Many people believe that scientific research should be carried out and controlled by government rather than private companies. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some individuals argue that governments should take responsibility for conducting and controlling scientific studies in lieu of private companies. Personally, I partly disagree with this school of thought due to several reasons that I will explain in this essay.

On one hand, there are reasons why scientific research should be carried out and controlled by governments. Initially, the government can enforce standards and regulations that safeguard against potential exploitation or harmful practices in research. This oversight helps ensure the scientific experiment is conducted responsibly, protecting both participants and the environment. Moreover, when governments take control of scientific activities, they can focus on critical issues. This is because many governments prioritize research in areas that are critical for national security, public health, and environmental sustainability. This strategic focus can lead to advancements that are crucial for societal well-being, rather than research driven by market trends.

On the other hand, I am convinced that private companies should be allowed to partake in scientific studies. This is simply because conducting scientific experiments is a costly endeavor , one that many governments do not have the budget for. Vietnam perfectly exemplifies how it is unrealistic for a number of countries to invest in scientific research. For many years, due to the limited state budget, the Vietnamese government has been unable to financially support studies in many fields, severely impedes economic growth and adversely affects the quality of citizens’ life. It would be a reasonable step for Vietnam to start granting permits to private companies so that they can participate in scientific activities. Additionally, private companies are attuned to market demands, ensuring that research aligns with practical applications and consumer needs. This can lead to the development of products and services that directly benefit society. Companies can quickly gather and utilize feedback from users to refine their study focus, ensuring that the outcomes are relevant and beneficial.

In conclusion, while some argue that governments should conduct and control the scientific studies, I believe that private companies should be allowed to partake in research due to the limited state budget in many countries and social benefits.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"Personally, I partly disagree" -> "I partially disagree"
Explanation: "Personally" is somewhat informal and redundant in this context. "I partially disagree" is more direct and maintains an academic tone.
"due to several reasons that I will explain" -> "for several reasons that I will discuss"
Explanation: "Due to" is somewhat vague; "for" is more precise in indicating the reasons that follow. "Discuss" is also more formal than "explain" in academic writing.
"On one hand" -> "On the one hand"
Explanation: "On one hand" is grammatically incorrect; "On the one hand" is the correct phrase for introducing contrasting ideas in formal writing.
"enforce standards and regulations" -> "establish and enforce standards and regulations"
Explanation: "Establish" is more precise in the context of creating or setting standards, which is clearer than "enforce" which implies enforcement after the standards are set.
"protecting both participants and the environment" -> "protecting both participants and the environment"
Explanation: This is a minor correction to ensure parallel structure in the list of items being protected.
"This is because many governments prioritize research in areas that are critical for national security, public health, and environmental sustainability" -> "This is because many governments prioritize research in areas critical to national security, public health, and environmental sustainability"
Explanation: Removing "that are" improves the flow and clarity of the sentence by avoiding unnecessary words.
"This strategic focus can lead to advancements that are crucial for societal well-being" -> "This strategic focus can yield crucial advancements for societal well-being"
Explanation: "Yield" is more precise in describing the outcome of research, and "for" is more appropriate than "that are" in this context.
"conducting scientific experiments is a costly endeavor" -> "conducting scientific experiments is a costly endeavor"
Explanation: This is a minor correction to ensure parallel structure in the phrase.
"one that many governments do not have the budget for" -> "one that many governments lack the budget for"
Explanation: "Lack" is more precise and formal than "do not have" in this context, enhancing the academic tone.
"severely impedes economic growth and adversely affects the quality of citizens’ life" -> "severely impedes economic growth and adversely affects the quality of life for citizens"
Explanation: Adding "for" clarifies the relationship between the impediment and the citizens, and "life" should be singular to maintain grammatical consistency.
"It would be a reasonable step for Vietnam to start granting permits to private companies" -> "It would be a reasonable step for Vietnam to begin issuing permits to private companies"
Explanation: "Begin issuing" is more specific and formal than "start granting," which is less commonly used in formal writing.
"Companies can quickly gather and utilize feedback from users" -> "Companies can rapidly gather and utilize user feedback"
Explanation: "Rapidly" is more formal than "quickly," and "user feedback" is a more concise and formal way to refer to the feedback from customers.
"ensuring that the outcomes are relevant and beneficial" -> "ensuring that the outcomes are relevant and beneficial to society"
Explanation: Adding "to society" clarifies the scope of the relevance and benefit, aligning with the academic style of specifying the context of relevance.

