A.
Simon
1. We cannot help everyone in the world that needs
help, so we should only be concerned with our own
communities and countries.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this
statement?
Some people believe that we should not help people in other countries as long as there are problems in
our own society. I disagree with this view because I believe that we should try to help as many people as
possible.
On the one hand, I accept that it is important to help our neighbours and fellow citizens. In most
communities there are people who are impoverished or disadvantaged in some way. It is possible to find
homeless people, for example, in even the wealthiest of cities, and for those who are concerned about
this problem, there are usually opportunities to volunteer time or give money to support these people.
In the UK, people can help in a variety of ways, from donating clothing to serving free food in a soup
kitchen. As the problems are on our doorstep, and there are obvious ways to help, I can understand why
some people feel that we should prioritise local charity.
At the same time, I believe that we have an obligation to help those who live beyond our national
borders. In some countries the problems that people face are much more serious than those in our own
communities, and it is often even easier to help. For example, when children are dying from curable
diseases in African countries, governments and individuals in richer countries can save lives simply by
paying for vaccines that already exist. A small donation to an international charity might have a much
greater impact than helping in our local area.
In conclusion, it is true that we cannot help everyone, but in my opinion national boundaries should not
stop us from helping those who are in need.
(280 words, band 9)
2. Genetic engineering is an important issue in society
today. Some people think that it will improve people’s
lives in many ways. Others feel that it may be a threat
to life on earth. Discuss both these views and give
your own opinion.
It is true that genetic engineering is a key area of modern scientific research, with broad implications for
all human societies. While I accept that this field of technology may have its dangers, I believe that the
benefits of genetic engineering outweigh the drawbacks.
The negative implications of genetic engineering are often discussed in terms of two key areas, which are
food production and the cloning of humans. Genetically modified crops are already being grown, and
people are concerned that they may damage whole ecosystems as foods become resistant to diseases
and natural predators. But perhaps even more worrying is the possibility that humans could be modified
or cloned. Some people imagine a world in which cloned humans are used to fight wars or to provide
body part replacements. Although perhaps not a threat to life on earth, the implications of such
practices would be unprecedented.
A more optimistic prediction, and one that I favour, is that humans will find ways to mitigate the risks
and use genetic technologies in a responsible way. From the food production perspective, genetic
engineering could be the solution to famine in developing countries, if, for instance, crops can be grown
more reliably in harsh conditions. From a medical perspective, scientists may use genetic engineering to
produce vaccines, to cure diseases, or to correct a genetic defect before a child is born. If properly
regulated, even cloning can be done in a way that improves lives. For example, the cloning of individual
organs, such as a heart or kidney, could be permitted for transplant purposes.
In conclusion, I am convinced that genetic engineering will have a positive impact on our lives, and that
people's fears will be unwarranted.
(283 words, band 9)
https://www.ielts-simon.com/ielts-help-and-english-pr/2019/11/ielts-writing-task-2-genetic-
engineering-essay.html#comments
3. Some people believe that it is more important to
teach children the literature and history of their own
country, rather than the literature and history of
other countries. To what extent do you agree or
disagree?
People have different views about the teaching of national versus global literature and history in
schools. Personally, I support the idea that children should study first and foremost the great
books and historical events of their own countries.
There are several reasons why I believe that schools should focus on teaching national
literature and history. Firstly, children enjoy learning about where they live, and by studying the
ideas, culture and history of their own countries they begin to develop a sense of identity. At the
same time, this approach is appealing to parents, who studied the same books and historical
events and can therefore help their children with school work. English children, for example,
read Shakespeare and learn about the Battle of Hastings just as their parents did, and there is
educational continuity across the generations. Finally, an emphasis on national literature and
history gives educators a narrower teaching scope, making curriculum design an easier task.
By contrast, the study of global events and foreign novels could cause unnecessary difficulty
and confusion for school pupils. For example, I do not see the point in presenting Russian or
Chinese history to a British child who has not yet studied the history of his or her own country in
detail. Surely the child would be more able to comprehend historical events that took place in
London than those that happened in Moscow or Beijing. Similarly, any exposure to international
literature is likely to require the teaching of a foreign language or the use of translations. Young
people at primary or secondary school age are simply not ready for such complications.
In conclusion, I would argue that it is undesirable for schools to cover aspects of foreign history
and literature; they should ground their pupils in the local culture instead. (297 words)
4. Caring for children is probably the most important job
in any society. Because of this, all mothers and
fathers should be required to take a course that
prepares them to be good parents. To what extent do
you agree or disagree with this view?
