I love the way you explain the stuff, really appreciate it!

I just came from your TOEFL blog, which is extremely helpful. I subscribed to your video. Thank you beforehand :)

The Best Channel Ever for TOEFL.

Thank you for your videos! I have a TOEFL test coming up soon, and your channel's been a great help! Here's my essay: The article and the lecture both deal with the topic of asteroid colonization. While the author of the article states that colonizing asteroids could be beneficial for humanity for several reasons, the lecturer is convinced otherwise. First, the writer says that colonizing asteroids could have some great scientific potential as they have unique conditions for research such as their small size and low gravity. The lecturer, however, assets that our knowledge about asteroids is rather limited and it would be difficult to conduct any research on them until further scientific development. Second, the author of the article mentions that colonizing asteroids could cause economic growth and development on Earth due to naturals resources that are located on asteroids. On top of that, extracting resources and mining on asteroids will likely to cause the creation of new jobs and industries and therefore more people could be employed. In contrast, the lecturer questions this idea by saying that the amount of resources on asteroid and their cost cannot be fully predicted. He highlights that mining resources on asteroids and their transportation can hardly be more beneficial than extracting resources on Earth. Finally, the writer contends that asteroids can be a great place for humanity to relocate in case of a big-scale disaster such as a nuclear war or an asteroid impact. As opposed to the writer, the lecturer holds that asteroids are not suitable for living and settling on them. He explains that the lack of gravity and low mass can cause damage to people’s health and their ability to move. To summarize, while the article promotes the colonization of asteroids by claiming that there are some advantages to it, the lecturer appears to be doubtful about this idea.

Hey Michael, thank your great video. Here's my essay: The article and the lecture are both about the idea of colonizing asteroids. On the one hand, the author of the article mentions several benefits of colonizing asteroids. On the other hand, the lecturer disputes these benefits, by reflecting on them and presenting personally and evidential doubts. First, the author mentions that scientific potential is one of the most obvious benefits. He claims that asteroids have provided a unique environment, which is based on their small size and low gravity. Moreover, asteroids could also serve as a steppingstone for future missions. The lecturer disputes the claims by arguing that at the status quo, scientific research has a lack of knowledge. Now, he claims, our resources are limited, and the use of asteroids for future missions is difficult to predict. Secondly, the author argues that another benefit of asteroid colonization is the potential for economic growth. Natural resources could be creating new industries and job opportunities. In contrast, the lecturer claims that the economic benefit of colonizing asteroids is not known yet. It is hard to predict if exploring colonizing asteroids is financially worthy or not. Finally, the author claims that asteroid colonization could have a big impact on the long-term survival of humanity. The lecturer disputes the claim by adding the fact that asteroids could be not suitable for long-term human settling. The lack of gravity could be uncomfortable and dangerous for the human species.

Always the best!!

Thank you for your worthfull work!

Thanks, that's really helpful. I'm currently preparing for my TOEFL, I've written the essay in 11 min with 203 words

Hi Michael!!! Thanks for everything!!! Here is mine: I have an additional question: Do you recomend the home edition of the Toefl IBT or at a test center? The reading and the lecture both discuss the idea of colonizing asteroids. While the author of the article argues that there are benefits and advantages to colonizing asteroids, the lecturer disputes the claims mentioned in the article. His position is that there is no evidence of the potential benefits of seeking another asteroid to develop human life. According to the reading, if people start to colonize asteroids, there is scientific potential for research. The article mentions that scientists would have a valuable opportunity and environment for making advances in many academic fields that could be the beginning of another era in astronomy missions. This argument is challenged by the lecturer, who claims that there is a lack of knowledge related to what humanity is going to find out on these astronomical bodies. Additionally, he points out that there are conditions and resources that we don't understand very well. Secondly, the author suggests that there is potential for economic growth and development. The article notes that there are resources in the asteroid that could bring opportunities for new industries like mining, and this would have a great impact on taking care of the environment and the nature of the Earth. The lecturer, however, asserts that there is no certainty about how much of these resources or minerals are going to be there. He goes on to say that there is a possibility that it could cost more to bring these minerals out of the asteroid and back to Earth than the cost of this activity on our planet. Finally, the author posits that this project could have a positive impact on the preservation of the human race. He contends that asteroids could function as a refuge when Earth collapses. In contrast, the lecturer's stance is that these astronomical bodies are smaller than Earth, so there is not enough mass to carry all humans. He notes that the low gravity of asteroids could potentially damage the bones and muscles of the human body.