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 scientific research should be conducted by governments or private companies. The introduction clearly states the writer’s partial disagreement, and the body paragraphs present arguments for both perspectives. However, the essay could benefit from a more explicit acknowledgment of the extent to which the writer agrees or disagrees with the statement, as the prompt asks for a specific degree of agreement or disagreement.
- How to improve: To enhance the response, the writer should clarify their position more explicitly in the introduction and conclusion. For example, stating "I partially agree with the notion that…" and specifying the extent (e.g., "I believe that while governments should control certain aspects of research, private companies play a crucial role in innovation") would provide a clearer answer to the prompt.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a position that partially disagrees with the idea of government control over scientific research. However, the position could be more consistently articulated throughout the essay. The transition between discussing government control and private company involvement could be smoother, as it currently feels somewhat abrupt.
- How to improve: To maintain a clear position, the writer should use transitional phrases that reinforce their stance. For instance, after discussing the benefits of government oversight, they could explicitly state how this contrasts with the benefits of private involvement, reinforcing their partial disagreement. Additionally, reiterating their position in the conclusion can help solidify the clarity of their argument.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents relevant ideas and supports them with examples, such as the reference to Vietnam’s budget constraints. However, some points could be further developed. For instance, while the argument about government oversight is strong, it could benefit from additional examples or evidence to illustrate the potential consequences of lack of regulation.
- How to improve: To strengthen the presentation and support of ideas, the writer should aim to elaborate on key points with more detailed examples or statistics. For instance, discussing specific instances where government oversight has led to positive outcomes in research could enhance the argument. Additionally, providing a counterexample where private company-led research has failed could further substantiate the need for a balanced approach.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, discussing the roles of both governments and private companies in scientific research. However, there are moments where the focus shifts slightly, particularly in the discussion of Vietnam’s budget issues, which could be seen as a deviation from the broader implications of the argument.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer should ensure that all examples and arguments directly relate to the central question of control over scientific research. It may be helpful to frame the discussion of Vietnam within the context of how budget constraints affect the overall landscape of scientific research, rather than solely focusing on the country’s situation.

By implementing these suggestions, the essay could achieve a higher band score by demonstrating a more nuanced understanding of the prompt and providing a more cohesive and well-supported argument.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 8

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 8

Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear structure, with an introduction that outlines the writer’s position, followed by two well-defined body paragraphs that discuss both sides of the argument. The first paragraph effectively outlines the reasons for government control, while the second presents the case for private companies. Each paragraph logically progresses from one idea to the next, maintaining a coherent flow. For example, the transition from discussing government oversight to the importance of strategic focus is smooth and logical.
- How to improve: To enhance logical organization, consider using more explicit linking phrases between points within paragraphs. For instance, after discussing government focus on critical issues, a phrase like "In contrast" could be used to introduce the private sector’s advantages. Additionally, a brief summary of each paragraph’s main point at the end could reinforce the logical flow.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively uses paragraphs to separate distinct ideas, which aids in clarity. Each paragraph has a clear main idea, supported by relevant examples. The introduction sets the stage, while the conclusion succinctly summarizes the argument. However, the second body paragraph could be further divided to enhance readability, especially where different aspects of private companies’ advantages are discussed.
- How to improve: Consider breaking the second body paragraph into two smaller paragraphs: one focusing on the financial aspect of private research and another on the alignment with market demands. This would allow for a more focused discussion on each point, improving clarity and impact.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a good use of cohesive devices, such as "initially," "moreover," and "on the other hand," which help to connect ideas and indicate shifts in argument. These devices contribute to the overall coherence of the essay. However, the range of cohesive devices could be expanded to include more varied phrases and transitions, which would enhance the sophistication of the writing.
- How to improve: To diversify cohesive devices, incorporate phrases like "furthermore," "in addition," or "conversely" to connect ideas more fluidly. Additionally, using pronouns or synonyms to refer back to previously mentioned concepts can help maintain cohesion without repetitive phrasing. For example, instead of repeating "private companies," you might use "these entities" or "such organizations" in subsequent references.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong command of coherence and cohesion, meriting a Band Score of 8. By implementing the suggested improvements, the writer can further enhance the clarity and sophistication of their argument.

