Scientific research should be carried out and controlled by governments rather than private companies. Do you agree or disagree?

Although our life has been revolutionized by countless inventions and innovations that have been made by private companies or individuals, some people maintain that scientific research should only be conducted by governmental entities. In this essay, I will challenge this school of thought.
Firstly, overcontrol of governments on scientific research would be very dangerous. Science is a demanding and complicated field, so only people with expertise and experience should conduct research related to it. Independent companies often concentrate on only one or two fields, while the authority has a variety of aspects to take care of, which can lead to inaccuracy, lack of professionalism or negligence when carrying out research. As a result ,not only will this result in loss of money but people’s lives will be affected considerably if some careless mistakes are made by the government in scientific studies.
To add further credence to my assertion, I note the profound impact of non-governmental research on our lives over recent centuries. As I said, private enterprises have only one or two fields to focus on, so their products are more effective and high quality than those of the government. For instance, Novo Nordisk, which is a medical company, concentrates only on manufacturing systems and medicine relating to diabetes. This helps this company become the second largest medical corporation in the world, with the most pioneering modern systems as well as medicine.
In conclusion, it would be wrong to assume that governments should have total control over whether certain scientific projects should be carried out or not. This is because governmental interference in the world of science is fraught with peril, and lots of life-changing inventions were made by either individuals or private firms rather than state-run ones.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"our life" -> "our lives"
Explanation: The correct phrase should be "our lives" to maintain grammatical accuracy and plural agreement with "have been revolutionized."
"countless inventions and innovations" -> "numerous inventions and innovations"
Explanation: "Numerous" is a more precise and formal term than "countless," which can imply an exaggeration or lack of specificity.
"made by private companies or individuals" -> "developed by private companies or individuals"
Explanation: "Developed" is a more specific verb that accurately describes the process of creating and refining inventions and innovations.
"overcontrol of governments" -> "excessive control by governments"
Explanation: "Excessive control by governments" is more precise and formal, emphasizing the degree of control in a more academic tone.
"would be very dangerous" -> "could be detrimental"
Explanation: "Could be detrimental" is a more formal and precise expression, avoiding the colloquial tone of "very dangerous."
"demanding and complicated" -> "complex and challenging"
Explanation: "Complex and challenging" is a more academically appropriate phrase, as "demanding" can imply a subjective judgment of difficulty.
"overcontrol" -> "excessive control"
Explanation: "Excessive control" is a more formal and precise term than "overcontrol," which is less commonly used in academic writing.
"As a result,not only will this result in loss of money but people’s lives will be affected considerably if some careless mistakes are made by the government in scientific studies."
Explanation: This sentence is grammatically incorrect and awkwardly phrased. A revised version could be: "This could lead to financial losses and significant impacts on people’s lives if the government makes careless mistakes in scientific research."
"profound impact" -> "significant impact"
Explanation: "Significant" is a more neutral and academically appropriate term than "profound," which can imply a deeper or more emotional impact.
"only one or two fields" -> "a limited number of fields"
Explanation: "A limited number of fields" is more precise and avoids the informal tone of "only one or two."
"concentrate on" -> "focus on"
Explanation: "Focus on" is a more formal and precise term than "concentrate on" in this context.
"not only will this result in loss of money but people’s lives will be affected considerably if some careless mistakes are made by the government in scientific studies."
Explanation: This is repeated from an earlier point. It would be better to avoid repetition and provide new examples or arguments to strengthen the essay.
"non-governmental research" -> "private research"
Explanation: "Private research" is a more specific and commonly used term in academic contexts than "non-governmental research."
"profound impact" -> "significant impact"
Explanation: Again, "significant" is preferred for its neutrality and formality in academic writing.
"lots of life-changing inventions" -> "numerous life-changing inventions"
Explanation: "Numerous" is more formal and precise than "lots," which is too informal for academic writing.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Task Response: 6

Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay addresses both sides of the argument to some extent. It acknowledges the role of private companies in scientific research and challenges the idea of exclusive governmental control.
- How to improve: To improve, the essay should provide a more balanced and nuanced discussion of both the benefits and drawbacks of governmental versus private control over scientific research. Specific examples and evidence could be used to support these points.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a consistent stance against exclusive governmental control over scientific research. The position is clear from the introduction through to the conclusion.
- How to improve: To enhance clarity, the essay could explicitly state the position in the introduction and reinforce it throughout the body paragraphs with stronger topic sentences and transitions.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: Ideas are presented, but they lack development and specific examples to support the arguments effectively. For instance, the mention of Novo Nordisk supports the argument on private sector efficiency, but more examples and elaboration are needed.
- How to improve: To improve, include more detailed examples and evidence that directly relate to the advantages and disadvantages of governmental versus private sector involvement in scientific research. This will strengthen the argumentation.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic but could be more focused in its discussion. There are some tangential points, such as the discussion on Novo Nordisk, which while relevant, could be more tightly integrated into the main argument.
- How to improve: Focus more on directly addressing the prompt without diverging into discussions that do not directly contribute to the main argument. Ensure all examples and points directly support the overall thesis statement.

