Please kindly help me to check these two IELTS writing task 2. Thanks so much!

Topic: Rich countries often give money to poorer countries, but it does not solve poverty. Therefore, developed countries should give other types of help to the poor countries rather than financial aid.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It can be regularly seen that more developed countries are used to giving out financial aids to assist poorer ones; however it is proved to be inefficient and other types of help should be implemented. In my opinion, I totally agree with this viewpoint.

On the one hand, money is not a long-term assistance but a temporary and immediate help. Developed countries can not provide money continously and when the poorer ones use up the fund, they will be back to the old situation. For example, if USA open an international institution in a underprivileged country, the pressure of facilities, teaching quality as well as students’ assurance may force the government to stop the institution whenever the foreign funds is gone. Moreover, giving out financial aids may make other countries dependent and they will find it challenging to solve their own problems.

For that reason, privileged countries should try out other types of help with the poorer ones with regard to their obstacles. For example, creating more job opportunities for the poor is a valuable and helpful assistance that appeals to almost all of poor countries. People can have the chance to improve their lives after attending the job center and learning about the jobs suitable for themselves. After graduating, they can choose to stay with the job center to be a tutor or leave and find their own jobs in their hometown. That way of helping will create a long-term and permanent labour resources for the country.

Overall, subsidy is not an effective and permanent help because it do not prove it efficiency in the long run. Therefore, the developed countries should consider other types of help such as engaging the impoverished in more job opportunities.

Topic 2: A country becomes more interesting and develops more quickly when its population includes a mixture of nationalities. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Global migration of people began with the soaring industrialization and due to the major global wars. As a result, many developed nations experience different cultures and traditions. It is often argued that this diversification of nationalities and cultures make the country more attractive and create expeditious advancements. In my opinion, I totally agree with this viewpoint.

On the one hand, the more diverse the nationalities are in a country, the richer its culture become. People from different countries will have chances to acquire knowledge of other cultures as well as other languages. It is an opportunity to learn about other cultures’ advantages and integrate themselves in the diversified customs and traditions. The rise of migration wave also establishes parks, restaurants and entertainment malls with different styles contributing to the prosperity of a country’s culture.

On the other hand, a mixed culture contributes considerably to a nation’s economy. The business as well as the technology can get benefit from knowledge and strength from others. For example, the technology of USA is considered as one of the best in the world, but this achievement belongs to India and Jewish citizens that relocating in this country. Migration wave diversifed the labour market, provide inexpensive and efficient source of labour for business which magnifies production and stimulates economic growth.

In conclusion, a diverse nationality has a positive impact on both culture and economy of a country. It is expected that more countries will benefit from this phenomena in the future.

(Thank you so much and I appreciate all your help!)