It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote areas with natural environments, such as the South Pole. Is this a positive or negative development?

It is acknowledged that travelling to far-flung areas with natural habitats such as the South Pole are now possible for scientists and tourists. In my perspective, I believe that this possibility is a beneficial development.

Admittedly, the drawbacks of the trend towards allowing visitors to explore untouched parts of the world are indeed evident. Chief of these is the devastation of natural habitats in order to construct accommodation for visitors. Moreover, littering is also a critical problem, which could cause environmental pollution. This can be seen in the way many people do not have the awareness to put trash in the right place, causing trash dispersing in many popular destinations. This downside, however, can be addressed easily by limiting the amount of people who can visit. For example,The Son Doong cave’s access is restricted to just 1000 visitors per year. Added to this is the fact that individuals who participate in the exploring Son Doong cave trip will be given a lesson on maintaining cleanliness to avoid impacting the natural environment. To this end, the government should enact laws about keeping natural heritage unpoluted, leading to nature conservation being taken seriously.

Despite the negatives mentioned above, I believe that letting people travel to remote parts of the world is a welcome development for several reasons. The key benefit is that scientists will have a chance to explore these untouched areas, hence, new breakthroughs might be found and will be a beneficial discovery to the scientific world. Furthermore, tourists who crave novelty can have their lifetime experience. This is because those far-flung areas are the purest parts of the earth, making them even more appealing and attractive. Additionally, by providing adults the allowance to check out these places, they could have an opportunity to know more about the natural world, see how amazing mother nature could be.

In conclusion,I consider visiting remote areas of the world to be a positive development overall because it offers tourists and researchers in science unique experiences and potential for discovering new information.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"travelling to far-flung areas" -> "traveling to remote regions"
Explanation: "Remote regions" is a more precise and formal term than "far-flung areas," which can sound slightly colloquial and vague in an academic context.
"In my perspective" -> "From my perspective"
Explanation: "From my perspective" is the correct idiomatic expression, whereas "In my perspective" is grammatically incorrect and less formal.
"Chief of these" -> "Among these"
Explanation: "Among these" is the correct prepositional phrase for listing items, whereas "Chief of these" is incorrect and awkwardly phrased.
"devastation of natural habitats" -> "destruction of natural habitats"
Explanation: "Destruction" is a more precise and academically appropriate term than "devastation," which can carry a slightly emotional connotation.
"littering is also a critical problem" -> "littering is a significant problem"
Explanation: "Critical" can imply a level of severity that might be subjective; "significant" is more neutral and appropriate for academic writing.
"do not have the awareness" -> "lack awareness"
Explanation: "Lack awareness" is a more concise and formal way to express the absence of knowledge or understanding.
"trash dispersing" -> "trash dispersal"
Explanation: "Trash dispersal" is a more formal and precise term than the colloquial "trash dispersing."
"The Son Doong cave’s access is restricted" -> "Access to the Son Doong cave is restricted"
Explanation: This rephrasing clarifies the subject and improves the sentence structure for formal writing.
"enact laws about keeping natural heritage unpoluted" -> "enact laws to protect natural heritage from pollution"
Explanation: "Protect natural heritage from pollution" is a clearer and more direct expression than "keep natural heritage unpoluted," which is awkward and incorrect.
"letting people travel to remote parts of the world" -> "allowing individuals to travel to remote regions"
Explanation: "Allowing individuals to travel" is more formal and precise than "letting people travel," which is somewhat informal.
"crave novelty" -> "seek novelty"
Explanation: "Seek" is a more formal verb than "crave," which can imply a stronger emotional desire that may not be suitable for academic writing.
"the purest parts of the earth" -> "the most pristine areas of the earth"
Explanation: "Pristine" is a more precise and academically appropriate term than "purest," which can be vague and overly simplistic.
"adults the allowance to check out" -> "adults permission to visit"
Explanation: "Permission to visit" is a clearer and more formal expression than "the allowance to check out," which is colloquial and awkwardly phrased.
"know more about the natural world" -> "gain a deeper understanding of the natural world"
Explanation: "Gain a deeper understanding" is a more formal and precise way to express the idea of learning more about something, fitting better in an academic context.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 8

