Currently, many believe that the ultimate aim of science would be to enhance people’s living standards. From my perspective, I strongly concur with this sentiment due to the collective good. On the one hand, it is true that war-related science innovations would intensify huge losses to numerous countries. A lot of buildings, facilities and infrastructures would be easily flattened, which leads to the destruction of nations. As a result, those developments have left huge unrecoverable consequences to many developing countries. Instead of destroying each other’s nations, the government could allocate their funds to innovate new technology, which would improve people’s lives. Most of their funds would be used for developing agriculture and vaccines. Covid 19 would be a prime example. In covid 19 pandemic, thanks to the contribution of scientists, covid-19-vaccine was created and distributed to humans, eradicating the deadly disease and saving countless lives. Furthermore, science can provide solutions to environmental challenges. Climate change poses a significant threat to the planet, and scientific breakthroughs in renewable energy and sustainable agriculture can mitigate its effects. By investing in research and development in these areas, we can create a more sustainable future for generations to come. For that reason, there is no denying that science development could be used for saving and enhancing individuals’ lives instead of wasting time and money on war. On the other hand, it is crucial to acknowledge the potential risks associated with certain scientific advancements. Many individuals argue that the development of technology such as AI would lead to a new form of criminal such as cyber crime. For example, cybercrime would misuse AI to forge many individuals’ features such as voice and face to deceive other people. As a result, a lot of individuals were deceived by these crimes. In conclusion, it is undeniable that scientists should prioritize raising people’s living standards, although it has some tradeoffs. Despite this, in my opinion, scientists could more focus on developing new technologies for citizens while the problems would be prevented by government such as raising individuals’ awareness, increasing privacy, and restricting others’ use.
Currently, many believe that the ultimate aim of science would be to enhance people’s living standards. From my perspective, I strongly concur with this sentiment due to the collective good.
On the one hand, it is true that war-related science innovations would intensify huge losses to numerous countries. A lot of buildings, facilities and infrastructures would be easily flattened, which leads to the destruction of nations. As a result, those developments have left huge unrecoverable consequences to many developing countries. Instead of destroying each other’s nations, the government could allocate their funds to innovate new technology, which would improve people’s lives. Most of their funds would be used for developing agriculture and vaccines. Covid 19 would be a prime example. In covid 19 pandemic, thanks to the contribution of scientists, covid-19-vaccine was created and distributed to humans, eradicating the deadly disease and saving countless lives. Furthermore, science can provide solutions to environmental challenges. Climate change poses a significant threat to the planet, and scientific breakthroughs in renewable energy and sustainable agriculture can mitigate its effects. By investing in research and development in these areas, we can create a more sustainable future for generations to come. For that reason, there is no denying that science development could be used for saving and enhancing individuals’ lives instead of wasting time and money on war.
On the other hand, it is crucial to acknowledge the potential risks associated with certain scientific advancements. Many individuals argue that the development of technology such as AI would lead to a new form of criminal such as cyber crime. For example, cybercrime would misuse AI to forge many individuals' features such as voice and face to deceive other people. As a result, a lot of individuals were deceived by these crimes.
In conclusion, it is undeniable that scientists should prioritize raising people’s living standards, although it has some tradeoffs. Despite this, in my opinion, scientists could more focus on developing new technologies for citizens while the problems would be prevented by government such as raising individuals’ awareness, increasing privacy, and restricting others’ use.
Currently, many believe that the ultimate aim of science would be to enhance people’s living standards. From my perspective, I strongly concur with this sentiment due to the collective good.
On the one hand, it is true that war-related science innovations would intensify huge losses to numerous countries. A lot of buildings, facilities and infrastructures would be easily flattened, which leads to the destruction of nations. As a result, those developments have left huge unrecoverable consequences to many developing countries. Instead of destroying each other’s nations, the government could allocate their funds to innovate new technology, which would improve people’s lives. Most of their funds would be used for developing agriculture and vaccines. Covid 19 would be a prime example. In covid 19 pandemic, thanks to the contribution of scientists, covid-19-vaccine was created and distributed to humans, eradicating the deadly disease and saving countless lives. Furthermore, science can provide solutions to environmental challenges. Climate change poses a significant threat to the planet, and scientific breakthroughs in renewable energy and sustainable agriculture can mitigate its effects. By investing in research and development in these areas, we can create a more sustainable future for generations to come. For that reason, there is no denying that science development could be used for saving and enhancing individuals’ lives instead of wasting time and money on war.