Hi, thank you so much for this video. It is super helpful. Here's my attempt at this integrated writing question. It would be amazing if you could provide some feedback. Thanks a lot!! The reading passage and the lecture hold conflicting opinions on whether or not asteroid colonization is a pragmatic endeavor . The article strongly postulates that studying asteroids has a wide array of potential benefits. On the other hand, the speaker adamantly delineates that the topic in question is not cut and dry. This is because asteroid colonization is not backed up by supporting evidence that clearly indicates its advantages. First and foremost, according to the excerpt’s author, the colonization of asteroids could have massive scientific uses. This is because gaining knowledge about the conditions of asteroids through colonizing them could precipitate several breakthroughs in different scientific fields of study. Nonetheless, the lecturer offsets the arguments made by the passage by asserting that the lack of knowledge on asteroids in the status quo means that we don’t know the extent of asteroids’ scientific value. Indeed, the points brought by the article conspicuously lack rigor as humans currently don’t know crucial facts about asteroids that will help us determine the actual benefits of studying them, such as the number of asteroids and their surface conditions. On top of this, the instructor in the listening indicates that the economic potential of asteroid colonization is questionable as we don’t possess any information on the costs and benefits of extracting minerals and resources from asteroids. For example, it is not known whether or not there are large quantities of resources on these objects. We also don’t understand the exact worth of substances contained in asteroids. These claims refute the author’s insinuation of the potential of economic growth due to asteroid colonization. Lastly, the text points out that asteroid colonization may be essential for ensuring the longevity of humans as they provide a safe haven after earth-shattering catastrophes. The speaker counters this claim by insisting that living on asteroids is unsustainable. This is because asteroids have small masses that cause them to have a low gravity. Needless to say, human inhabitants need to think carefully about the design of shelters on asteroids in order to deal with the lack of strong gravitational pull. Surviving with reduced levels of gravity could incite numerous negative implications, such as the travel difficulties and the weakening bone and muscle health. To sum it up, living on asteroids in the long term can be deemed a bleak notion due to the various difficulties associated with it.

Thank you for useful contents! I’m wondering if it’s important to mention the reading if I want to get a relatively high score. official sample answer given by ETS roughly doesn’t mention the reading at all. So the sample answer made me quite confused.

thank u! really good

Thank you Michael for your valuable work🎉 could you evaluate my essay please. The reading and the lecture are both about Spartacus and his men, who defeated Roman oppression. While the author of the reading provides three points that made Spartacus a popular hero, the lecturer disputes each claim presented in the article. His position is that none of those arguments are based on accurate stories. According to the reading, Spartacus’ goal from fighting against Roman was to free his homeland with his men and to return back to their homes. In contrast, the lecturer says that this was not the only goal for Spartacus and his men, however, the first battle showed Spartacus and his men marching toward the Roman empire in order to conquer the city. Spartacus was interested mainly in revenge and wealth. Secondly, the author suggests that Spartacus was able to defeat the well-equipped Roman army with small and not skilled men, which made him a hero in people’s eyes. On the other hand, the lecturer argues that Spartacus didn’t defeat the Roman army because he was a genius, in contrast, it was because the Roman sent poorly trained army unit to the battle, not the best or the elite unit. As a result, Spartacus was able to take over them, but he was not a brilliant leader. Lastly, the reading puts forth the idea that Spartacus and his men wanted to liberate Roman from slavery. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. He notes that this is not considered as evidence. He says that in the 18th century, Europe practiced slavery and had at the same time anti-slavery movements, since people wanted to have a hero, they formed Spartacus’ story in play as a result of inspiration purposes, but it wasn’t historically real. Thanks in advance.

Thank you so much for the amazing video, can you please have a look ;) Both sources discuses the possibility of starting colonies on asteroids, while the author claims that this a good idea, the speaker disputes the claims mentioned in the article. This piece of writing will summarize how the points made in the article are challenged by the lecture. The writer first claims that asteroids can provide us with scientific research about different fields, also used as stepping stones in future missions. In the other hand, the speaker states that the lack of knowledge about asteroids will not help in these missions, we don’t know what resources we can mine and the condition of the surface. This is one way that the lecture challenges the reading. The writer next says that starting colonies on asteroids can lead to an economic growth and new industries. In contrast, the speaker argues that we can’t be sure of those economic benefits, our studies are very limited so we don’t know the types of ores as well as the cost of transporting them back to earth. This is another way that the lecture casts doubt about the reading. Finally, the writer asserts that asteroids can serve as a refugee in case of a war or a disaster that can happen on earth. The speaker challenges this change as well, he says that asteroids are not suitable for long human survival, that’s because of the absence of a gravity pole due to it small mass, he claims that this difficulties can damage human bones and muscles. This is the finale way that the lecture contradicts the reading.

