Some people believe that if a police officer carries guns,it can encourage a higher level of violence.to what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is believe that the cop officer wearing guns, it can an increase in the level of violence. In my opinion, in some cases, the cop officer could be carrying guns or not.
The situation where the police officer shouldn’t be armed.The first, the police often using guns lead to many unintended harms and an increase in gun – related incidents.In particular, using guns arbitrarily could cause harm to both pretty offenders and innocent person, contributing to damage and deaths related the use of firearms.For example, the case of 17 year old youth who was shot and killed by the police for not complying with a stop order, leading to protest demonstration in france.The police might use non – lethal alternatives in their daily policing activities. Police forces could be use safer alternatives to guns such as tear gas sprays and electric shock weapons. These equipments can subdue suspects without causing lethal harm.In this way, the government can maintain public security while simultaneously reducing the result of using weapons.
I believe that police forces should be carry guns in certain cases.The first, the use of guns by police officers is necessary in emergency situations.It helps the police control criminals from a far distance, which another armed can’t do.In cases where criminals are armed, police can shot the criminals or fire a warning shot into the air to protect themselves and the public. Another cases is that the appearance of guns plays an important role serving as a deterrent to armed criminals.Police officer who are armed make criminal fearful and cause them to rethink their actions.This is make criminals understand the result of their actions is the punishment of high level, leading to reducing criminals rate and increasing social security.
In conlusion, i contend that the police officers unnecessary carrying guns in the task of their daily policing activities, guns should be used in emergency situations to protect themselve and public.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"It is believe" -> "It is believed"
Explanation: "It is believed" corrects the grammatical error and aligns with formal academic writing standards by using the passive voice, which is more appropriate in formal contexts.
"cop officer" -> "police officer"
Explanation: "Cop" is too informal and colloquial for academic writing. "Police officer" is the correct and formal term.
"wearing guns" -> "carrying firearms"
Explanation: "Carrying firearms" is more precise and formal than "wearing guns," which is vague and informal.
"it can an increase" -> "it can increase"
Explanation: "It can an increase" is grammatically incorrect. "It can increase" corrects the verb form to match the subject-verb agreement.
"could be carrying guns or not" -> "may choose to carry firearms or not"
Explanation: "May choose to carry firearms or not" is more precise and formal, specifying the agency and the action.
"The situation where the police officer shouldn’t be armed." -> "The situation in which the police officer should not be armed."
Explanation: "Should not" is grammatically correct and more formal than "shouldn’t," which is a contraction. Also, "in which" is more appropriate than "where" in this context.
"the police often using guns lead to" -> "the frequent use of guns by police often leads to"
Explanation: "The frequent use of guns by police often leads to" corrects the awkward phrasing and clarifies the subject and action.
"pretty offenders" -> "offenders"
Explanation: "Pretty offenders" is incorrect and unclear. "Offenders" is the correct term.
"innocent person" -> "innocent individuals"
Explanation: "Innocent individuals" is more formal and appropriate for academic writing than "innocent person."
"related the use of firearms" -> "related to the use of firearms"
Explanation: "Related to the use of firearms" corrects the preposition error, making the phrase grammatically correct.
"the police might use non – lethal alternatives" -> "police forces might employ non-lethal alternatives"
Explanation: "Police forces" is more specific and formal than "the police," and "employ" is more precise than "use" in this context.
"can subdue suspects" -> "can effectively subdue suspects"
Explanation: Adding "effectively" enhances the precision and clarity of the statement.
"carry guns" -> "carry firearms"
Explanation: "Carry firearms" is more formal and specific than "carry guns."
"It helps the police control" -> "It enables the police to control"
Explanation: "Enables" is more formal and precise than "helps," and "to control" is grammatically correct.
"which another armed can’t do" -> "which others cannot do"
Explanation: "Others cannot do" corrects the awkward and unclear original phrase, improving clarity and formality.
"police officer who are armed" -> "police officers who are armed"
Explanation: "Police officers" is the correct plural form, and "who are armed" corrects the grammatical agreement.
"make criminal fearful" -> "make criminals fearful"
Explanation: "Criminals" is the correct plural form, and "fearful" is the correct adjective form.
"This is make criminals understand" -> "This makes criminals understand"
Explanation: "This makes" corrects the verb tense and agreement, improving grammatical accuracy.
"the result of their actions is the punishment of high level" -> "the consequences of their actions are severe punishments"
Explanation: "The consequences of their actions are severe punishments" is more precise and formal, replacing the vague and incorrect original phrase.
"i contend" -> "I contend"
Explanation: Capitalizing "I" corrects the grammatical error and aligns with formal writing standards.
"unnecessary carrying guns" -> "unnecessary to carry guns"
Explanation: "To carry guns" corrects the grammatical structure and clarifies the necessity.
"guns should be used in emergency situations" -> "the use of guns should be restricted to emergency situations"
Explanation: "The use of guns should be restricted to emergency situations" is more precise and formal, emphasizing the limitation of gun use.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Task Response: 7

Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay addresses the prompt by discussing both sides of the argument regarding whether police officers should carry guns. The author presents a viewpoint that acknowledges the potential for increased violence while also arguing for the necessity of firearms in certain situations. However, the response could be more balanced; the first paragraph suggests a general agreement with the idea that armed officers can lead to violence, while the second paragraph presents a counterargument without fully developing the implications of this duality.
- How to improve: To enhance the response, the writer should ensure that both perspectives are equally explored and explicitly state their position on the extent of agreement or disagreement. A clearer thesis statement at the beginning that outlines the main arguments would help in addressing all parts of the question more comprehensively.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay attempts to present a clear position, but it falters in consistency. The initial statement suggests ambivalence ("in some cases"), which may confuse the reader about the author’s actual stance. The use of phrases like "I believe" indicates a personal opinion but lacks a strong, unwavering position throughout the essay.
- How to improve: The writer should adopt a more definitive stance in the introduction and maintain that position consistently throughout the essay. Using clear topic sentences that reflect the main argument of each paragraph can help reinforce the position and guide the reader through the argument.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents several ideas, such as the risks of armed police leading to violence and the necessity of firearms in emergencies. However, the support for these ideas is somewhat limited. For instance, while the example of the 17-year-old youth is relevant, it lacks depth and analysis. The argument about non-lethal alternatives is introduced but not fully developed with examples or evidence.
- How to improve: To strengthen the essay, the writer should provide more detailed examples and explanations for each point made. Expanding on the consequences of armed police and offering statistical data or studies to support claims about violence and deterrence would enhance the argument’s credibility.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, discussing the implications of police officers carrying guns. However, there are moments where the focus wavers, particularly in the transition between discussing the risks of armed officers and the benefits. The phrasing and structure sometimes lead to a lack of clarity, making it difficult for the reader to follow the argument logically.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer should ensure that each paragraph clearly relates back to the central question. Using linking phrases to connect ideas and ensuring that each point directly supports the overall argument will help keep the essay cohesive and relevant to the prompt.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a good understanding of the topic and presents relevant arguments, it would benefit from clearer structure, more balanced exploration of viewpoints, and stronger supporting evidence.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 7

Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear argument regarding the role of police officers carrying guns. The introduction outlines the topic and states the writer’s opinion, which is a good start. However, the logical flow between points could be improved. For instance, the transition from discussing the negative impacts of armed police to the justification for their use in emergencies is somewhat abrupt. The structure of the essay could benefit from clearer topic sentences that guide the reader through the argument.
- How to improve: To enhance logical organization, consider using clear topic sentences at the beginning of each paragraph that summarize the main idea. Additionally, employing linking phrases such as "On the one hand" and "On the other hand" can help clarify the contrasting viewpoints being discussed. Creating a more defined structure with an introduction, body paragraphs that each focus on a single point, and a conclusion that summarizes the arguments will improve coherence.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay uses paragraphs, but their effectiveness varies. The first paragraph introduces the topic but lacks a strong topic sentence. The second paragraph discusses the negative aspects of police carrying guns, while the third presents the positive aspects. However, the paragraphs could be more distinct and focused. For example, the second paragraph mixes multiple ideas, such as unintended harm and alternatives to guns, which could be separated for clarity.
- How to improve: Each paragraph should focus on a single main idea. Start each paragraph with a clear topic sentence that indicates what will be discussed. For instance, the paragraph on the negative consequences of armed police could start with a sentence like, "One significant concern regarding armed police is the potential for unintended harm." This will help the reader follow the argument more easily.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates some use of cohesive devices, such as "for example" and "in conclusion." However, the range is limited, and some transitions are awkward or missing. For instance, the phrase "Another cases is that" is grammatically incorrect and disrupts the flow. Additionally, the use of cohesive devices tends to be repetitive, which can make the writing feel mechanical.
- How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, incorporate a variety of linking words and phrases. For example, use "Furthermore," "Moreover," or "In addition" to introduce new points, and "However," "Conversely," or "On the contrary" to present opposing views. Additionally, ensure grammatical accuracy in phrases to maintain clarity and professionalism. Practicing the use of synonyms and varying sentence structures can also enhance the overall cohesion of the essay.

By addressing these areas, the essay can achieve a higher band score in Coherence and Cohesion.