It is true that parents shoulder a huge responsibility and that raising children is by no
means an easy task. However, I completely disagree with the idea that we should
therefore force all mothers and fathers to attend parenting courses.
In my opinion, the idea that all future parents should take a parenthood preparation
course is completely impractical. Many prospective parents have jobs and busy
schedules, and they may not be willing or able to attend regular parenting classes. This
raises the question of whether those who missed the classes, or perhaps refused to
attend, would be punished. I believe that it would be wrong to do this, and it would
therefore be impossible to enforce the idea of compulsory training for parents. Besides,
even if parents could be forced to attend, I doubt that people would agree on what good
parenting entails, and so it would be difficult to create a parenting course to suit
everyone.
As well as being impractical, I would argue that training courses for parents are
unnecessary. Mothers and fathers have been raising children without any formal help or
official interference for thousands of years. Parenting skills are learnt from family
members, friends, neighbours and the surrounding culture. Perhaps more importantly,
adults learn to be good parents by instinct, by trial and error, and by getting to know
their own children; for example, a good parent will try different strategies when faced
with a badly-behaved child, and will gradually develop an understanding of what works
to correct the behaviour. None of this requires the intervention of a taught course.
In conclusion, while compulsory parenting lessons might seem like a good idea, I
believe that such a scheme would be unworkable and largely pointless. (288 words)
https://www.ielts-simon.com/ielts-help-and-english-pr/2018/08/ielts-writing-task-2-parenting-
course-essay.html#comments
5. Some people think that employers should not care
about the way their employees dress, because what
matters is the quality of their work. To what extent do
you agree or disagree?
In the modern workplace, dress codes are changing as employers focus more on results than
on the rules that employees must follow. While I agree that the way people dress should be
seen as irrelevant in many work contexts, I believe that dress codes still exist for good reason in
certain professions.
On the one hand, many employers have stopped telling their staff how to dress, and I see this
as a positive trend. Some of the most successful companies in the world, including technology
giants like Google and Facebook, are famous for the relaxed office environments that they try to
create. Employees are encouraged to dress casually, and even the company executives and
leaders are rarely seen wearing anything other than T-shirts and jeans. However, while
managers and programmers are free to dress how they like, they are expected to produce work
of outstanding quality. It is clear from the performance and global dominance of such companies
that strict dress codes are completely unnecessary in the technology sector.
However, I would also argue that rules regarding employees' clothing are still relevant in other
work situations. We expect certain professionals, such as nurses, police officers and airline
pilots, to wear uniforms. These uniforms may have a practical or safety function, but perhaps
more importantly they identify the person’s position or role in society. Similarly, a lawyer,
politician or school principal may choose to wear formal clothing in order to portray an image of
authority, trustworthiness and diligence. I believe that most of us prefer to see these
professionals in smart, formal attire, even if it is not strictly necessary.
In conclusion, I support the trend towards relaxed dress codes for workers, but I do not see it as
applicable to all occupations or sectors of the economy.
https://www.ielts-simon.com/ielts-help-and-english-pr/2018/05/ielts-writing-task-2-dress-code-
essay.html#comments
B. Cambridge Grammar for IELTS
1. Governments spend millions of dollars each year on their space programmes. Most
recently, Mars is the focus of scientists’ attention. Some people think this money
would be better spent on dealing with problems closer to home.
Do you agree or disagree?
There is always going to be a discussion about the amount of money that is spent on space exploration.
Scientific studies of the moon and the planets may provide information that is useful for us on earth.
However, some people believe this cannot justify the huge amount of money spent on space research
when there is a greater need for it here.
In the past, different countries used space exploration to compete with each other. For example, the US
and the USSR raced each other to see who could put a man on the moon first. It would have been much
easier and cheaper if they had pooled resources and information, and made a joint expedition into
space. Fortunately, nowadays this is happening more and more, and thus less money overall is being
wasted.
Nevertheless, some critics believe that all money given to space exploration is wasted. They argue that if
the millions of dollars spent on space research were put into health and education programmes around
the world, many lives would be signinficantly improved. It is certainly likely that if this money were
invested in crop development in different parts of the world, we could save many more lives in countries
where people do not have enough food. It is very difficult to argue against these criticisms.
