celpip reading online course
Subject: Follow-up on Catering Issues During Executive Retreat
Dear Ms. Coleson,
I hope you’re doing well. I’m writing to share some feedback and seek clarification regarding the catering services provided during our executive team retreat at the Pinecrest Lodge on September 14–15. As you know, this event was important for both our leadership development and stakeholder presentations, so we placed a strong emphasis on ensuring that all support services—including meals—ran smoothly.
To begin, I’d like to thank your staff for their professionalism and courtesy throughout the weekend. Several attendees remarked on how friendly and accommodating your servers were, especially during the evening receptions. That said, we did experience a few issues that merit attention.
First, we noticed a discrepancy between the agreed-upon vegetarian meal count and what was actually delivered. Our final booking confirmed 18 vegetarian meals per day, but on the first day, only 12 were available, leaving six attendees without the meals they requested. Though your staff responded quickly by improvising alternatives, the substitutions were limited and not aligned with dietary restrictions noted in our file.
Second, the Sunday breakfast buffet did not include the gluten-free pastries that were promised in your pre-event confirmation. While a small detail, this was emphasized in our correspondence as essential for one of our executive guests, who has a diagnosed gluten intolerance. Unfortunately, no other suitable alternatives were prepared, which left that individual with few options.
Finally, we noticed that the final invoice includes a “menu revision fee” of $95 that was not outlined in our quote. If this charge relates to last-minute changes on your end, we’d appreciate more context before processing payment.
We’re hopeful these concerns can be addressed constructively, and we remain open to continuing our partnership for future events.
A. The concept of vertical farming—growing crops in stacked layers using controlled-environment agriculture—has gained traction as a potential solution to food insecurity and land scarcity. By cultivating plants indoors under regulated conditions, these systems claim to minimize water use, eliminate pesticides, and drastically reduce the need for transport. Though initially seen as experimental, vertical farms are now operational in major cities such as Tokyo, Singapore, and New York. Proponents argue that urban-centered production lowers environmental impact and ensures fresher produce. However, critics note that the energy required for artificial lighting and climate control can offset many of the touted environmental benefits.
B. Modern vertical farming facilities rely on a combination of hydroponics, aeroponics, and artificial LED lighting to sustain plant growth. These technologies allow for precision control over temperature, humidity, and nutrient levels, leading to faster harvest cycles and reduced crop losses. Some companies even integrate AI systems to monitor and adjust growing conditions in real time. Yet, the costs of installing and maintaining such high-tech infrastructure are substantial. For small-scale farmers or operations in developing regions, entry barriers remain high. Additionally, not all crops adapt well to vertical methods—grains, for instance, are generally excluded due to space and yield limitations.
C. The economic feasibility of vertical farming remains a subject of debate. While reduced land use and transportation costs are often cited as benefits, the upfront capital investment and continuous energy consumption present long-term challenges. In areas where electricity prices are high or renewable sources are limited, operational costs can eclipse those of traditional agriculture. Furthermore, vertical farms often focus on premium markets—selling leafy greens and herbs to upscale grocers or restaurants—raising concerns about accessibility and affordability. In this sense, the technology may unintentionally reinforce food inequality rather than solve it.
D. Despite these concerns, public and private funding for vertical farming continues to grow. Government-backed pilot programs have been launched in parts of Europe and Asia, aiming to test whether such models can supplement conventional farming during supply chain disruptions. Some cities are also exploring retrofitting vacant office buildings into indoor farms, particularly in post-pandemic landscapes. Researchers emphasize that vertical farming should not be seen as a wholesale replacement for traditional agriculture, but rather as a complementary strategy. Its effectiveness will depend on policy alignment, energy sourcing, and whether its benefits can be extended beyond niche markets.
As climate adaptation becomes a more urgent priority, some governments are considering implementing mandatory residential water usage limits during peak drought periods. While such regulations already exist in select municipalities, proposals to expand them into national policy frameworks have generated passionate debate among environmental advocates, homeowners, and policy experts alike.
Erik Dunley, a sustainability advisor for an urban planning firm, supports the idea, arguing that voluntary conservation measures are insufficient.
“We’ve seen time and again that public awareness campaigns don’t generate the reductions needed to stabilize water reserves. During the 2019 drought season, for example, cities with mandatory limits achieved triple the reduction of those relying on public appeals. If we continue to treat water as a limitless resource, we’ll face both agricultural disruption and urban supply failures. Reasonable quotas, combined with pricing incentives, can be effective without being punitive.”
Nadia Gural, a property rights advocate, strongly opposes such mandates, calling them intrusive and inequitable.
“Not every household consumes water in the same way. A family of six uses more than a retired couple, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wasteful. Blanket restrictions ignore these nuances and impose one-size-fits-all penalties. Moreover, low-income households are often the first to face enforcement—even when their consumption is proportionate. Before discussing national mandates, we need to assess infrastructure leaks, industrial overuse, and policy bias.”
Editor’s note: The debate over residential water limits touches on broader themes of resource management and personal responsibility. In some regions, tiered pricing models have proven more effective than caps, especially when paired with smart meter feedback and rebate programs for water-efficient appliances. However, implementation challenges remain, particularly in rural or underfunded districts. While supporters of regulation view it as a necessity in a warming world, critics warn that poorly designed rules may exacerbate inequality or erode public trust in government. A successful strategy, many agree, must combine policy precision with community input and data-driven flexibility.