Scientists and tourists can travel to remote natural environments such as the South Pole. Do you think the advantages of this outweigh its disadvantages?

The field of science is by no means anachronistic with societal progress. In light of its huge contribution to human civilization, traveling to far-away natural lands such as the South Pole has been made possible for experts and travelers. From my perspective, I wholeheartedly believe that the merits of this trend are bound to overshadow any perceived demerits.

Admittedly, it is fathomable that letting scientists and tourists visit distant natural environments possibly results in detrimental implications in terms of environmental degradation. To illustrate, due to human activities ranging from researching to discovering, natural habitats of wild animal species tend to be adversely affected, inflicting harm or even death of some animals. The case of polar bears has perfectly exemplified this. This animal used to be found at the South Pole a decade ago, however, owing to tourism activities exploited in this area, the number of this species recorded has declined significantly in recent years, and one of the most discernible reasons for this phenomenon was issues pertaining to mental health of these animals, largely caused by noises from human activities.

Despite the aforementioned disadvantage, I am more in favor of the fact that ventures to remote natural environments would benefit the overall development. To illustrate, journeys to unprecedentedly discovered natural regions are likely to foster opportunities for ground-breaking discoveries that can redound to the nation’s benefits. For example, venturing into new nature settings presents the possibility of unhearing natural substances or nutrients available either in some plants or animals, ultimately serving as new materials for researching and creating new prevention vaccinations or curing treatments, and simultaneously contributing to the field of healthcare. Such inventions in the medical sectors are capable of addressing chronic ailments, while concurrently reducing a growing strain on the healthcare systems.

In conclusion, I reaffirm that the disadvantages of traveling to remote natural lands will be wholly eclipsed by its glaring merits in terms of seeking new ingredients for the medicine-generating process and lowering the pressure placed on the healthcare systems.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"by no means anachronistic" -> "not outdated"
Explanation: The phrase "by no means anachronistic" is overly complex and less precise. "Not outdated" simplifies the expression while maintaining the intended meaning, making it more suitable for academic writing.
"huge contribution" -> "significant contribution"
Explanation: "Huge" is somewhat informal and vague; "significant" is more precise and appropriate for academic contexts, indicating a measurable impact.
"far-away natural lands" -> "remote natural environments"
Explanation: "Far-away natural lands" is colloquial and imprecise. "Remote natural environments" is more formal and accurately describes the geographical context.
"wholeheartedly believe" -> "firmly believe"
Explanation: "Wholeheartedly" is an emotional term that may not be suitable for academic writing. "Firmly" is a more neutral and academically appropriate adverb.
"bound to overshadow" -> "likely to outweigh"
Explanation: "Bound to" is somewhat informal and less precise. "Likely to outweigh" is more formal and academically appropriate, indicating a probable but not certain outcome.
"fathomable" -> "understandable"
Explanation: "Fathomable" is typically used to describe something that can be measured or understood in terms of depth or extent, which is not the intended meaning here. "Understandable" is more appropriate for describing something that can be comprehended.
"possibly results in" -> "may lead to"
Explanation: "Possibly results in" is redundant and less formal. "May lead to" is concise and maintains the formal tone.
"adversely affected" -> "negatively impacted"
Explanation: "Adversely affected" is correct but can be replaced with "negatively impacted" for a more direct and formal expression.
"inflicting harm or even death" -> "causing harm or even mortality"
Explanation: "Inflicting harm or even death" is slightly informal and vague. "Causing harm or even mortality" is more precise and formal.
"perfectly exemplified" -> "clearly illustrates"
Explanation: "Perfectly exemplified" is overly emphatic and informal. "Clearly illustrates" is more measured and appropriate for academic writing.
"exploited in this area" -> "explored in this region"
Explanation: "Exploited" can imply negative connotations; "explored" is neutral and more accurate in this context, referring to scientific investigation.
"unprecedentedly discovered" -> "previously unexplored"
Explanation: "Unprecedentedly discovered" is awkward and less precise. "Previously unexplored" is straightforward and academically suitable.
"unhearing natural substances" -> "unknown natural substances"
Explanation: "Unhearing" is incorrect and unclear. "Unknown" is the correct term to describe substances not previously discovered or recognized.
"new prevention vaccinations" -> "new preventive vaccines"
Explanation: "Prevention vaccinations" is grammatically incorrect. "Preventive vaccines" is the correct term, aligning with medical terminology.
"lowering the pressure placed on" -> "reducing the burden on"
Explanation: "Lowering the pressure placed on" is verbose and less formal. "Reducing the burden on" is concise and maintains a formal tone.

