuitable content to be broadcasted or regulate broadcasting time of improper material. Furthermore, the purpose of government is to service and help its people, especially for children who are immature. I believe that everyone expects government can provide children with a good environment, including high-quality TV programs and Internet websites. For children’s sake, government must prohibit unsuitable content produced by businessmen who just want to earn money.
In summary, it is not sufficient that only government or only parents keep children from being affected by improper material on TV or the Internet. I think that a good educational environment will be created for children through cooperation between government and parents.
Top answer
Hi. This is a fantastic piece of writing, and I really struggled to find anything much to correct. Reading this post, it is hard for me to tell that English is your not first language.
- Hi.
- This is a fantastic piece of writing, and I really struggled to find anything much to correct.
- Reading this post, it is hard for me to tell that English is your not first language.
- Paragraph 2 .
- It's better to say "polluted by" than "polluted from", but it doesn't seem to me to be quite the right word.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
1 Answers
0
Hi. This is a fantastic piece of writing, and I really struggled to find anything much to correct. Reading this post, it is hard for me to tell that English is your not first language.
Paragraph 2. It's better to say "polluted by" than "polluted from", but it doesn't seem to me to be quite the right word. Maybe you want "corrupted by" instead.
Paragraph 3. Here
Paragraph 2. It's better to say "polluted by" than "polluted from", but it doesn't seem to me to be quite the right word. Maybe you want "corrupted by" instead.
Paragraph 3. Here
0
Related Questions