I find difficulty integrating the lecture and the reading when the lecturer agrees with the auther, so please provide a sample for it.

is it better to present the lecture first as the question always states and if we do that we get a low score.

👏👏👏thank you so much

The article introduces the topic of asteroid colonization. More specifically, the writer discusses how colonizing asteroids offers lots of advantages with regard to economy, scientific development or ensuring the survival of humanity. In the listening passage, the lecturer is quick to point out that there are some serious flaws in the writer’s claims. He believes that there is hardly enough evidence to be fully on board with such an endeavor. In the reading, the author begins by describing various benefits that asteroid colonization seemingly offers when it comes to scientific research. The lecturer, however, disagrees with this viewpoint. He states that our knowledge of the subject is fairly limited: we don't know the amount of asteroids or the nature of resources they have. The author also claims that asteroid colonization is a promising undertaking in terms of economic growth. Again, the lecturer believes this might not be the case. He contends that although there may be some metals or minerals to mine, it can be prohibitively expensive to transport them back to Earth. Another reason why the author champions asteroid colonization is that it can be a viable solution or a kind of plan B to guarantee the preservation of humanity. On the other hand, the professor in the listening passage is doubtful that this is accurate. He suggests that asteroids are too small and lack enough gravity pull to be habitable so living there could be simply dangerous for humans in the long run. To sum up, both the writer and professor hold conflicting views about the opportunities presented by creating settlements on asteroids.

Hi, thanks for the video. It is really helpful! By the way, could you please grade my essay? Thanks a lot! The reading passage explores the issue of the potential benefits of asteroid colonization, and several reasons are provided in support of the argument. Although the author’s argument seems convincing, the professor casts doubt on it for the following reasons. First, the passage states that asteroids are great places to conduct experiments because of their small size, low gravity and lack of atmosphere. In addition, asteroids are regarded as the stepping stone for further missions to other planets in the solar system. However, the professor argues that people still do not have enough knowledge about asteroids such as how many asteroids exist or what resources can we find on them, making it difficult to predict the colonization benefits. Second, the statement held by the writer indicates that colonizing asteroids can create new jobs and mining the resource can cut down the need of mining on Earth. Conversely, the lecturer opposes the idea by providing a reason that we are not sure how many resources are on the asteroids nor whether it is worth transporting them back to our planet. Thus, the speaker’s argument disapproves of its counterpart in the reading passage. Lastly, the article points out that colonization is beneficial to long-term survival of humanity since people can move to the asteroids when disasters occur on Earth. Yet, the speaker strongly disagrees with the statement. He notes that it is challenging for people to get used to the low gravity on asteroids. People on asteroids have to figure out how to cope with the low gravity that makes the living condition challenging and dangerous. As a result, there is a contradiction between the passage and the speaker's point of view. To sum up, based on the evidence mentioned above, it can be clearly seen that the stances on both sides are paradoxical. While the claims in the reading seem plausible, the speaker disproves them by concrete reasons.

Hi Michael, thanks again for the videos and explainations you provide. Sending across my work for your review and feedback The article and lecture both introduce the topic of asteroid colonization. More specifically, the author in the reading passage believes there are numerous benefits of asteroid colonization due to improved feasibility, advanced technologies, and space exploration. However, the lecturer is quick to point out some serious flaws in the writer’s claim. First, the author of the reading states that the most important benefit the asteroid colonization provides is scientific potential. Furthermore, the unique environment it provides will facilitate valuable insights and help extensively for future research. In contrast, the lecturer opposes the claim by mentioning there is a lack of knowledge and information about the number of asteroids and suitable conditions. He further adds on to say, with the current available information, it is difficult to project the benefits we could gain. Second, the author sees a potential for economic growth and development with the possible rise in the number of industries and job opportunities it would create. He explains that the extraction from the Earth can be limited to preserving our natural environment, instead, the natural resources from the asteroids could be mined. However, the lecturer calls this argument into question by saying that, with limited information available, we are not sure how much resource is available up there and also, if the mining process from asteroids will be cost-effective or not. Also, the time it would require and the distance to be traveled will make it more expensive which is a difficult decision to make. Finally, the long-term survival of humanity is asserted by the author. He strongly feels asteroids could act as a potential refuge in times of disasters and nuclear war for humans. The lecturer goes on to say, that the gravitational pull that is needed is not the same which would make the daily life of humans difficult to cope with, movements will get difficult and health issues related to the bone will arise and make life uncomfortable and dangerous. To sum up, both author and lecturer hold conflicting views about the potential benefits of asteroid colonization.