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 both the advantages and disadvantages of allowing scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments. The author acknowledges the potential environmental degradation caused by human activities, specifically referencing the decline in polar bear populations due to tourism. This demonstrates an understanding of the negative aspects of the issue. However, the essay leans more heavily towards the advantages, particularly in the latter half, where it discusses the potential for groundbreaking discoveries and their benefits to healthcare. The balance between the two sides is somewhat skewed, as the disadvantages are not explored in as much depth.
- How to improve: To enhance the response, the author could provide additional examples or elaboration on the disadvantages, perhaps discussing other environmental impacts or social implications of increased tourism. This would create a more balanced argument and demonstrate a thorough consideration of both sides.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear position that the advantages of traveling to remote natural environments outweigh the disadvantages. This position is stated unequivocally in the introduction and reaffirmed in the conclusion. The author consistently supports this stance with relevant examples, particularly in discussing medical advancements that could arise from such explorations. However, the transition between acknowledging the disadvantages and emphasizing the advantages could be smoother to reinforce the overall argument.
- How to improve: The author could improve clarity by explicitly linking the disadvantages back to the advantages. For instance, after discussing the negative impacts on wildlife, the author could argue how responsible tourism and scientific research can mitigate these effects, thus reinforcing their position.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents several ideas, particularly the potential for scientific discoveries and their implications for healthcare. The use of specific examples, such as the potential for new medical treatments derived from natural substances, effectively supports the author’s argument. However, the development of ideas could be more robust, especially regarding the disadvantages. The example of polar bears is strong, but additional supporting details or statistics could enhance the argument.
- How to improve: To strengthen the essay, the author should aim to provide more detailed examples and explanations for both the advantages and disadvantages. Including data or studies that illustrate the benefits of scientific research in remote areas, as well as more comprehensive discussions of the environmental impacts, would enrich the essay.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay remains focused on the topic of scientists and tourists traveling to remote natural environments. The author does not deviate from the main question, ensuring that all points made are relevant to the prompt. However, there are moments where the discussion of advantages could be more tightly linked to the specific context of the South Pole and its unique challenges and opportunities.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, the author could include more specific references to the South Pole throughout the essay. For example, discussing unique environmental challenges faced in that region or specific scientific research being conducted there would enhance relevance and depth.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong understanding of the topic and presents a well-supported argument. By addressing the suggestions for improvement, the author could elevate the essay to an even higher level of sophistication and balance.

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 structure, beginning with an introduction that outlines the topic and the writer’s stance. The body paragraphs are organized to first discuss the disadvantages of traveling to remote areas, followed by the advantages. This logical progression helps the reader follow the argument. However, the transition between the discussion of disadvantages and advantages could be smoother. For instance, the phrase "despite the aforementioned disadvantage" serves as a transition, but it could be more explicitly connected to the previous paragraph to enhance clarity.
- How to improve: To improve logical flow, consider using clearer transition phrases that explicitly link the two opposing views. For example, you might say, "While the disadvantages are significant, they are outweighed by the numerous advantages." This would create a more seamless connection between the paragraphs.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively uses paragraphs to separate different ideas, with each paragraph focusing on a specific aspect of the argument. The introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion are distinct, which aids readability. However, the second body paragraph could benefit from further subdivision, as it contains multiple ideas about the benefits of travel that could be elaborated upon separately.
- How to improve: To enhance paragraphing, consider breaking the second body paragraph into two distinct paragraphs: one focused on the potential for groundbreaking discoveries and the other on the implications for healthcare. This would allow for a more in-depth exploration of each point and improve clarity.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay employs a variety of cohesive devices, such as "to illustrate," "despite," and "ultimately," which help to connect ideas and maintain flow. However, the use of cohesive devices is somewhat repetitive, particularly the phrase "to illustrate," which appears multiple times. This can detract from the overall cohesion of the essay.
- How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, consider incorporating synonyms or alternative phrases. For example, instead of repeatedly using "to illustrate," you could use "for instance," "for example," or "as an illustration." Additionally, employing more complex cohesive devices, such as "in contrast" or "on the other hand," could enhance the sophistication of the writing and further clarify the relationships between ideas.

By addressing these areas for improvement, the essay can achieve a higher level of coherence and cohesion, potentially leading to a higher band score.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Lexical Resource: 7