Band Score for Task Response: 8

Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively addresses the prompt by discussing both the positive and negative aspects of allowing travel to remote areas, such as the South Pole. The writer acknowledges the drawbacks, such as habitat destruction and pollution, while also presenting the benefits, particularly for scientific research and tourism. The balance between these perspectives demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the topic.
- How to improve: To enhance the response further, the writer could provide a more nuanced discussion of the potential long-term consequences of both the positive and negative aspects. For instance, elaborating on how scientific discoveries might mitigate some environmental impacts could add depth to the argument.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear position that traveling to remote areas is a beneficial development. This stance is maintained throughout the essay, with the writer consistently reinforcing their viewpoint, particularly in the conclusion. However, the transition between acknowledging drawbacks and emphasizing benefits could be smoother to reinforce the overall argument.
- How to improve: To improve clarity and consistency, the writer could use transitional phrases to better connect the acknowledgment of negative aspects with the subsequent positive arguments. For example, phrases like "While there are valid concerns…" could help frame the discussion more cohesively.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents several ideas, such as the potential for scientific breakthroughs and the unique experiences for tourists. However, some points, like the environmental education provided to visitors, could be elaborated further. The examples provided, such as the Son Doong cave, are relevant but could benefit from additional context or statistics to strengthen the argument.
- How to improve: To enhance the development of ideas, the writer should aim to include more specific examples and data that support their claims. For instance, citing specific scientific discoveries made in similar environments or statistics on the positive impacts of eco-tourism could provide a stronger foundation for the arguments.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, focusing on the implications of travel to remote areas. However, there are moments where the discussion of the benefits could be more tightly aligned with the prompt. For example, the mention of tourists having a "lifetime experience" could be more explicitly connected to the broader implications of such travel on environmental awareness and conservation.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer should ensure that every point made directly ties back to the central question of whether this development is positive or negative. This can be achieved by explicitly linking each benefit or drawback to the overarching theme of environmental impact and conservation efforts.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong understanding of the topic and presents a well-reasoned argument. With some refinements in the areas of elaboration, transitions, and explicit connections to the prompt, the essay could achieve an even higher band score.

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 in favor of allowing travel to remote areas, with a well-defined structure that includes an introduction, body paragraphs discussing both drawbacks and benefits, and a conclusion. The points are generally organized logically, with the drawbacks discussed first, followed by the advantages. However, the transition between discussing drawbacks and benefits could be smoother. For instance, the shift from the negative impacts of tourism to the positive aspects feels abrupt and could benefit from a transitional sentence that connects the two ideas more fluidly.
- How to improve: To enhance logical flow, consider using transitional phrases that signal a shift in perspective, such as "On the other hand" or "Conversely." Additionally, ensuring that each paragraph begins with a clear topic sentence that outlines the main idea will help guide the reader through the argument more effectively.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay uses paragraphs effectively, with each paragraph focusing on a specific aspect of the argument. The first paragraph introduces the topic and the writer’s stance, while the subsequent paragraphs delve into the drawbacks and benefits of the development. However, the paragraph discussing drawbacks could be more clearly delineated from the benefits section, as it currently feels somewhat cramped and could benefit from clearer separation.
- How to improve: Ensure that each paragraph has a clear focus and that the transition between paragraphs is smooth. Consider starting a new paragraph when introducing a new idea or aspect of the argument. For example, the discussion on the government’s role in conservation could be a separate paragraph to emphasize its importance and provide a clearer structure.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay employs some cohesive devices effectively, such as "Moreover," "Admittedly," and "In conclusion." These devices help to connect ideas and guide the reader through the argument. However, the use of cohesive devices is somewhat limited, and there are instances where the connections between sentences could be strengthened. For example, the phrase "This downside, however, can be addressed easily" lacks a clear link to the previous sentence, making the transition feel less cohesive.
- How to improve: To diversify and enhance the use of cohesive devices, incorporate a wider range of linking words and phrases. For instance, consider using "Furthermore," "In addition," or "As a result" to create clearer connections between ideas. Additionally, varying sentence structures can improve cohesion; for example, using relative clauses or participial phrases can create smoother transitions between thoughts.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a good level of coherence and cohesion, focusing on improving transitions, paragraph structure, and the variety of cohesive devices will help elevate the score further.