In my opinion, we need a balance between how much money is spent on space exploration and how
much money is invested into solving problems here on earth. With continued co-operation between
nations over space travel more will be achieved for less money. This should leave more money to spent
on problems at home. (272 words)
2. School children are becoming far too dependent on computers. This is having an
alarming effect on reading and writing skills. Teachers need to avoid using
computers in the classroom at all costs and go back to teaching basic study skills.
Do you agree or disagree?
Nowadays, modern technology has totally changed our approach to study. In many countries students
no longer have to copy notes by hand from the blackboard; instead the teacher gives them a photocopy.
Rather than messy ink and pen, students present a typed-up copy of their assignments. Their computer
even checks their spelling as they go. In fact, some people believe that modern technology does a lot of
our thinking for us and, as a result, we are losing our ability to think for ourselves.
In my opinion, spelling skills have definitely deteriorated in recent years. So many young people use
mobile phones to send text messages where speed and conciseness are more important than spelling or
grammar. Some teachers complain that these students take the same attitude towards their written
assignments.
On the other hand, typed assignments are much easier to read are much neater. Frankly, I find some
notes or texts which are handwritten almost impossible to read. Doctors, for example, have often had a
reputation for illegible handwriting, which could lead to disastrous medical mistakes. Perhaps it is time
we focused not on handwriting but on presenting information as accurately as possible.
One advantage of computers is that access to the Internet has opened up a world of learning to us. We
no longer have to wait for a book that has already borrowed from the library before we can do our
research. In fact, the Internet can clearly be used to research information in the same way as a library
but more conveniently.
On the whole, rather than holding students back, I believe modern technology has actually improved
standards of education considerably. (275 words)
C. Complete IELTS
1. Some modern artists receive huge sums of money for the things they create, while
others struggle to survive. Governments should take steps to resolve this unfair
situation. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Artists, like many creative people, have to work hard to survive on the income they receive from selling
their products. Some artists become popular and can charge a lot of money for their work, while many
others never achieve success. I think there are good reasons why this happens, and there is nothing that
governments can or should do about it.
Generally, people are willing to pay for something that they admire and would like to own. In the case of
art, this may be because they feel something is unique, or is exceptionally beautiful of skilful. Whatever
the reason, I would agree that it would be quite unfair for any government to prevent the artist from
asking a high price for it. Surely, the public has to decide what something is worth, even if it means that
less admired artists find it hard to earn a living?
In many respects, artists are like business people. Those who can sell a lot of their work develop a
reputation and can raise their prices over time. This may seem unfair to others who remain unknown,
but if they choose to continue with a career in art, it seems they must accept the situation. In most
cases, popular artists have spent years developing their skills, studying their subject and exhibiting their
work. Why should a government deny them the earnings they have worked so hard to achieve?
Ultimately, people have to be free to spend their money as they wish. If this means that some artists
have to make the difficult choice of finding another way to earn a living, no one can alter that fact. After
all, not much in life is fair! (282 words)
2. Graduates who cannot find work in their chosen field should be
advised to do a second degree, rather than taking a job that
does not interest them.
To what extent do you agree with this statement?
These days, it can be difficult to get a good job when you leave university. Many more students are
studying for degrees, so the job market is very competitive. Some people believe that it is better to take
a second degree if you cannot secure suitable employment. But I tend to think it depends on your
circumstances.
The first consideration is finance. Universities charge high fees for their courses, and in some countries it
can cost up to $25,000 to do a first degree. Although some students are fortunate in that their parents
can fund their studies, many others have to borrow the money and then repay it when they start
working. In my view, it is not a good idea to recommend that these students continue this situation,
particularly if they have no real desire to study further.
I think we now have to accept that there are not always enough jobs to go round. So the second
consideration is that it might be better to be patient, start at the bottom and work your way up the
career ladder. This is what my father did, and it definitely gave him a fuller understanding of his chosen
field. On the other hand, a second degree may be a natural progression for students who wish to enter a
certain profession or to pursue a research based career. If they can afford the course without getting into
debt, it may be advisable for them to carry on with their studies, especially in the current economic
climate.
Ultimately, the decision may be a difficult one. However, I feel that those who do not really want to
continue studying or cannot afford it should not be encouraged to do so. Unless you had already planned
to do a postgraduate course, it could turn out to be much better if you start working, whatever the
status or salary. (314 words)
D. Study4
1. Many people feel it is a waste of money to try to save endangered animal species, for
example the tiger or the blue whale.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? (BÀI TẬP)
Many people argue that spending money on conserving endangered animals, such as tigers and blue
whales, is an unnecessary expense. They believe that with so many human challenges to address, it is
better to prioritize those issues over saving wildlife. This essay will explore both sides of this debate and
explain why I believe preserving endangered species is essential.