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 moderate range of vocabulary, with some appropriate terms related to law enforcement and violence, such as "police officer," "guns," "emergency situations," and "deterrent." However, the use of phrases like "cop officer" and "pretty offenders" indicates a limited vocabulary range and awkward phrasing. The repetition of certain words, such as "guns" and "police," detracts from the overall lexical variety.
- How to improve: To enhance vocabulary range, the writer should incorporate synonyms and varied expressions. For example, instead of "cop officer," consider using "law enforcement officer" or "police personnel." Additionally, using terms like "criminals" instead of "pretty offenders" would improve clarity and precision. Expanding vocabulary through reading and practicing paraphrasing can also help.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains instances of imprecise vocabulary usage, such as "the police often using guns lead to many unintended harms," which should be rephrased for clarity. The phrase "the result of using weapons" is vague and could be more specific. Furthermore, "the appearance of guns plays an important role serving as a deterrent" could be more effectively expressed.
- How to improve: To improve precision, the writer should focus on using vocabulary that accurately conveys the intended meaning. For example, instead of "unintended harms," specify the types of harm, such as "accidental injuries." Additionally, revising sentences for clarity, such as changing "the appearance of guns plays an important role serving as a deterrent" to "the visible presence of firearms can deter potential criminals," would enhance precision.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains several spelling errors, such as "believe" (should be "believed"), "conlusion" (should be "conclusion"), "another cases" (should be "another case"), and "the result of high level" (should be "the high level of punishment"). These errors can distract the reader and undermine the overall quality of the writing.
- How to improve: To enhance spelling accuracy, the writer should engage in regular practice, such as using spelling apps or tools that provide feedback. Additionally, proofreading the essay multiple times or using spell-check software can help catch errors before submission. Keeping a list of commonly misspelled words and reviewing them can also be beneficial.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates some understanding of the topic and presents arguments, the lexical resource could be significantly improved by expanding vocabulary, enhancing precision, and correcting spelling errors. Regular practice and feedback will be crucial for achieving a higher band score in this criterion.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 5

Band Score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 5

Use a Wide Range of Structures:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a limited range of sentence structures. For instance, the use of simple sentences predominates, such as "The police might use non-lethal alternatives in their daily policing activities." While there are some attempts at complex structures, such as "In cases where criminals are armed, police can shot the criminals or fire a warning shot into the air," these are often marred by grammatical errors (e.g., "can shot" should be "can shoot"). The overall variety of sentence types is insufficient to convey nuanced arguments effectively.
- How to improve: To enhance the variety of sentence structures, the writer should practice combining simple and complex sentences. For example, instead of stating "The police might use non-lethal alternatives," the writer could elaborate: "While the police might use non-lethal alternatives, such as tear gas, they must also consider the potential consequences of their actions." Additionally, incorporating more relative clauses and conditional sentences could add depth to the writing.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains numerous grammatical errors and punctuation issues that hinder clarity. For example, "It is believe that the cop officer wearing guns, it can an increase in the level of violence" should be corrected to "It is believed that police officers carrying guns can lead to an increase in violence." There are also issues with subject-verb agreement (e.g., "police forces could be use" should be "police forces could use") and punctuation errors, such as the missing commas in complex sentences and the incorrect use of hyphens (e.g., "gun – related incidents" should be "gun-related incidents"). These errors detract from the overall coherence and professionalism of the essay.
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, the writer should focus on reviewing basic grammar rules, particularly subject-verb agreement and verb forms. Regular practice with exercises that emphasize these areas can be beneficial. Additionally, the writer should pay close attention to punctuation, particularly in complex sentences. Reading the essay aloud can help identify awkward phrasing and punctuation errors. Finally, proofreading the essay before submission can catch many of these mistakes.

In summary, to achieve a higher band score, the writer should work on diversifying sentence structures and improving grammatical accuracy and punctuation. Regular practice and careful revision will be key to making these improvements.

Bài sửa mẫu

It is believed that police officers carrying guns can increase the level of violence. In my opinion, in some cases, police officers may choose to carry firearms or not.

The situation in which the police officer should not be armed is important. First, the frequent use of guns by police often leads to many unintended harms and an increase in gun-related incidents. In particular, using guns arbitrarily could cause harm to both offenders and innocent individuals, contributing to damage and deaths related to the use of firearms. For example, there was a case of a 17-year-old youth who was shot and killed by the police for not complying with a stop order, leading to protest demonstrations in France. The police might employ non-lethal alternatives in their daily policing activities. Police forces could use safer alternatives to guns, such as tear gas sprays and electric shock weapons. These tools can effectively subdue suspects without causing lethal harm. In this way, the government can maintain public security while simultaneously reducing the risks associated with the use of weapons.

I believe that police forces should carry guns in certain cases. First, the use of guns by police officers is necessary in emergency situations. It enables the police to control criminals from a far distance, which others cannot do. In cases where criminals are armed, police can shoot the criminals or fire a warning shot into the air to protect themselves and the public. Another case is that the appearance of guns plays an important role in serving as a deterrent to armed criminals. Armed police officers make criminals fearful and cause them to rethink their actions. This makes criminals understand that the consequences of their actions are severe punishments, leading to a reduction in crime rates and an increase in social security.

In conclusion, I contend that it is unnecessary for police officers to carry guns in the course of their daily policing activities; guns should be used in emergency situations to protect themselves and the public.