Hello Michael, the video was super helpful. I would really love your feedback on the below essay, which has been written using your template. Thanks a lot for all the helpful guidelines you provide :) The reading and the lecture are both about asteroid colonization. The author of the article feels that this could be advantageous and provides three reasons for the same. The lecturer disputes the claim made in the article. His/Her position is that colonization of asteroids doesn’t provide potential benefits. According to the reading, due to their properties like small size, lack of environment, asteroids provide a capable environment to conduct scientific research. The article mentions that the research activities conducted could unravel insights from various fields. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. He claims that despite ongoing research about asteroids for hundreds of years, the knowledge about asteroids is limited. Additionally, he points out that mankind doesn’t know the count of resources or the condition of these resources on the surface of the asteroids. Secondly, the author suggests that resources extracted from asteroids would create new employment opportunities, enabling efficient growth of society. In the article, it is said that asteroid mining would reduce the dependence on Earth’s natural resources, thereby preserving the environment. The lecturer, however, asserts that although the surface of asteroids are known to contain metals and minerals, deciding the exact amount of resources present would be a moot point. He goes on to say that mining for resources on Earth could be more cost-effective than that of asteroids. Finally, the author posits that asteroids could be a refuge for mankind in the case of a massive disaster on Earth. The author contends that asteroids could also be helpful in providing information about the origin and evolution of life in the solar system. In contrast, the lecturer’s stance is that due to their small size, asteroids don’t have enough mass to generate sufficient gravitational pull. As a result, humans have to cope with low gravity on the surface. He notes that one would have serious difficulties in moving around the surface of asteroids and they could cause damage to bones and muscles of the human body.

I do appreciate your effective video. It's beneficial to me, and here, I want to confirm that the word count in the integrated writing section is 150 to 225. Isn't it?

Thank you for your video! It is so helpful for me! I would be glad if you could review my answer and give some feedback. In the lecture, the lecturer casts doubt on the possible benefits caused by colonizing asteroids, which is supported in the reading passage. First of all, the author of the reading passage states that asteroid colonization can bring significant scientific insights due to providing a unique environment. This, however, is disputed by the lecturer, who argues that it is challenging to obtain such scientific benefits from colonizing asteroids since we have little understanding of asteroids themselves. Until the information is uncovered, it would be difficult to get meaningful insights from it. Another point that the author makes in the reading is that asteroid colonization can contribute to economic growth due to mining natural resources there. On the contrary, the lecture calls into question the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of mining such materials on asteroids. It is not clear what materials are contained in asteroids and whether they are worth bringing back to Earth. Finally, it is maintained in the reading passage that colonizing asteroids could help human lives in the long term. More specifically, that could enable us to deal with serious disasters like we cannot make a living on Earth. On the other hand, the lecturer points out the health risk by living in an environment with low gravity for a long run, and claims that it is not going to work. Living in such a situation would bring serious health problems to our bones and muscles so he thinks that it is not a practical idea.

Huge appreciation from Afghanistan 🙏

I hope you can evaluate. It would be really helpful. The reading introduces the benefits of possible astroid colonization. It states that with the development of the technology the increasing possibility allow to discuss the potential advantages. However, the lecturer believes there are some problems with the benefits presented in the reading. He thinks that there are not enough supportive arguments to believe these benefits can be real. Firstly, the author claims that this will cause significant scientific improvements. Their special conditions can allow to do different experiments and can be used as a milestone in the way of other destinations. The lecturer believes that this is an assumption. He emphasizes that we still have limited information about the inside of the asteroids. Therefore, it is hard to say that they will cause important scientific developments. Secondly, the author states that the colonization will also cause economical growth with the new industries and job opportunities. Also the materials of asteroids will decrease the usage of earth’s material. However, the lecturer argues that this is also not clear. He says that we still do not know the cost of mining and transportation. So, it would not be true to say we will benefit from it. Thirdly, another benefit which the author presents is the long-term survival of humanity. He mentions that colonization of asteroids will give us a second chance to live if the conditions of earth goes south for us. The lecturer is doubtful that this is accurate. He highlights that the conditions of asteroids are not suitable for humans because they are small they do not have enough mass to create a solid gravity. To live with insufficient gravity can cause problems in bones and muscles which will make our lives on asteroids uncomfortable and dangerous.