It is often argued that with so much suffering in the human population these days, it is wrong to use up
precious resources on animals. Taking the example of the tiger, proponents of this view say that to
encourage tiger populations to increase in areas farmed by humans would be morally wrong because
peoples’ livelihoods would be destroyed for the sake of an animal. The tigers will hunt livestock and,
given the chance, humans as well. In other words, where there is competition between humans and
animals in a given habitat, it is right that humans should win. The point is also made that, over millennia,
certain species have disappeared while others have flourished, and that we should allow nature to take
its course and let failing species die out. In fact, it is suggested that protecting vulnerable species
damages the ecology of the earth because only the fittest should survive.
I agree that human life is always of greater value than animal life. However, I feel that trying to save any
creature from extinction enhances human existence, because our lives would be diminished if
fascinating and beautiful creatures such as tigers or elephants were lost forever. Furthermore, being the
most powerful creature on the planet means that we have a moral and ethical duty to care for weaker
species. Finally, even less-appealing animals such as insects and amphibians should be preserved,
because maintaining different species promotes biodiversity. It is possible, for example, that scientists
might be able to find products from these animals of benefit to humans, such as medicines or fertilisers.
On balance, I feel that every effort should be made to save as many species as possible, for practical and
moral as well as aesthetic reasons. (348 words)
2. A country’s museums should always be free for people to visit, whatever the visitor’s
age, income or nationality.’
To what level do you agree with this idea? Should museums always be free for all
visitors? (BÀI TẬP)
Museums are a vital part of any nation's cultural life, and high visitor numbers is are a desirable
indicator of their health and popularity. However, it seems to me that making museums universally free
is unnecessary, and even counter-productive, in our effort to make them more attractive.
For one thing, we should remember that many potential visitors to museums are able to pay an
admission charge and would not object to this. For example, in London, we see many thousands of
wealthy tourists who have paid large sums to travel, and for whom a modest entry charge would be no
inconvenience. Indeed, applying a small fee would enable museums to collect revenue which could be
used to conserve the exhibit, extend the collections and put on further displays and so on. This would in
turn make the institution more attractive, so that more visitors arrive. The Guggnheim museums in the
USA and Europe are an interesting example of museums which constantly refresh their content in this
way. Finally, we should remember that not all museums are publicly owned, and indeed there are
numerous small, private institutions (for example in Russia or the Middle East) which rely on entry fees
to survive. Abolishing such fees would be vastly expensive in terms of state subsidies, and would surely
have little impact on visitor numbers.
Admittedly, I agree with those who say that universally free museums is a symbol of an equal and
advanced society, showcasing national heritage and learning for everyone. However, the use of
affordable entry fees (certainly with exemptions for children, the unemployed, students and others) may
well add to the museums' effectiveness as such showcases.
Overall, I feel that modest charge is justifiable, and indeed useful, in our effort to broaden access and
improve our museums, providing that nobody is excluded on one ground of cost. (310 words)
3. It is important for everyone, including young people, to save money for their future.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Saving money is crucial for everyone, including the youth, as it provides a solid foundation for their
future. I fully support this viewpoint due to the financial stability and sense of independence it provides.
The main reason why I support setting aside money for the future is that it ensures financial security.
Accumulating savings provides a safety net for any unexpected expenses such as medical emergencies or
unemployment. Consequently, having a financial cushion ensures that individuals can handle life’s
uncertainties and avoid running into debt. For instance, a friend of mine earned money throughout his
university years by working part-time as a teaching assistant and always put at least 10% of his earnings
into his savings account each month. When his father unexpectedly suffered a heart attack, he had
sufficient money to pay for his medical bills instead of resorting to high-interest loans. Indeed, prudent
saving offers stability in the face of unexpected financial stress, thereby avoiding any disruptions to daily
life.
Moreover, I believe that having savings allows individuals to become more independent. Specifically, it
promotes a sense of financial freedom, empowering people to make significant life decisions based on
their own needs and aspirations without being influenced by immediate financial constraints. For
example, my friend comes from a low-income household, but he desired to pursue graphic design as a
career. Hence, he saved money throughout his teenage years by tutoring young children in Math. By the
time he reached university, he was able to buy himself a desktop computer to follow his dreams.
Undoubtedly, saving money for the future can promote a greater sense of individual independence.
In conclusion, I am strongly in favour of setting aside money for the future, especially for young people.