On the other hand, it is crucial to acknowledge the potential risks associated with certain scientific advancements. Many individuals argue that the development of technology such as AI would lead to a new form of criminal such as cyber crime. For example, cybercrime would misuse AI to forge many individuals' features such as voice and face to deceive other people. As a result, a lot of individuals were deceived by these crimes.
In conclusion, it is undeniable that scientists should prioritize raising people’s living standards, although it has some tradeoffs. Despite this, in my opinion, scientists could more focus on developing new technologies for citizens while the problems would be prevented by government such as raising individuals’ awareness, increasing privacy, and restricting others’ use.
Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng
-
"Currently, many believe" -> "It is widely believed"
Explanation: "It is widely believed" is a more formal and precise way to introduce a general opinion, aligning better with academic style by avoiding the informal "many believe." -
"the ultimate aim of science would be to enhance people’s living standards" -> "the ultimate goal of science is to improve living standards"
Explanation: Replacing "would be" with "is" corrects the tense to reflect a general, ongoing objective, and "improve" is more direct and formal than "enhance." -
"I strongly concur" -> "I strongly agree"
Explanation: "Concur" is less commonly used in academic writing and can sound overly formal or archaic; "agree" is more straightforward and appropriate for formal essays. -
"war-related science innovations" -> "military-related scientific advancements"
Explanation: "Military-related scientific advancements" is more specific and formal, clearly indicating the context of the science discussed. -
"huge losses to numerous countries" -> "significant losses to many countries"
Explanation: "Significant" is more precise and academically appropriate than "huge," which can be seen as informal and vague. -
"huge unrecoverable consequences" -> "substantial irreparable consequences"
Explanation: "Substantial" and "irreparable" are more precise and formal terms, enhancing the academic tone. -
"the government could allocate their funds" -> "governments could allocate their funds"
Explanation: Using "governments" instead of "the government" broadens the scope and avoids the assumption of a single government, making the statement more inclusive and formal. -
"improve people’s lives" -> "enhance the quality of life"
Explanation: "Enhance the quality of life" is a more formal and precise phrase, suitable for academic writing. -
"Covid 19" -> "COVID-19"
Explanation: Properly capitalizing "COVID-19" follows standard medical and academic conventions. -
"covid-19-vaccine" -> "COVID-19 vaccine"
Explanation: Again, proper capitalization is necessary for clarity and adherence to medical and academic standards. -
"saving countless lives" -> "saving numerous lives"
Explanation: "Numerous" is more precise and formal than "countless," which can be seen as overly dramatic and less specific. -
"science development" -> "scientific development"
Explanation: "Scientific development" is the correct term, as "science" is a noun and should not be used as an adjective. -
"wasting time and money on war" -> "diverting resources to war"
Explanation: "Diverting resources" is a more precise and formal way to describe the allocation of resources, avoiding the colloquial "wasting." -
"Many individuals argue" -> "Some argue"
Explanation: "Some" is more appropriate in academic writing, as it avoids the vague and potentially misleading "many," which can imply a larger number than intended. -
"a new form of criminal" -> "new forms of criminal activity"
Explanation: "New forms of criminal activity" is more specific and formal, avoiding the awkward and unclear "a new form of criminal." -
"cybercrime would misuse AI" -> "cybercriminals could misuse AI"
Explanation: "Cybercriminals" is a more precise term than "cybercrime," and "could" is more appropriate than "would" for hypothetical scenarios. -
"a lot of individuals were deceived" -> "many individuals were deceived"
Explanation: "Many" is more formal and appropriate than "a lot," which is too informal for academic writing. -
"could more focus on" -> "could focus more on"
Explanation: "Could focus more on" is grammatically correct and maintains the formal tone of the essay.
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 the ultimate aim of science in enhancing living standards. The first part of the essay highlights the negative impacts of war-related scientific advancements, while the second part acknowledges the potential risks of technological advancements like AI. This dual perspective shows a comprehensive understanding of the topic. However, while the essay mentions the benefits of science, it could delve deeper into how these advancements specifically improve living standards beyond just examples like vaccines and renewable energy.
- How to improve: To enhance the response, the essay could include more specific examples of how scientific advancements have directly improved living standards in various sectors, such as healthcare, education, or infrastructure. Additionally, addressing the balance between the benefits and risks of scientific advancements in a more structured manner could provide a clearer picture.
-
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The author maintains a clear position that science should prioritize enhancing living standards. This is evident in the consistent use of phrases like "I strongly concur" and "it is undeniable that scientists should prioritize." However, the conclusion introduces some ambiguity with phrases like "although it has some tradeoffs," which could confuse the reader about the author’s ultimate stance.