Hello Michael, The video was superb. I have just started my preparation. Could you please rate my writing? The article and lecture both deal with the colonization of asteroids. While the author thinks that it is incredibly advantageous for three specific reasons, the lecturer opposes the author’s claims. In his opinion, these reasons do not hold water. First, the writer mentions that asteroid exploration is highly important for scientific research because it helps provide clear insight related to various academic fields. Furthermore, it is stated in the article that exploration of asteroid bodies is uniquely useful due to their physical appearance. In contrast, the lecturer argues that, despite its importance, there have been no more discoveries related to it. Also, he adds that there is a lack of knowledge about its size, its conditions, and its location. In fact, he adds that he is not aware of its scientific benefits. Second, the author claims that the study of the asteroid helps in developing the economic growth of the earth, as it is rich in mineral resources and valuable mining. He also added that mining from the asteroids prevents the overuse of the earth’s resources. The lecturer, however, points out that the asteroids do not contain valuable minerals. Additionally, he says that no one actually knows how much the resources are worth or what they're worth on earth. Also, he focuses on whether it is cost-effective or not. Lastly, the author asserts that asteroid colonization has important implications for the sustainable survival of human beings. Furthermore, the article emphasizes that it can also serve people if there is the worst condition on earth. But the lecturer claims that there is no suitable environment for the existence of human beings, as the sizes are extremely small and possess a low gravitational pull. Moreover, he also mentions that the environment doesn’t support our body, as it causes damage to the bones and muscles. So, it is an inappropriate idea in the long run.

The article introduces the topic of asteroid colonization and the various benefits of it. The lecturer disagrees with this idea and says that there are more disadvantages when it comes to making asteroids inhabitable for humans. First the author says that asteroids have a scientific capability to get exploited for colonization due to their small size, low gravity and absence of atmosphere. The professor believes that humans still do not have the required knowledge about asteroids such as the number of asteroids existing or the kind of resources they possess. He contends that this lack of understanding bridges a huge gap between envisioning colonization of asteroids and implementing it in reality. According to the writer, colonization of asteroids could help in development of economy on the earth. It would open new gates for job opportunities, establish new industries and generate revenue for the government and private sectors .The speaker, on the other hand, pints out that we are not aware of how much of metals and minerals exist on asteroids. He feels that the mining process, transportation of those minerals from the space to the earth is not the the most efficient and cost-cutting process. Also, the reading passage notes how colonization of asteroids could hep in the survival of human race in case of a disaster or nuclear war and help us learn about the origin of the solar system. The professor rebuts this argument. He emphasizes the fact that asteroids are relatively small and they do not have a strong gravitational pull as that on the Earth. This would make moving around on the asteroid troublesome for the people and also become a cause of many bone related issues in human being. To sum up, the author and the professor hold conflicting views about asteroid colonization. Hey, could you please grade my writing and give your feedback.

Hi! Thank you a lot for this video. How would you rate this essay? The article and the lecture are about the colonization of asteroids. The author provides three reasons why colonizing asteroids could provide benefits for humanity. Nevertheless, the lecturer disputes the claims made in the article. He points out that the advantages of exploring asteroids are not that clear. According to the reading, the colonization of asteroids could have benefits in many scientific fields. The article mentions that research about it could provide valuable information to different academic subjects. On the other hand, this argument is challenged by the lecturer. He claims that there is a lack of knowledge about asteroids and that the benefits of exploring them are still unclear. For instance, the lecturer explains that are many doubts about how many asteroids exist and what real benefits their exploration could provide. Secondly, the author suggests that colonizing asteroids could lead to economic growth. In the article, it is said that there is room for resource extraction, which could provide financial benefits for companies and governments. In contrast, the lecturer asserts that the economic advantages of exploring asteroids are not clear. He notes that there is a lack of knowledge about the real efficiency of bringing these minerals and metals to Earth, because of the possible high costs of this transportation. Moreover, he explains that exploring these resources on Earth could be more efficient. Finally, the author points out that asteroids could possibly represent a chance for a long-term existence of humanity. He explains that asteroids could be a future refuge in case of collapse in Earth. The lecturer’s stance, however, is that there might not exist a suitability for humans on asteroids. He goes on to say that low gravity could represent a big challenge for human lives, such as possible bad impacts on bones and muscles.