Use a Wide Range of Vocabulary:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a commendable range of vocabulary, with terms such as "detrimental implications," "environmental degradation," and "ground-breaking discoveries" effectively conveying complex ideas. The use of phrases like "unprecedentedly discovered natural regions" and "new prevention vaccinations" showcases an ability to articulate nuanced thoughts. However, some vocabulary choices, such as "fathomable" and "exploited," may not be the most appropriate in context, which slightly detracts from the overall effectiveness.
- How to improve: To enhance vocabulary range, the writer could incorporate synonyms or related terms to avoid repetition and to provide more depth. For instance, instead of using "detrimental implications," alternatives like "adverse effects" or "negative consequences" could be employed. Additionally, diversifying the vocabulary related to environmental issues and scientific advancements would further enrich the essay.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains instances of precise vocabulary usage, such as "environmental degradation" and "chronic ailments," which accurately convey the intended meanings. However, there are moments where the vocabulary could be more precise. For example, the phrase "the case of polar bears has perfectly exemplified this" could be more effectively stated as "the decline of polar bears exemplifies this issue," which would clarify the relationship between the example and the argument.
- How to improve: To improve precision, the writer should focus on ensuring that each term accurately reflects the intended meaning. This can be achieved by revisiting sentences and considering whether simpler, more direct language could convey the message more clearly. Additionally, using context-appropriate terms will enhance clarity; for example, instead of "unhearing natural substances," the writer could say "previously unknown natural substances."
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a high level of spelling accuracy, with no noticeable errors in the majority of the text. Words such as "civilization," "significantly," and "contributing" are spelled correctly, which reflects a strong command of English spelling conventions. However, the phrase "the number of this species recorded has declined" could be clearer if rephrased to "the recorded number of this species has declined," which would also enhance grammatical correctness.
- How to improve: To maintain and further improve spelling accuracy, the writer should engage in regular reading and writing practice, as exposure to correctly spelled words reinforces memory. Additionally, proofreading the essay for grammatical structure can help catch any potential errors before submission. Utilizing tools such as spell checkers or grammar-checking software can also be beneficial.

Overall, while the essay achieves a Band Score of 7 for Lexical Resource, there are opportunities for improvement in vocabulary range, precision, and spelling accuracy that could elevate the score further.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 8

Band Score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 8

Use a Wide Range of Structures:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a commendable variety of sentence structures, including complex sentences and varied clause types. For instance, the use of phrases like "the merits of this trend are bound to overshadow any perceived demerits" showcases a sophisticated command of language. Additionally, the sentence "To illustrate, journeys to unprecedentedly discovered natural regions are likely to foster opportunities for ground-breaking discoveries" effectively employs a complex structure to convey a nuanced idea. However, there are instances where the sentence length and complexity may hinder clarity, such as in "the number of this species recorded has declined significantly in recent years, and one of the most discernible reasons for this phenomenon was issues pertaining to mental health of these animals, largely caused by noises from human activities."
- How to improve: To further enhance the variety and effectiveness of sentence structures, the writer could incorporate more compound-complex sentences that balance length with clarity. Breaking down overly long sentences into shorter, clearer ones can help maintain reader engagement and comprehension. Additionally, varying the use of introductory phrases and clauses can add further dynamism to the writing.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally exhibits a high level of grammatical accuracy, with only minor errors present. For example, the phrase "the case of polar bears has perfectly exemplified this" is slightly awkward; a more precise expression could be "the case of polar bears exemplifies this perfectly." Additionally, punctuation is mostly correct, but there are a few instances where commas could improve clarity, such as in "the disadvantages of traveling to remote natural lands will be wholly eclipsed by its glaring merits in terms of seeking new ingredients for the medicine-generating process and lowering the pressure placed on the healthcare systems," where a comma before "and" could clarify the list of benefits.
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy and punctuation skills, the writer should focus on proofreading for awkward phrasing and potential comma splice issues. Reading the essay aloud can help identify areas where clarity may be compromised. Additionally, practicing the use of punctuation in complex sentences, particularly with lists and conjunctions, will enhance the overall readability of the writing.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong command of grammatical range and accuracy, meriting a band score of 8. Continued focus on clarity, sentence variety, and grammatical precision will further elevate the quality of the writing.

Bài sửa mẫu

The field of science is by no means outdated with societal progress. In light of its significant contribution to human civilization, traveling to remote natural environments such as the South Pole has been made possible for experts and travelers. From my perspective, I firmly believe that the merits of this trend are bound to overshadow any perceived demerits.

Admittedly, it is understandable that allowing scientists and tourists to visit distant natural environments may lead to detrimental implications in terms of environmental degradation. To illustrate, due to human activities ranging from research to exploration, natural habitats of wild animal species tend to be adversely affected, causing harm or even mortality to some animals. The case of polar bears clearly illustrates this. This animal used to be found at the South Pole a decade ago; however, owing to tourism activities exploited in this area, the number of this species recorded has declined significantly in recent years. One of the most discernible reasons for this phenomenon is issues pertaining to the mental health of these animals, largely caused by noises from human activities.

Despite the aforementioned disadvantage, I am more in favor of the fact that ventures to remote natural environments would benefit overall development. To illustrate, journeys to previously unexplored natural regions are likely to foster opportunities for groundbreaking discoveries that can contribute to the nation’s benefits. For example, venturing into new natural settings presents the possibility of discovering unknown natural substances or nutrients available in some plants or animals, ultimately serving as new materials for researching and creating new preventive vaccines or curing treatments, while simultaneously contributing to the field of healthcare. Such inventions in the medical sector are capable of addressing chronic ailments, while concurrently reducing the burden on healthcare systems.

In conclusion, I reaffirm that the disadvantages of traveling to remote natural lands will be wholly eclipsed by its significant merits in terms of seeking new ingredients for the medicine-generating process and lowering the pressure placed on healthcare systems.