Financial security and individual independence are invaluable for individuals of any age. Therefore,
cultivating the habit of saving money early in life is essential for ensuring a stable and prosperous future.
4. Companies should pay higher salaries to CEOs and executives compared to other
workers.
To what extent do you agree or disagree? (BÀI GIẢNG)
The proposal to increase the pay gap between company management and ordinary workers is a
contentious matter. I view this notion somewhat favorably because it represents fairness and fosters
productivity; however, it may negatively impact workers' morale.
The main reason I support corporate executives enjoying a greater salary remuneration lies in the
significance of their position. The top brass of a company often assumes crucial responsibilities, such as
ensuring the its profitability of the company and training lower-level employees to encourage them to
strive towards collective success. For example, my boss oversees the operations of our English center,
with job duties such as assigning classes to teachers and checking the quality of lesson plans.
Meanwhile, teachers, such as myself, only have to teach the students in our respective classes. Thus, it
can be fair for companies to provide these individuals with higher pay to financially reward them for
their contributions.
Furthermore, I consider it favorable because it boosts work productivity. The significant difference in
income could encourage positive competition between employees, motivating them to work harder and
more creatively to increase their chances of receiving a promotion. This not only allows them to increase
their pay but also contributes to the company’s overall performance.
However, I acknowledge the possible adverse effect that a substantial pay gap may have on workers'
morale. In many companies, top-level managers and CEOs earn huge sums of money while those who
work under their management are only entitled to limited salaries. With the increase in living costs,
many employees would struggle to afford basic necessities, This could cause exacerbating feelings of
unfairness and partiality within working environments, demotivating those employees and decreasing
their job satisfaction.
In conclusion, I largely agree with paying top management significantly more than other workers. This is
due to the importance of their roles and the potential improvements to company performance, despite
the risk of lowering employee morale. Therefore, corporations should implement a fair wage structure to
ensure top contributors feel adequately compensated.
5. ‘The use of software makes it unnecessary for people to know how to spell words correctly
these days.’
Is this a statement that you agree with? To what extent do you agree or disagree? (BÀI TẬP)
Almost everyone uses software to create texts these days, and we all find
the ‘spellcheck’ type features useful. However, it would be unwise for people to
completely ignore learning how to spell properly by themselves, for reasons which I will explain here.
Firstly, although we mostly use typing devices, there will always be occasions when we need to
write manually or without the support of software. This may be in examinations, which are still
mostly handwritten, or when writing letters or notes on paper, or filling in forms. It is essential, for
example, that police records or medical notes, which are often quickly completed by hand, are
accurately and clearly composed. Secondly, understanding spelling is an integral part of learning a
language and the various ways that it can be used. Most educators would agree, for example, that it is
impossible to divorce spelling from grammar and syntax as part of a rigorous approach to literacy.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the whole process of learning and distinguishing different sounds
and spellings is a vital part of a child’s mental development, involving the complex relationship between
hearing, sight, thought and the writing process itself. To say that this relationship is ‘unnecessary’ is
to neglect some of the most fundamental stages in human development which have driven our progress
for the past five thousand years, since the era of hieroglyphics and primitive inscriptions. It is true that
the use of software is an invaluable tool, and may well have a role in the process of teaching children to
use computers and improving their work accordingly. However, this means that it is
a supporting facility, not a replacement for human thought.
In conclusion, I feel that a knowledge of spelling is essential, both for practical reasons and to support
the development of a person’s mind as they learn to read and write, with all the mental benefits
which stem from that. It seems that software is highly unlikely to replace the human mind in this very
important respect.
E. Mindset for IELTS Level 3
1. In many countries around the world, life expectancy is increasing.
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this situation and give your own opinion .
There has been a remarkable increase in life span of people in most countries around the globe over the
past decades but living nearly a hundred years has both upsides and downsides. This essay will discuss
them, including the problems of some countries contend with their aging population and how the
elderly support future generation with their life experience. Overall, I think the drawbacks outweigh the
benefits.
The main disadvantage of the increased life expectancy is the burden on the social welfare, in terms of
finance and healthcare capacity. It is obvious that caring with the elderly consumes long-term
expenditure because chronic diseases are more common among people aged over 50. In some
developed countries, incomplete social insurance system leaves behind freelance workers who would
place finance pressure on their children when they have reached their retirement age.
On the other hand, it is arguable that when grandparents live longer, their wisdom may be transferred to
grandchildren in a longer period. Valuable lessons from their real life experiments taught within the
family are more fruitful than any other outsourcing educators.
