Science has greatly transformed human history and our environment. It is evident that,

thanks to science, human life has significantly improved.

Therefore(,) some people believe that the most important value of science is to make people’s lives better.

However, I will argue that despite this advantage, science should not just focus on human-centered

development because it can also threaten the sustainability of human lives.

Undoubtedly, science has enhanced the understanding of the world, catalyzing remarkable progress

in technology or the medical field. People could solve the critical problem such as food scarcity

and control of pests and diseases. The consequence is that their life expectancy has been expanded

(have increased) and the quality of lives has also been improved(have improved).

-> 문맥상, 현재완료 수동태보다는 'life expectancy has increased and the quality of life has also improved' 인

현재완료로 사용하는 것이 더 적절한 것 같습니다.

As for me, I benefit daily from the high-technology like Internet and electronic devices,

which have brought convenience and communication to a world (the world).

-> world 는 관사 the 와 함께 쓰입니다. 이 경우에 to the world 대신에 worldwide 단어로 대체 가능합니다.

However, the pursuit of technological developments comes to at expense of the environment.

The current world-wide issues like abnormal climate change and emergence of new kinds of

diseases are the result of human-centered usage of science. Admittedly, as science helped people

overcome their food problem by progress in agriculture, the whole biodiversity drastically declined.

Scientists warn that these phenomena would cause loss of sustainability of human lives in the long term

Therefore, I believe that science should aim to improve and sustain the entire ecosystem, not just humans.

Given the severity of environmental challenges like pollution and global warming,

the scientific effort should be to recover these situations. For instance, research dedicated to

preserving endangered species and recovering their numbers and diversity is the urgent work for

maintaining ecological balance. 

-> 하이라이트 친 부분들이 틀린 표현들은 전혀 아니지만, 에세이를 작성할 때 'like' 이라는 표현보다는

'such as' 와 같이 조금 더 포멀한 표현을 많이 사용합니다. 또한 더 높은 고득점을 위하여 'numbers' 보다는

조금 더 명확하게 지칭하는 단어인 'populations' . 마지막으로 the urgent work 도 좋지만 crucial 이라는

형용사를 사용하여 주장을 피력해보는 것도 좋을 것 같습니다.

In conclusion, despite the undeniable benefits of science on human lives, the people should acknowledge

its adverse effects to (on) the whole surrounding world. The future scientific endeavor(s)

should be strive not only develop but also ensure the sustainability of the whole life of earth. 

-> 'should not only strive to develop but also ensure the sustainability of all life on Earth.'

not only와 but also 위치 확인

Many people argue that working for a part-time job is helpful for university students.

=>I agree, to a large amount, about that statement. -> 이런 경우에는 콤마로 나누지 않고

"I largely agree with this statement." 로 작성해주시는 것이 더 깔끔할 것 같습니다.

아니면 맨 처음 문장에 붙여서 "... ,which I largely agree with this statement" 로 써주셔도 좋을 것 같습니다!

Part-time job(s) can suggest many social experiences to the students.

First, it would teach them to have responsibility for being adults in various ways.

(would teach 라고 쓰는 것이 틀린 것은 전혀 아니지만, 에세이를 작성하는 경우에는

자신이 말하고자 하는 주장을 더 확실히 하기 위해 would 와 같이 ~할 수 도 있다라는

표현보다는 그냥 직접적으로 would 를 제외하고 'teach'라고 써주시면 더 좋을 것 같습니다)

For example, my friends and I met all kinds of people while working in a restaurant and

faced embarrassing circumstances. Then, we could (위에랑 동일) learn how to approach

wisely in bad situations, or the way to solve the issue with strict customers.

Actually, in that process, we felt a significant mindset growth.

--> ('We developed a significant mindset growth' 가 더 명확하고 영어적 표현입니다)

I believe that life lessons through hardship are more valuable for students than any other things.

(-> 고득점을 위해서는 other things 같은 단어보다는 더 명확하게 풀어서 지칭해주면 좋을 것 같습니다.

이런 경우에 other things 대신 'educational lessons' 등을 사용할 수 있겠습니다.)

In this regard, those times could become a great cornerstone to our future employment and social role.   Furthermore, students can directly learn how precious the money is, and how to set their budget.

In fact, I don’t overspend my own budget, after I had a part-time restaurant job.

Through working hard for a long time, I really appreciated my parents for supporting me

and felt how difficult earning money is. Secondly, students can have more opportunities

because their available spending range is extended. They can invest in stocks, deposit income,

or travel to other countries. I think these students with diverse experience(s) will advance more

than someone who just keeps academic activities only.

In conclusion, even though independently earning money as a student can be difficult,

it is clear that this can lead students to have responsibility, good spending habits, and a healthy mind. Also additional funds available for students to do what they really want.

(Also도 좋지만 moreover 이라는 표현이 전체적인 문장에 더 잘 어울릴 것 같습니다 :) )

For this reason, I strongly believe that working a part-time job is good for college students.

Recently, the influx of people moving to cities has been the subject of heated debate. Some people assert that the decline of rural populations is a negative development, while others argue otherwise. And I wholeheartedly agree with the former stand. In the following essay, both views will be discussed before a conclusion is reached with my opinion.

On the one hand, those who claim the idea that increase in urban populations is a positive development do so for several reasons. Proponents of this argument insist that if more people gather in cities, it will provide more opportunities for young people to be employed in various sectors. As a result, cities can become more developed and improved. Another argument is that rapid development in cities can help the country gain a competitive edge in the world.

My opinion, however, is that the benefits of remaining keeping rural population are more significant. Perhaps the most pressing problem is that as population in the countryside decreases, there are would be fewer chances to refine rural society. To be more specific, because only old people will remain in the countryside, while young people move to cities, it can halt fundamental developments. Another grave issue is that as many areas will become neglected, so the agriculture and livestock industries might could fail. To combat these problems, governments should give equal attention to rural areas, launching campaigns to raise public awareness.

In conclusion, it is undeniable that there are a variety of opinions about this topic. However, after considering this matter in a careful manner, I fully support the view that retaining population in the countryside is crucial.