IELTS Writing Task 2 – Some people prefer to provide help and support directly to those in the local
Some people prefer to provide help and support directly to those in the local community who need it. Others, however, prefer to give money to national and international charitable organisations.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Similar Topic – Many people prefer to do charity or help straight to the local community. But others would like to support the national or international charitable organizations. This essay will discuss about the two ways people are tend to do when they come to charity.
Similar Topic – Nowadays some people like to give help to the local community or provide people with direct help. Other people prefer to give money to national and international organizations. Discuss both of two ways and present your own opinion.
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
You should write at least 250 words.
Idea for the Essay
Para 1: Advantages of direct help
1. A person remains directly in touch with the needy
2. You can see how your money is being used – no mediators and so no chances of corruption
3. Moreover, charity begins at home
Para 2: Advantages of joining national and international organisation
1. Can work on a larger platform – for global issues – larger platform is a must
2. Help activities can be better spread through a larger network. You feel part of a global village.
Conclusion: Help in any form is good. Depends on the condition of the country.
IELTS Writing Task 2/ IELTS Essay Sample
Sample Answer 1:
“To have enough to share; to know the joy of giving; to thrill with all the sweets of life – is
living”. Helping others is a very virtuous thing. There are basically two ways to help. One is
by offering support to those around you who need your help and the second is through
national and international charitable organisations. In this essay I intend to delve into the
benefits of both approaches.
There are many advantages of direct help. Firstly, a person remains directly in touch with
the needy. You can see how your money is being used. There are no mediators and so there
are no chances of corruption. It has been well said that charity begins at home. Naturally, if
you help those around you, the people in your locality love and respect you and you enjoy a
better status in life.
There are also many advantages of helping through national and international
organisations. You can work on a larger platform and provide help for global issues. A larger
platform is a must if you have a lot to offer in charity. Help activities can be better spread
through a larger network. You feel part of a global village. Help need not be always in the
form of money. It can be in the form of services also. For example, if you are a doctor, you
can provide medical aid and if you are a teacher, you can volunteer to teach in the under-
developed nations.
Help in any form is good. The condition of one’s country could influence your way of
helping. If you belong to a developed country, where even the poorest of the poor has the
basic amenities of life, it would be better to help through national and international
charitable organisations but if you belong to a developing or underdeveloped country and
have the resources to help, then it would be better to help those around you.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that it is human nature to help those who need it.
Providing direct help and making donations through charitable organisations are just two
different ways of achieving the same goal.
Sample Answer 2:
Helping poor and needy is a duty in many religions. However, people are split when it comes the point that how they support them who are in need. In the developing countries, people likely support the poor people directly. On the other hand, people in the western world like give money to the national and international charity organizations. Both the approaches have their own merits.
To commence with, despite the economic boom, hundreds of thousands people are living in pandemic poverty. Many affluent individuals cannot bother the poverty next door. They do not depend on national or international charity organizations, rather they try to support the pauper community so that they can lead a better life. In addition, direct donation to those in need, provides a sense of warm. Besides, they also do not rely on charity organizations due to corruptions. Some corrupt officials try to pocket the donator’s kindness. Consequently, contributors’ charity cannot reach the misfortunes. It is another prime cause of why people donate directly.
However, donators in the wealthy nations very often contribute to the national and international aid organizations. These organizations usually invite electronic and print media’s journalists to highlight their campaign, and eventually the donators are known widely. Therefore, some people like to donate needy through aid organizations. Another key point to remember is that many people want to deal with global issues. That is to say that many African countries are suffering for stark poverty. People of these countries have no shelter, cloths, food, and even pure drinking water. Therefore, citizens from the rich countries donate to the organization in order to calm the unbearable poverty of African nations.
In fine, help in any approach is good whether it is directly or indirectly. It depends on individuals and on the condition of the country.
It is considered by some that participating some local charities is a sound choice while there are others who deem that rendering money to internal and external aid organizations can tackle more problems. Included in this essay are some factual analysis and my own opinion.
On the one hand, the preponderance of direct support is that benefactors can assist the needy who live in their own community. In other words, that the repercussion of donating money directly can be easily seen indubitably bolsters donors’ belief. However, there are some problems that might not be tackled by local charitable organizations. Take the environmental issue for example. Due to water contamination, in many urban areas, citizens are facing acute water shortage, which needs government’s involvement.