The passage explains the advantages of colonizing asteroids. Whereas the lecturer explains that those advantages are not supported by evidence. He explains some of the reasons. I will explore the points made by the lecturer and the author in the following paragraphs. At first, the author of the passage states that colonizing asteroids is advantageous for scientific research. At the same time, the speaker claims that asteroids may not be beneficial for scientific research. There needs to be more knowledge about the asteroids. Though it has been decades, people don’t know what resources asteroids contain. So, it is not sure what kind of scientific advantages asteroids give. Secondly, the passage says that asteroid colonization is beneficial in the aspect of economic growth. Mining in asteroids can reduce the need to extract materials on Earth. Whereas the lecturer asserts that people don’t know how much mineral exists in the asteroid. Moreover, it is not sure whether sending back mining material to the earth is cost-effective or not. Thirdly, the author mentions that asteroid is beneficial for the long-term survival of humanity. Nevertheless, the lecturer says that asteroid is unsuitable for long-term survival due to low gravity. It is challenging to move around in the asteroid. Additionally, It is harmful to bones and muscles. Can you please rate this?

Hello Micheal. Could you please rate my essay? Thanks. The article and the lecturer discuss asteroid colonization. Whilst, the author claims that the colonization of asteroids is certain to produce benefits, the lecturer thinks otherwise; he states that there are no significant evidences to back up the author’s claims. First, the author points out that asteroids provide us with a great opportunity for performing scientific research. Furthermore, he adds that asteroids could be used as the basis for future exploration of distant planets like Jupiter and Saturn. In contrast, the lecturer asserts that even though we have spent decades in space exploration and study, we still lack knowledge about asteroids. We don’t have information on the number of asteroids present in the solar system or the resources present on asteroids and the conditions on asteroids. Thus, without a proper understanding of such facts, we cannot derive scientific benefits from asteroid colonization. Second, the author posits that asteroid colonization has the potential for economic growth. He adds that mining for resources provides job opportunities to people and also adds to the economy of the government and private enterprises. However, the lecturer calls into question the author’s argument by stating that we can’t predict the economic benefits obtained from asteroids; as we don’t have the required information about the resources of asteroids. He adds that there are no answers to questions like the amount of resources present, the value of the commodities after they are transported to the earth or is this mining of resources on asteroids cost-effective than conventional mining on the earth. Finally, the author mentions that such colonization contributes to the long-term survival of the human race. Asteroids can act as a temporary shelter for humans when the earth suffers from different catastrophes. Nevertheless, the lecturer opposes the author by stating that asteroids are not suitable place for humans to live. Moreover, most of the asteroids are small in size and don’t have enough mass to develop a strong gravitational force. This causes problems in human lives; the person finds difficulty in moving and also the low gravitational force affects the bones of the body.

Hello, I really appreciate your videos. The contents help a lot, especially for students who do not attend specific TOEFL courses. Here we can at least check on our errors and improve based on your suggestions. Could you please grade my essay? Both the reading and the lecture discuss asteroid colonization. While the reading says that it is a good idea as it provides us with many advantages, the lecture expresses a contrasting view, maintaining that the writer’s claims are not supported by evidence. First, the reading claims that asteroid colonization is of great benefits for scientific fields regarding research and prospective work. However, the lecturer insists that due to our ignorance of certain aspects of the asteroids, it is challenging to predict these profits. Indeed, there are still many questions about them that remain unanswered. Next, the reading asserts that asteroid colonization stimulates the development of the economy owing to the fact that asteroids contain natural resources that can be used as alternatives for the use of the earth resources. This mining process also contributes to job creation. In contrast, the lecture argues that the amount of the exploitable parts of asteroids are still unknown. In addition, the lecturer further explains that it is still unclear whether the transportation from space to earth is worth it, when it comes to cost efficiency, compared to the traditional method. Finally, the reading states that colonizing asteroids can expand humans’ life span, in that asteroids can serve as a shelter in case of catastrophic events happening on earth, and they can provide essential information about how life was formed. On the other hand, the lecture points out that asteroids are not livable because of their narrow size and low gravity. Hence, never can they be suitable for human life.