In summary, while the essay effectively argues against exclusive governmental control over scientific research, it could benefit from deeper analysis, more balanced discussion of both viewpoints, and stronger evidence to support its claims. Improvements in structure, coherence, and relevance to the topic would enhance the overall effectiveness of the response.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 6

Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay attempts to follow a logical structure with an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. However, there are some issues with coherence. For instance, the transition between paragraphs could be smoother. The essay jumps between discussing the dangers of government control and the effectiveness of private companies without clear linkage between these ideas.
- How to improve: To enhance logical organization, focus on developing a clearer structure where each paragraph directly supports the main argument. Use transition phrases or topic sentences to guide the reader through the essay’s progression.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay uses paragraphs to separate different points, but the structure within paragraphs could be more cohesive. Some paragraphs contain multiple ideas without clear separation, which can confuse the reader.
- How to improve: Aim for each paragraph to focus on a single main idea or argument. Start each paragraph with a clear topic sentence that previews the content to follow. Ensure that supporting details and examples within paragraphs directly relate to the main idea.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay employs some cohesive devices such as "firstly," "to add further credence," and "in conclusion," which help to structure the essay and indicate progression of ideas. However, the essay could benefit from more varied cohesive devices such as pronouns (it, this, these) to refer back to previously mentioned ideas or concepts.
- How to improve: Expand the use of cohesive devices beyond transitional phrases to include pronouns and synonyms that maintain clarity and coherence throughout the essay. This will help to connect ideas more seamlessly and improve overall coherence.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a basic level of coherence and cohesion with identifiable paragraphs and some cohesive devices, there are areas where improvement is needed to achieve a higher band score. Focus on refining the logical flow of ideas, enhancing paragraph structure, and diversifying the use of cohesive devices to strengthen the overall coherence and cohesion of the essay.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Lexical Resource: 6

Use a Wide Range of Vocabulary:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a fair range of vocabulary, with attempts to use varied terms such as "revolutionized," "entities," "profund impact," "inaccuracy," and "negligence." However, there is a tendency to reuse simpler words like "science," "government," and "companies," which limits the demonstration of a truly wide range.
- How to improve: To enhance vocabulary range, incorporate more sophisticated synonyms and terms specific to scientific research and governance. For example, instead of repeatedly using "science," employ terms like "scientific inquiry," "research endeavors," or "technological advancements." This can enrich the expression and precision of ideas.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay occasionally uses vocabulary precisely, such as in distinguishing "private enterprises" from "governmental entities." However, there are instances where word choice could be more precise, such as using "peril" instead of "danger," or "concentrates" instead of "focuses."
- How to improve: Aim for more precise vocabulary by selecting words that precisely convey the intended meaning. Replace general terms with more specific or nuanced vocabulary where appropriate. For instance, instead of "danger," consider using "peril," "risk," or "hazard" depending on the context to enhance clarity and sophistication.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: Spelling is generally accurate throughout the essay, with minor errors like "profund" instead of "profound" and "peril" instead of "perilous." However, these errors do not significantly detract from readability or comprehension.
- How to improve: Continue to proofread meticulously to catch minor spelling errors. Consider using spell-check tools or asking someone else to review the essay for accuracy. Developing a habit of double-checking spelling can help maintain consistent accuracy in future writings.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a sufficient level of lexical resource to achieve a band score of 6, there is room for improvement in utilizing a wider range of vocabulary and employing words more precisely. By incorporating more varied and precise vocabulary, along with maintaining careful attention to spelling, the essay can further enhance its effectiveness and sophistication in conveying complex ideas.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 6

Use a Wide Range of Structures:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a moderate variety of sentence structures. There is use of complex sentences ("Science is a demanding and complicated field, so only people with expertise and experience should conduct research related to it") alongside simpler structures ("For instance, Novo Nordisk, which is a medical company, concentrates only on manufacturing systems and medicine relating to diabetes"). However, more sophisticated structures such as conditional sentences or passive voice constructions are notably absent.
- How to improve: To enhance the range of structures, consider integrating more complex grammatical forms like conditional sentences ("If governments were to control all scientific research, innovation might stagnate") or passive voice ("Research conducted by private companies is often highly specialized and efficient"). This diversification can elevate the essay’s sophistication and demonstrate greater control over grammatical structures.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally maintains grammatical accuracy, but there are noticeable errors throughout. For instance, "Firstly, overcontrol of governments on scientific research would be very dangerous" should be corrected to "Firstly, government overcontrol of scientific research would be very dangerous." There are also punctuation errors such as missing commas and incorrect use of capitalization ("Science is a demanding and complicated field, so only people with expertise and experience should conduct research related to it.").
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, focus on consistent subject-verb agreement, proper use of articles ("the authority" should be "authorities"), and careful proofreading for punctuation errors. Reviewing grammar rules related to sentence structure and punctuation can prevent common mistakes and improve overall clarity and coherence.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a reasonable range of sentence structures and maintains basic grammatical accuracy, there is room for improvement in diversifying sentence complexity and ensuring consistent grammatical correctness. By incorporating more varied sentence structures and refining grammar and punctuation skills, the essay could achieve a higher band score in Grammatical Range and Accuracy.

Bài sửa mẫu

While our lives have been transformed by numerous inventions and innovations developed by private companies or individuals, the idea that scientific research should solely be conducted by governmental bodies is contentious. In this essay, I will argue against this viewpoint.

To begin with, excessive control by governments over scientific research could be detrimental. Science is a complex and challenging field requiring expertise and experience. Private companies often specialize in specific areas, leading to more focused and high-quality outcomes compared to government-led initiatives, which can suffer from inefficiency, lack of specialization, or even negligence. For example, Novo Nordisk, a medical company specializing in diabetes treatments, has become a global leader due to its focused approach and innovative products.

Furthermore, the significant impact of private research on our lives cannot be overlooked. Many life-changing inventions and advancements have originated from private entities rather than governmental agencies. These innovations have contributed immensely to various fields, showcasing the effectiveness of private sector involvement in research and development.

In conclusion, advocating for exclusive governmental control over scientific research overlooks the potential drawbacks of such a centralized approach. Private enterprises have demonstrated their capability to innovate and deliver impactful solutions in a way that governmental bodies often struggle to match. Therefore, a balanced approach that leverages both private and public sector strengths would likely yield the best outcomes for scientific progress and societal benefit.