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 reasonable range of vocabulary, with terms like "far-flung areas," "natural habitats," and "environmental pollution" showing some variety. However, the vocabulary is somewhat repetitive, particularly in phrases like "natural habitats" and "remote areas," which could be substituted with synonyms to enhance lexical diversity. For instance, using "isolated regions" or "pristine environments" could add variety.
- How to improve: To improve lexical range, the writer should incorporate more synonyms and varied expressions related to the topic. For example, instead of repeating "natural habitats," consider using "ecosystems" or "wildlife areas." Engaging with a thesaurus or practicing paraphrasing could help in expanding vocabulary usage.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay includes some precise vocabulary, such as "devastation of natural habitats" and "environmental pollution." However, there are instances of imprecise usage, such as "the way many people do not have the awareness to put trash in the right place." This phrase could be more succinctly expressed as "many people lack awareness regarding proper waste disposal." Additionally, the phrase "leading to nature conservation being taken seriously" is somewhat awkward and could be more clearly articulated.
- How to improve: To enhance precision, the writer should focus on clarity and conciseness in their language. Practicing rewriting sentences for clarity can help. For example, instead of "the government should enact laws about keeping natural heritage unpoluted," a more precise version could be "the government should implement laws to protect natural heritage from pollution."
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains several spelling errors, such as "unpoluted" (should be "unpolluted") and "dispersing" (should be "dispersed"). These errors detract from the overall quality of the writing and can confuse the reader.
- How to improve: To improve spelling accuracy, the writer should proofread their work carefully before submission. Utilizing spell-check tools and reading the essay aloud can help catch errors. Additionally, maintaining a personal list of commonly misspelled words and practicing them can be beneficial.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of the topic and presents coherent arguments, improvements in vocabulary range, precision, and spelling will enhance the overall quality and clarity of the writing.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 7

Use a Wide Range of Structures:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a good variety of sentence structures, including complex and compound sentences. For instance, the use of phrases like "despite the negatives mentioned above" and "the key benefit is that scientists will have a chance to explore" showcases the ability to construct more intricate sentences. However, there are instances of repetitive structures, such as the frequent use of "this is because" and "added to this," which can make the writing feel formulaic.
- How to improve: To enhance the variety of sentence structures, consider incorporating more diverse introductory phrases and clauses. For example, instead of repeatedly using "this is because," try varying it with "one reason for this is" or "an additional factor is." Additionally, integrating more passive constructions or conditional sentences could further diversify the grammatical range.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally maintains a good level of grammatical accuracy, but there are notable errors that detract from its overall quality. For instance, the phrase "travelling to far-flung areas with natural habitats such as the South Pole are now possible" contains a subject-verb agreement error; "are" should be "is" to match the singular subject "travelling." Furthermore, punctuation issues are present, such as the missing space after commas and the incorrect placement of commas before conjunctions (e.g., "In conclusion,I consider" should be "In conclusion, I consider").
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, it is essential to proofread the essay carefully, focusing on subject-verb agreement and punctuation rules. Consider practicing with exercises that target common grammatical errors, such as subject-verb agreement and comma usage. Additionally, reading the essay aloud can help identify awkward phrasing and punctuation mistakes that may be overlooked during silent reading.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a commendable level of grammatical range and accuracy, addressing the highlighted weaknesses will enhance clarity and coherence, potentially leading to a higher band score.

Bài sửa mẫu

It is acknowledged that traveling to far-flung areas with natural habitats, such as the South Pole, is now possible for scientists and tourists. From my perspective, I believe that this possibility is a beneficial development.

Admittedly, the drawbacks of the trend towards allowing visitors to explore untouched parts of the world are indeed evident. Chief among these is the destruction of natural habitats in order to construct accommodation for visitors. Moreover, littering is also a significant problem, which could cause environmental pollution. This can be seen in the way many people lack awareness of putting trash in the right place, causing trash dispersal in many popular destinations. This downside, however, can be addressed easily by limiting the number of people who can visit. For example, access to the Son Doong cave is restricted to just 1,000 visitors per year. Added to this is the fact that individuals who participate in the Son Doong cave trip will be given a lesson on maintaining cleanliness to avoid impacting the natural environment. To this end, the government should enact laws to protect natural heritage from pollution, leading to nature conservation being taken seriously.

Despite the negatives mentioned above, I believe that allowing individuals to travel to remote regions is a welcome development for several reasons. The key benefit is that scientists will have a chance to explore these untouched areas; hence, new breakthroughs might be found, which will be a beneficial discovery for the scientific world. Furthermore, tourists who seek novelty can have a lifetime experience. This is because those far-flung areas are the most pristine areas of the earth, making them even more appealing and attractive. Additionally, by providing adults permission to visit these places, they could have an opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of the natural world and see how amazing Mother Nature can be.

In conclusion, I consider visiting remote areas of the world to be a positive development overall because it offers tourists and researchers in science unique experiences and the potential for discovering new information.