Generally speaking, I feel that life expectancy is one of greatest human achievements as per the
development of social healthcare services, however, life quality of aged people should be considered
because of the capacity of social.
F.MC IELTS
1. Young people today spend too much money and time following fashion trends (clothing,
technology). To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It has become popular in recent years that the young invest money in
clothing to be fashionable. While appearance enhancement gives them
more opportunities, I believe that wasting money excessively on clothes
has negative impacts on society.
Investing money in clothing to improve personal appearance gives people
in early adulthood more oppportunities. There is an increased chance for
young professionals of having a good job, particularly for those who work
in the hospitality industry where the appearance of the staff is critical.
Similarly, these young working adults are more likely to be promoted,
offered higher income, and overall achieve professional goals.
Furthermore, being dressed smartly makes young people feel reassured by reassure
boosting their self-confidence. As a result, they are more likely to be
successful in social relationships because others admire and prefer to
associate with them as they find them very attractive.
Nevertheless, irresponsibly maitaining the latest fashion has negative
impacts on society. The main issue is that this would burden the budgets
of young people because many of them just spend money on fashionable
clothes instead of courses such as foreign language, or IT, for example, to
improve their essential skills. Society will therefore have generations who
are stylish but ignorant and unskillful. Another negative effect would
include the rise in youth crime rate (1) in the manner that young people
simple steal expensive brands instead of buying them. They are
subsequently able to sell these clothes to (2) support unhealthy habits, such as sustain
drug abuse that might cause an increasing number of psychological
disorders and sequentially (3) new waves of violence.
In conclusion, having a good appearance through smart investment in
clothes will give young people many opportunities, otherwise, this would
have negative impacts on society.
(1) wordy
(2) introduce the example before being so direct about a particular one
(3) arguablly idiomatic
2. Some people believe that nuclear weapons benefit the world at large.
To what extent to do agree or disagree?
Recent decades have witnessed the rapid development and deployment of
(8)
nuclear weapons worldwide. The utilisation of (2) such weapons [nuclear
power] in the military has brought undeniable advantages, namely the
reinforcement of national security. Nevertheless, mass extermination is a
concerning ethical issue regarding the deployment of nuclear weapons.
(1)
First, The foremost reason to weaponize the military with nuclear
(5)
weapons is the enhancement of national security. [Not only will assaults
(4) the potential for mass destructions
from enemies be promptly intercepted] but
deterent (n)-răn
[nuclear weapons] will also be a deterent to extended conflicts. Therefore,
đe
countries possessing nuclear weapons do not need to be (3) ‘paranoid’ paranoid
about the probability of being invaded. Thus, they can concentrate more
on other vital sectors such as the economoy, healthcare, and education to
increase the living quality of their citizens. For example, the armed forces
of superpowers, namely the United States and Russia are almost (3) invicible
‘invincible’ due to the elite equipment and (6)superior mighty nuclear capacity.
Nonetheless, full-scale destruction is the predominant objection toward
the deployment of nuclear weapons. Unlike other offensive weapons, deployment :
nuclear weapons can cause extensive damage to human lives and assets. triển khai
Moreover, the survivors of a nuclear bombardment often suffer from (9)
bombardment
"lingering" detrimental health issues, namely cancer. For example, since
the nuclear disasters in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, individuals living in (7) those lingering: dai
two regions are still afflicted by fatal health problems. The radiation dẳng
afflict
emanated from the detonations penetrated through the soil where they
emanate
plant their crops and the water that they drink. detonation
To summarize, the adaptation of nuclear weapons in armed forces is
favourable for the security of a nation. Conversely, the utilization of such
weapons in wars has brought severe impacts on human health. Therefore,
nuclear attacks should be adverted and denounced. (276 words)
(1) it’s actually more advanced without ‘First’ – ask me (the marker)
(2) Nuclear power can have a different meaning than nuclear weapons so it’s better not to use it
(however, if you say “America is a nuclear power” it means America has nuclear weapons) –
ask me
(3) Nice use of quotes
(4) Try to reduce the use of this term a bit
(5) This is inaccurate – ask me
(6) Avoid “emotional” diction
(7) You need “those” here
(8) Overuse of “nuclear” and “weapons”
(9) OK but maximum 3 times using quotes like this in a short essay
TR 8 C&C 8 LR 7 GR 9
Due to error (4) I can still give a 9 here
because error (7) can be
viewed as a “slip” that a
native speaker might
make