- How to improve: To maintain a clearer position, the author should reinforce their main argument in the conclusion without introducing qualifiers that might suggest uncertainty. A more assertive restatement of the thesis, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing living standards while acknowledging the risks, would strengthen the overall clarity.
-
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents several ideas, such as the benefits of scientific advancements in healthcare and environmental sustainability. These ideas are supported with examples, like the COVID-19 vaccine and renewable energy. However, some points, such as the risks of AI, could benefit from further development and more concrete examples to illustrate the potential consequences of these advancements.
- How to improve: To enhance the support of ideas, the author should provide more detailed examples and explanations of how specific scientific advancements have led to tangible improvements in living standards. Additionally, expanding on the risks associated with scientific advancements with real-world examples or statistics could provide a more balanced view.
-
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, focusing on the role of science in enhancing living standards. However, there are moments where the discussion of risks associated with AI feels slightly disconnected from the main argument about enhancing living standards. The transition between discussing the benefits of science and the risks could be smoother.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, the author should ensure that all points made directly relate back to the central thesis. This can be achieved by linking the discussion of risks back to the main argument, perhaps by discussing how addressing these risks is essential for ensuring that scientific advancements continue to benefit society.
In summary, the essay demonstrates a strong understanding of the topic and presents a well-structured argument. By providing more specific examples, maintaining a clearer position, developing ideas further, and ensuring all points stay closely tied to the main argument, the author could elevate their score even further.
Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7
Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 7
-
Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear structure with an introduction, body paragraphs discussing both sides of the argument, and a conclusion. The first body paragraph effectively outlines the benefits of scientific advancements aimed at improving living standards, while the second body paragraph addresses the potential risks associated with these advancements. However, the transition between the two paragraphs could be smoother. For instance, the shift from discussing the positive impacts of science to the negative implications of technology feels abrupt and could benefit from a clearer linking statement.
- How to improve: To enhance logical organization, consider using transitional phrases that explicitly connect the ideas between paragraphs. For example, after discussing the benefits of science, a sentence like "However, it is important to consider the potential downsides of these advancements" could serve as a bridge to the next paragraph. Additionally, ensuring that each paragraph has a clear topic sentence that summarizes its main idea can help guide the reader through the argument more effectively.
-
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates effective use of paragraphs, with each paragraph focusing on a distinct aspect of the argument. The first paragraph discusses the positive contributions of science, while the second addresses the risks associated with technological advancements. However, the conclusion could be more clearly separated from the body paragraphs to emphasize its role as a summary and final stance.
- How to improve: To improve paragraphing, ensure that the conclusion is clearly marked and distinct from the body paragraphs. This can be achieved by starting the conclusion on a new line and possibly using a phrase like "In conclusion" to signal the transition. Additionally, consider breaking longer paragraphs into smaller ones if they contain multiple ideas, which can enhance readability and clarity.
-
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay employs some cohesive devices, such as "On the one hand" and "On the other hand," which effectively signal contrasting viewpoints. However, the range of cohesive devices used is somewhat limited, and there are instances where the connections between sentences could be strengthened. For example, phrases like "For that reason" and "As a result" are used, but additional variety in cohesive devices could enhance the flow of ideas.
- How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, incorporate a wider range of linking words and phrases. For instance, consider using "Furthermore," "In addition," or "Moreover" to add information, and "Conversely," "Nevertheless," or "Nonetheless" to introduce contrasting ideas. Additionally, using pronouns and synonyms can help avoid repetition and create smoother transitions between sentences. For example, instead of repeatedly using "scientists," you could use "they" or "these researchers" in subsequent references.
By addressing these areas, the essay can achieve a higher level of coherence and cohesion, potentially leading to an improved band score.
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 relevant to the topic of science and its impact on living standards. Terms such as "innovations," "developing agriculture," and "renewable energy" are appropriately used. However, there are instances where the vocabulary could be more varied. For example, the repeated use of "individuals" and "a lot" could be replaced with synonyms like "people," "citizens," or "numerous" to enhance lexical variety.
- How to improve: To improve, the writer should aim to incorporate a broader array of synonyms and phrases. Utilizing a thesaurus can help identify alternative words that convey the same meaning but add variety. For instance, instead of saying "a lot of buildings," consider "numerous structures" or "many facilities."
-
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: While the essay generally uses vocabulary accurately, there are moments of imprecision. For example, the phrase "war-related science innovations would intensify huge losses" could be more clearly articulated. The term "intensify" suggests increasing something that already exists, which may not be the intended meaning in this context. Additionally, "huge unrecoverable consequences" could be simplified to "significant and lasting consequences."