On the other hand, the predominant reason why national and international aid organizations are becoming prevalent is related to their large-scale purposes. It is alleged that through these charity foundations, benefactors can help those who live in disease-ridden slums with their pittance, and simultaneously contribute to erasing illiteracy. One of the most renowned universal seat of charity is World Literacy Foundation. Nevertheless, the biggest problem of indirect monetary support is that donors can be suffered from charity scams. Rationally, there are many illegal charity foundations established with the purpose of pocketing people’s money or other valuable items.
By way of conclusion, with above listed things, I would contend that both two kinds of charitable organizations have merits and demerits. Therefore, I strongly believe that if donors scrutinize aid organizations before supporting the needy, they will avoid charity fraud.
Model Answer 4:
Presently, it is undeniably true that, international organization has found in everywhere to give a hand to local people that need a help by better-well community. Others have opposed that give a help directly is worth rather than through national or international organization that has focused on several fields only. While give an aid for local community has merits and demerits, I would argue that give a support directly for local community is the best way to help them.
On one hand, without giving money, community is more likely to give a real help for who have a right to get it. In several areas in the world people tend to give money as a sign that they have same feeling as people who directly attend in that condition. To illustrates, in the conflict zone such as several areas in middle-east, people need more specialist of medication instead of money which is one of evidence that money is not worth in the conflict places such as Afghanistan, Palestine and so on. They need volunteers that can bring out them from the horrible situation. Consequences, people have a prolonging life even though money is not the pivotal aspect.
On the other hand, the aid taken by people who live below poverty line does not spread-out properly as the authority who gives the money is unable to manage the funding as better as organization that has the data completely in terms of the people who will obtain the aid. Result shows that the United Nation as the international organization provides many programs such as UNICEF, as one program for children in Africa and refugee has the excellent result for people and children who need a help, go hand in hand with that program WHO, the health program for people around the world especially for war-zone countries, collects the funding from people worldwide to detect the drugs that can prevent the spread of Ebola virus that attack people in the Africa continent. This program from the aid of people around the world can help a thousand of human races in Africa especially. As a consequence, the funding transferred by wealthy people can be used for improving health and nutrition of human being. The aid is becoming more and more popular for inhabitants showing the awareness to other people.
The aforementioned evidence reveals that it seems giving money directly getting equal for merits and demerits. I concede that, the money from the wealth people should be able to support for the people in the places, where has a catastrophic problems. Where possible, I fear that the aid can be a novel issue in the future such as rampant corruption.
Model Answer 5:
More and more people have participated in doing charity in many countries around the world. Some people would like to help the local community or people directly. Some others prefer to give money to non-governmental organizations to charity done by themselves. In this essay, these two methods will be discussed and my viewpoint will be presented.
First of all, people who argue that it is absolutely essential to give donation directly towards people and local communities. With a large amount of money, these people have the right to help anyone who is under harsh life. What is more, these donators think believe that via face to face conversation with suffered people, donators have better understanding about the demands of victims to help what material s or other daily necessities. As a result, this method has improved much more material and culture life of the local community and has been considered as one of the most effective ways of the donation.
However, other people like offering money to national or international organizations. These organizations have worldwide networks and money would be delivered more effectively to the regions where people live in a poor life or are suffered from natural disasters such earthquake and Tsunami. On the other hand, with the strict criteria, these organizations always give help with different victims to be donated the most appropriately. Moreover, thanks to a great deal of money receiving from many donators around the world, charity organizations will make a significant contribution to lifting people out of poverty as well as having a better life for the local communities.
As far as I am concerned, donators should give money to people directly. It cannot be denied that not all charity organizations have done the best obligation of the donation. Furthermore, corruption or bribery absolutely might occur to leaders of these organizations. Therefore, money is not spent the most effectively to the poor and victims in many countries and the most suitable way is that charity should be done directly by donators.
It seems to me that it is necessary to give help directly to the poor or victims. This has been regarded as the most effective ways of doing charity of the rich. This also limits the risk of corruption and bribery happening to doing charity via these organizations.
Donating money to the poor is a humanitarian activity that has drawn the public ‘s attention in recent years. While many donors provide money and other support directly to the needy, others choose national aid organizations. In this essays, I will discuss both sides of this issue before my own opinion is stated.
On the one hand, there are two major reasons as to why many people give financial support or other non-monetary contributions to charities. Firstly, these organizations may make donor’s names known more widely because they often invite reporters and journalists to write about their campaigns. Accordingly, donors’ names would be mentioned in TV channels or online newspapers, which is beneficial for their personal development. Secondly, members of charities are often trained to make a donation. As a result, they would be better at holding community events than a single person who might lack the experience to be a skilled fund-raiser.
