Decio, this is absolutely perfect!!!

The introduction, body and conclusion was very insync !!!

The flow of the article made it very easy to read!
No grammar mistakes, was perfect!
This makes me feel great as a teacher!
Wonderful wonderful wonderful!
Was your best one yet!

Brianstorm 5 minutes and speak 5 minutes

March 22nd
Can use outside help
Dictionary & https://www.thesaurus.com/

Don't forget to use the important information on the next page

Use the checklist after writing

IELTS Writing Task 2/ IELTS Essay:

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Laws should not be rigid or fixed. Instead, they should be flexible enough to take account of
various circumstances, times and place of the offense.

To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer.

You should write at least 250 words.

Start here;

Introduction (113 words, goal: 50)

We have been living in an unprecedented period of technological revolution the last three
decades in history. The Internet, cell phones and social media changed the way people used to
communicate. Whether mechanical machines substitute unqualified workers in the industrial
revolution between XVII and XIX centuries, nowadays artificial intelligence begins to replace
qualified jobs. This new world opened the door to new crimes, such as unauthorized banking
account access, fake news scattered by robots during elections time, and cyber-attacks
sponsored by authoritarian regimes. These circumstances pose two questions:

1. Is the law system up to date to attend technological revolution requirements?

2. Should this system be more flexible to keep up with this changeable world?

Body (281 words, goal: 170)

It could be argued that the answers of these two questions are “yes” to the first and “no” to the
second one. Undoubtedly the law should correspond to social necessity for new regulations,
specially to prevent and restrain new ways of crime practices. There is also the idea implicit in
the statement presented that the answer must be affirmative or negative, however, these
questions are biased by a particular ideological approach to the issue, so it is possible to tackle
the problem in several ways. Societies are structured in different political conceptions;
therefore, authoritarian regimes tend to require more stability to maintain privileged classes that
rule the country, in other words, the “status quo”, which leads to fixed laws; in contrast
democratic countries and open economic systems are more adapted to flexible rules, vis à vis
unpredictable economy.

While I admit that political state conceptions reflect different political and social needs, I would
argue that even when we focus on democratic countries there are some subjects that should
never change. Firstly, it is important to say that constitutions of different countries have clauses
that prevent a local government from declaring independence from the country. In addition, let
me illustrate that charging citizens to pay taxes requires laws from Parliament, executive
orders from Executive Power are forbidden, which reduces flexibility. Furthermore, these laws
must be applied for the next fiscal year. However, import taxes are exceptions, because
sometimes countries must adopt protective measures towards national industry. Finally,
investors of some economic areas have an investment horizon of two decades, so any change
in legal framework can affect their interests, which is not good for predictability and business,
and that is crucial from oil industry to clean energy suppliers.

Conclusion (40 words, goal: 40)

I firmly believe that laws should be flexible to combat crime practices related to private and
public security, and must be fixed, preferably disposed of in the constitution, when important
principles are at stake, such as democracy, human rights, nation sovereignty, etc.

—---------------------------------—-------------------------

—--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT INFORMATION