- How to improve: To enhance precision, the writer should focus on the exact meaning of words and phrases. Reviewing vocabulary in context can help ensure that the chosen words convey the intended message clearly. For example, instead of "intensify huge losses," consider "exacerbate the destruction" to convey a clearer meaning.
-
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains a few spelling errors, such as "Covid 19" (should be "COVID-19") and "covid-19-vaccine" (should be "COVID-19 vaccine"). These errors detract from the overall professionalism of the writing and can affect clarity.
- How to improve: To enhance spelling accuracy, the writer should proofread the essay carefully before submission. Utilizing spell-check tools and reading the essay aloud can help catch spelling mistakes. Additionally, familiarizing oneself with common terms related to the topic, such as "COVID-19," will improve overall spelling proficiency.
In summary, while the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of the topic and employs relevant vocabulary, there is room for improvement in terms of variety, precision, and spelling accuracy. By focusing on these areas, the writer can enhance their lexical resource and potentially achieve a higher band score.
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 good variety of sentence structures, including complex sentences and conditional clauses. For instance, phrases like "Instead of destroying each other’s nations, the government could allocate their funds to innovate new technology" and "By investing in research and development in these areas, we can create a more sustainable future for generations to come" effectively showcase the writer’s ability to construct varied sentence forms. However, some sentences are overly simplistic or repetitive, such as "A lot of buildings, facilities and infrastructures would be easily flattened," which could be expressed with more sophistication.
- How to improve: To diversify sentence structures further, the writer could incorporate more compound-complex sentences and use a wider range of conjunctions and relative clauses. For example, instead of repeating "a lot of," the writer could use synonyms like "numerous" or "many" to enhance lexical variety. Additionally, varying the placement of clauses within sentences could add more interest and complexity.
-
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally maintains a high level of grammatical accuracy, with few errors. However, there are notable issues with punctuation and some grammatical constructions. For instance, "In covid 19 pandemic" should be "In the COVID-19 pandemic," as it requires the definite article and proper capitalization. Additionally, the phrase "covid-19-vaccine was created" lacks an article before "COVID-19 vaccine," which should be "the COVID-19 vaccine." The use of commas is sometimes inconsistent, such as in the phrase "such as raising individuals’ awareness, increasing privacy, and restricting others’ use," where the final comma (Oxford comma) is optional but could enhance clarity.
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, the writer should pay closer attention to article usage and ensure proper noun capitalization. Regularly reviewing punctuation rules, especially regarding commas and their use in lists or complex sentences, would also be beneficial. Practicing sentence diagramming could help in understanding the structure and flow of sentences, leading to fewer grammatical errors.
Overall, the essay is well-structured and presents a clear argument, but enhancing the variety of sentence structures and refining grammatical accuracy will further elevate the writing quality.
Bài sửa mẫu
Currently, many believe that the ultimate aim of science is to enhance people’s living standards. From my perspective, I strongly concur with this sentiment due to the collective good.
On the one hand, it is true that war-related scientific innovations would intensify huge losses to numerous countries. A lot of buildings, facilities, and infrastructure would be easily flattened, which leads to the destruction of nations. As a result, those developments have left huge unrecoverable consequences for many developing countries. Instead of destroying each other’s nations, governments could allocate their funds to innovate new technology, which would improve people’s lives. Most of their funds could be used for developing agriculture and vaccines. COVID-19 would be a prime example. During the COVID-19 pandemic, thanks to the contribution of scientists, the COVID-19 vaccine was created and distributed to humans, eradicating the deadly disease and saving countless lives. Furthermore, science can provide solutions to environmental challenges. Climate change poses a significant threat to the planet, and scientific breakthroughs in renewable energy and sustainable agriculture can mitigate its effects. By investing in research and development in these areas, we can create a more sustainable future for generations to come. For that reason, there is no denying that scientific development could be used for saving and enhancing individuals’ lives instead of wasting time and money on war.
On the other hand, it is crucial to acknowledge the potential risks associated with certain scientific advancements. Many individuals argue that the development of technology such as AI could lead to new forms of crime, such as cybercrime. For example, cybercriminals could misuse AI to forge many individuals’ features, such as voice and face, to deceive other people. As a result, many individuals have been deceived by these crimes.
In conclusion, it is undeniable that scientists should prioritize raising people’s living standards, although it has some trade-offs. Despite this, in my opinion, scientists could focus more on developing new technologies for citizens while the problems could be prevented by governments, such as raising individuals’ awareness, increasing privacy, and restricting others’ use.