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 such as "conducting," "oversight," "exploitation," and "strategic focus." However, the vocabulary is somewhat repetitive, particularly in phrases like "scientific research" and "scientific studies," which could be varied to enhance the essay’s richness. The use of "critical issues" and "national security" is effective, but the overall lexical variety could be improved.
- How to improve: To enhance vocabulary range, consider using synonyms or related terms. For example, instead of repeatedly using "scientific research," you could alternate with "scientific inquiry," "research initiatives," or "scientific exploration." Additionally, incorporating more advanced vocabulary, such as "empirical studies" or "innovative solutions," could elevate the essay’s lexical sophistication.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally uses vocabulary accurately, but there are instances of imprecise usage. For example, the phrase "due to several reasons" could be more effectively expressed as "for several reasons" or "for a variety of reasons." The term "impedes" is used correctly, but the phrase "adversely affects the quality of citizens’ life" could be more precisely stated as "adversely affects citizens’ quality of life."
- How to improve: To improve precision, review phrases and word choices to ensure they convey the intended meaning clearly. For instance, consider rephrasing "due to several reasons" to avoid vagueness. Additionally, using more specific terms can enhance clarity, such as "well-being" instead of "quality of life," which is more commonly used in academic writing.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay displays a good level of spelling accuracy, with only minor errors. However, the phrase "costly endeavor , one that many governments do not have the budget for" contains an unnecessary space before the comma. Additionally, "adversely affects the quality of citizens’ life" should use "citizens’ quality of life" for grammatical correctness.
- How to improve: To enhance spelling accuracy, it is advisable to proofread the essay carefully to catch minor errors, particularly with punctuation and spacing. Utilizing tools such as spell checkers or grammar-checking software can also help identify mistakes. Practicing writing and revising essays can further improve attention to detail in spelling and punctuation.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of the topic and presents arguments effectively, improvements in vocabulary range, precision, and spelling accuracy can help achieve a higher band score in the Lexical Resource criterion.

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 sentences and conditional phrases. For instance, the use of "While some argue that…" and "This is simply because…" showcases an ability to construct sentences that convey nuanced ideas. However, there are instances of repetitive structures, particularly in the way ideas are introduced and developed, which can detract from the overall sophistication of the writing.
- How to improve: To enhance the variety of sentence structures, consider incorporating more compound-complex sentences and varying the sentence openings. For example, instead of repeatedly starting sentences with "This is because…" or "Moreover…", try using introductory phrases or clauses. Additionally, employing more transitional phrases can help to create smoother connections between ideas, such as "In addition to this," or "Conversely," which can add depth to your argumentation.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally maintains a good level of grammatical accuracy, with only minor errors. For example, the phrase "one that many governments do not have the budget for" could be more formally structured as "for which many governments do not have the budget." Additionally, there are some punctuation issues, such as the unnecessary space before the comma in "costly endeavor , one that many governments do not have the budget for." These small errors can impact the overall clarity and professionalism of the writing.
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, pay close attention to sentence structure and ensure that prepositions are used correctly. Practicing complex sentence formation can also help. For punctuation, review the rules regarding spacing and comma placement. Reading your essay aloud can help identify awkward phrasing and punctuation errors. Furthermore, consider using grammar-checking tools to catch any overlooked mistakes before finalizing your essay.

By focusing on these areas for improvement, you can work towards achieving a higher band score in Grammatical Range and Accuracy on the IELTS.

Bài sửa mẫu

Some individuals argue that governments should take responsibility for conducting and controlling scientific research instead of private companies. Personally, I partially disagree with this perspective for several reasons that I will discuss in this essay.

On the one hand, there are valid reasons why scientific research should be carried out and controlled by governments. Initially, the government can establish and enforce standards and regulations that safeguard against potential exploitation or harmful practices in research. This oversight helps ensure that scientific experiments are conducted responsibly, protecting both participants and the environment. Moreover, when governments take control of scientific activities, they can focus on critical issues. This is because many governments prioritize research in areas critical to national security, public health, and environmental sustainability. This strategic focus can yield crucial advancements for societal well-being, rather than research driven solely by market trends.

On the other hand, I am convinced that private companies should be allowed to participate in scientific studies. This is primarily because conducting scientific experiments is a costly endeavor, one that many governments lack the budget for. Vietnam perfectly exemplifies how it is unrealistic for several countries to invest heavily in scientific research. For many years, due to the limited state budget, the Vietnamese government has been unable to financially support studies in various fields, which severely impedes economic growth and adversely affects the quality of life for citizens. It would be a reasonable step for Vietnam to begin issuing permits to private companies so that they can engage in scientific activities. Additionally, private companies are attuned to market demands, ensuring that research aligns with practical applications and consumer needs. This can lead to the development of products and services that directly benefit society. Companies can rapidly gather and utilize user feedback to refine their study focus, ensuring that the outcomes are relevant and beneficial.

In conclusion, while some argue that governments should conduct and control scientific research, I believe that private companies should also be allowed to partake in research due to the limited state budget in many countries and the social benefits that can arise from their involvement.