On the other hand, others decide to donate directly because not every charity group is believable. Many national charitable organizations made use of donators’ kindness to pocket their money and even non-cash items such as books, clothes, furniture, etc. Their donations, therefore, might not reach victims of outbreaks or natural disasters. Thus, to ensure that the needy receive money fully, many individuals choose to make a direct donation, instead of giving funds to aid groups.
In conclusion, in my opinion, national charitable organizations are still well worth a bridge for the whole society to help disadvantaged people due to the above reasons.
Model Answer 7:
Today, there is a vast number of charities collecting for an equally vast number of causes. In addition to choosing a worthy cause, philanthropists must also take into account the integrity of the organization collecting charitable funds. Opinions are often divided on whether it is better to give to local organizations or larger internationally-run charities. Both sides of this debate will be analyzed before a reasoned conclusion is found.
On the one hand, many people feel local charities are the better organizations to donate to. In a sense, these sorts of charities tend to produce more measurable results, and thus the person making the donation is more able to see exactly what their donation is going towards. A good example of this can be seen in my hometown, Ottawa. In Ottawa, every Christmas marks a time when used toys are collected and redistributed to underprivileged children around the city. The transparency of this exchange makes it understandable why may feel more confident when donating to a local charity.
On the other hand, larger international charities do a lot to stabilize global inequalities. For example, vaccinations in many countries would not be possible were it not for the support of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Although the results of a person’s donation may not be as easy to detect as with local charities, international groups such as this radically alter lives and living standards around the world. The drastic differences created by larger international groups make it obvious why they have won the support of many.
Following this look at local and international charities, it is felt both give tremendously to the human family, and thus to declare one better than the other is simply impossible. It is hoped in the years to come that global generosity increases and that extreme poverty is eradicated.
It is considered by some that participating some local charities is a sound choice while there are others who deem that rendering money to internal and external aid organizations can tackle more problems. Included in this essay are some factual analysis and my own opinion.
On the one hand, the preponderance of direct support is that benefactors can assist the needy who live in their own community. In other words, that the repercussion of donating money directly can be easily seen indubitably bolsters donors’ belief. However, there are some problems that might not be tackled by local charitable organizations. Take the environmental issue for example. Due to water contamination, in many urban areas, citizens are facing acute water shortage, which needs government’s involvement.
On the other hand, the predominant reason why national and international aid organizations are becoming prevalent is related to their large-scale purposes. It is alleged that through these charity foundations, benefactors can help those who live in disease-ridden slums with their pittance, and simultaneously contribute to erasing illiteracy. One of the most renowned universal seat of charity is World Literacy Foundation. Nevertheless, the biggest problem of indirect monetary support is that donors can be suffered from charity scams. Rationally, there are many illegal charity foundations established with the purpose of pocketing people’s money or other valuable items.
By way of conclusion, with above listed things, I would contend that both two kinds of charitable organizations have merits and demerits. Therefore, I strongly believe that if donors scrutinize aid organizations before supporting the needy, they will avoid charity fraud.
Model Answer 9:
Humans are all gold hearted, but they tend to express it in different ways. It is not strange that some prefer being volunteers, others send money to charitable organizations. Both have benefits as below.
On one hand, many people like doing charitable activities such as: “race for the autism” ” bring supplies for foster homes” or “festive time for poor children” because they give them a good pleasure of having done the right job. A lot of people find actions more meaningful than donating money only. They believe that doing such gives them joy of being helpful annd bring good luck to the unfortunates. Therefore, many associations have created annual charitable activities and have received thousatnds of voluntary. A great benefit is that anyone, either wealthy or not could participate freely. This is why many people, knowing they aren’t rich enough, would devote themselves to lend a hand. Some donate old clothes and toys, others enter races to raise money.
On the other hand, some other people prefer giving money to international charitable organizations. These people are often the rich and famous. Rich bussinessmen tend to create their own foundations and provide millions of dollars each year, while famous people try to encourage others by handing out charity-purpose products. Katy Perry, a famous singer has been making many charity tours, while Mark Zuckerberg – who created the popular social network Facebook donates a hundred million dollar each year to save schools. This also give them reputations, but mainly an image for others to follow.
To my opinion, I would prefer being a volunteer. One of the obvious reason is that my economical state is low. Another point which leds me to the first choice is about trust. Recently, world news announced that a member of FIFA embezzled money that was sent for the Haiti Foundation. I realized the risk of sending money to any associations, even the international ones which sounds prestige.
To conclude, I believe that people have many ways to show their care for each other, but it is highly reccomended to choose which way wisely.
Submit your Essay here in the comment section, we will add your essay in our post.
(Collected; Source: Internet)