Hi Michael. I really appreciate what you are doing. Could you grade my essay? Thanks! The reading and the lecture are both about the idea of colonizing asteroids. The author of the reading feels that starting colonies on asteroids could provide many potential benefits and should be of great interest to the humanity. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. He is of the opinion that there is not enough supporting evidence for the claims made in the reading. To begin with, the author argues that exploring and colonizing asteroids has scientific potential. The article mentions that, given the unique environment of the asteroids, research of the asteroids can provide valuable insights in different academic field. This specific claim is challenged by the lecturer. He claims that it is difficult to predict what scientific benefits asteroid colonization would provide. Additionally, he claims that many important facts such as what resources they contain, the number of them, and conditions on the surface are still unknown. Secondly, the writer suggests that asteroid colonization provides the opportunity for economic growth and development. In the article it is said that natural resources mining on asteroids could provide new job opportunities which would have significant economic impact and reduce the resource exploitation on the Earth. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning that it is not clear how much of the valuable resources such as metals and minerals the asteroids contain. Additionally, the author believes the value of resource mining on asteroids is unknown due to the inability to estimate the costs of mining in space and transportation of resources to earth. Finally, the author posits that asteroids could provide a potential safe place for humans to inhabit in the events of large-scale disaster on Earth. In contrast, the lecturer's position is that the asteroids are too small in size and mass and thus have very low gravity. He notes that this would make moving around very difficult and could cause significant damage to the bones and muscles of the potential inhabitants.

thanks a lot for your amazing video. could you please give me fiedback. it is very valuable to me. my writing: The reading passage and lecture are about asteroid colonization, which is a scientific subject. The author of the reading claims that this issue offers many potential benefits for humans. However, professors in the lecture do not support it, and three reasons mentioned in the reading will be discussed. According to the reading passage, scientific potential is one of significant asteroid colonization’s advantages. However, the professors challenge this claim that in terms of science, it could not be beneficial due to the limited reliable sources, knowledge, and life in asteroids. Additionally, regarding potential scientific issues, due to the natural resources offered, the author of the reading mentions that economic potential is another benefit of colonization in asteroids. In contrast, the lecture challenges this belief. He argues that there is no certain data about the number of natural resources, and besides that, the cost of transportation should be considered. Moreover, the reading discussed that asteroid colonization has a positive impact on long-term living for humans, like surviving in natural disasters or nuclear war. On the other hand, this theory is not acceptable by professor. He discusses that many of these asteroids are not big enough, and due to lack of suitable gravity, they cause many problems such as health problems and make uncomfortable living situations for individuals

Thanks for your effort, if you don't mind can you rate my essay? The reading and the lecture are about the possible colonization of asteroid. The author thinks that this is a good idea for three main reasons. On the other hand, the speaker in the listening does not believe that the author’s claims are accurate and attacks each of the reasons made in the article. Firstly, the author states that colonization would be beneficial because of scientific potential. Specifically, he claims that on asteroid there is a unique environment to carry out some vital experiments which will be much easier due to asteroid’s small size, low gravity, and lack of atmosphere. Moreover, writer delves deeper and states that colonization of asteroids would be great for other fields of studies as well. The speaker in the lecture, however, rebuts. He says that there is a lack of information of how many of them are and what sort of conditions are on the surface of the asteroid. He also adds that no one knows if living on asteroid is beneficial for humanity. Second, according to the article, there are great economic advantages such as economic growth and reduction of unemployment rate. The author states that mining of the asteroid’s natural sources would be the cause of the mentioned list above. Furthermore, according to him, mining on the asteroid would reduce the need of mining on the Earth. The lecture challenges this idea as well. He claims that we do not know how much of the materials exist on the asteroid and even though how much they would cost on the Earth. Finally, the author claims that asteroids are great for long-term survival for humanity, and it would be a great solution as a refuge in the critical situations like for disasters or even for nuclear war. In contrast, the lecturer thinks there are flaws in the author’s claims. He states that asteroids are not suitable for humans and its mass would not support the gravitational force. As a result, it would be uncomfortable for humans to live there and dangerous as well, because moving there would be challenging which could cause some injuries to people.

Hi, here is my response to the question Both the reading passage and lecture talk about colonizing asteroids. While the passage tells us about the benefits of asteroid colonization, the lecturer opposes the arguments posited by the author in the passage. Firstly, the reading text tells us that asteroids can provide unique environment for scientific research and can be a stepping stone for future space missions to planets like Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. However, the lecturer feels that we do not have complete knowledge about the environment of asteroids. We lack complete information about the details like number of asteroids, the resources available and the conditions. So, according to the lecturer, in order to perform scientific research, we need more understanding of asteroid environment. Secondly, the author of the passage talks about the potential growth and development of economy and decrease in resource extraction from Earth due to asteroid colonization. On the other hand, the speaker feels that this growth and development in economy cannot be predicted. There are metals and minerals on the asteroid surface, but we do not the quantity or worth of these metals and minerals. Further, the lecturer thinks that the idea of mining and transporation being cost effective is uncertain. Lastly, the passage asserts that asteroid colonization would be suitable for long term humanity survival. In contrast, the lecturer feels that the small size and less mass of asteroids would affect the gravitational pull thereby making it difficult for humans to survive. It can cause damage to the muscles and bones and movement would become difficult. All in all, the lecturer feels that survival on asteroids would be dangerous in the long run. Please let me know the places where I can improve Thank you!

Hello Michael, the video is very helpful. I would really love your feedback on the below essay !! Thanks a lot for all the helpful guidelines you provide :) The article and the lecture both deals with the colonization of asteroids. While the author claims that the idea of colonizing the asteroids being pragmatic explaining its potential benefits, the lecturer opposes the author’s claims. In his opinion, there is no substantiate evidence that asteroids can be colonized. Firstly, the author talks about the scientific potential of space exploration and its unique environment for scientific research with its small size, low gravity and lack of atmosphere which would provide valuable insights. Furthermore, it is stated in the article that the study of asteroids would open gates to future missions on other destinations on solar system like mars, Jupiter. In contrast, the lecture refutes the claims of article that there is very little knowledge on asteroids, what are the resources available, whether there can be life on asteroids, and we need better understanding on asteroids and its colonization. Secondly, the author mentions that colonization of asteroids will lead to the economic growth and development. With the natural resources found, New industries will be established which would provide more job opportunities and revenue. On top of that, he also emphasizes that it would also reduce the burden on our planet on earth and reduce the dependency on earth for natural resources. However, the lecture calls this argument into question by saying that there is very meagre knowledge about it extraction and also we don’t know whether it’s cost effective and feasible to extract minerals from asteroids. In addition, he also remarks about long term survival of humanity and it would be refuge in times of disaster or any catastrophe. Furthermore, he stresses that it could provide information on evolution and origin of solar system and existence of life on earth. As opposed to the author, the lectures holds that survival of humanity on asteroids is not suitable and sustainable. Asteroids has very low mass and low gravity, existence of large amount of minerals which all culminates into dangerous environment for humans in asteroids and questions the survival of humans in asteroids.

i wish iran was not sanction so that i could pay you

The reading and the lecture both deal with the reliability of asteroid colonization. Whilst the author of the article thinks that it actually has the propitious side for three specific reasons, the lecturer opposes the author’s claims. In his opinion, lack of evidence of those benefits demonstrates the fact that this colonization is not credible. First, the author claims that one paramount benefit from asteroid colonization is increasing scientific research opportunities. Furthermore, it is stated in the article that asteroids are able to pave the way for scientists for future expeditions. In contrast, the lecturer argues that lack of information about asteroids does not let scientists fully conduct their research. Additionally, he maintains that there is no possibility to talk about future missions without gaining the knowledge of asteroids. Second, the author mentions that asteroid colonization lead to the economic development due to the specific resources that contribute to the innovations of diverse industries. On top of that he adds that extraction of those natural resources gives an opportunity to protect the Earth’s environment. However, the lecturer calls this argument into question by saying that having those resources does not necessarily mean a tremendous rate of them or that they are worthwhile. Further, he remarks that there is no evidence that they are effective as Earth’s resources are. Finally, the author asserts that asteroids can provide humanity with reliable survival. In fact, the closer people will get to the asteroids, the more information they will acquire from them, so it is valuable in any case. As opposed to the author, the lecturer holds that asteroids can not be suitable for humanity for surviving, since there are enormous differences in environment and gravitational systems. He highlights that nowadays it is not possible to alter the asteroid in a way that will be comfortable for all people.