Governments should ban dangerous sports. Others think people should have the freedom to do any sport activity . Discuss both sides and give your opinion.

Governments should ban dangerous sports. Others think people should have the freedom to do any sport activity .
Discuss both sides and give your opinion.

Opinions are divided on whether extreme sports should be banned by the government or whether people think dangerous sports should be allowed. I still share the same view with the latter.

Those who believe that the government should ban dangerous sports may have several arguments. From their perspective, those dangerous sports, such as skateboarding or rugby can easily cause people around them to get damaged or even hurt themselves or their teammate. For example, a survey shows that dangerous sports players have a shorter career than other professional players, because of injury and the survey also shows that citizens in the area in which those sports are popular have higher chances of getting damaged. Another possible argument is that banning several dangerous sports saves thousands of people 's lives. After Vietnam banned playing extreme sports in public space, the percentage of people being injured declined significantly.

Nevertheless, I still hold the belief that people should have the freedom to do any activity for several reasons. Chief among these is that it is unreasonable to prevent someone from doing something that they want to do, especially when they know the risks involved and are willing to respond to it. For example, skydiving players need to have certification before they want to skydive and usually buy a high value insurance already. The second reason is that going hand in hand with high risk is that high reward. Although most extreme sports have a high chance to get risky, the reward of those sports were higher than others. For instance the average salary of a professional boxer is higher than a badminton player's salary.

In conclusion, I acknowledge why some may argue that the government should ban dangerous sports, However I still support the latter opinion that people should have freedom to do any sport.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"Opinions are divided" -> "Views are polarized"
Explanation: "Views are polarized" provides a more precise and formal tone, indicating strong division of opinion, which is more suitable for academic writing.
"whether people think dangerous sports should be allowed" -> "whether dangerous sports should be permitted"
Explanation: Simplifying "whether people think dangerous sports should be allowed" to "whether dangerous sports should be permitted" removes unnecessary words and enhances formal expression.
"I still share the same view with the latter." -> "I still concur with the latter perspective."
Explanation: Replacing "share the same view" with "concur with" and "the latter" with "perspective" elevates the formality and clarity of the sentence.
"may have several arguments" -> "may present several arguments"
Explanation: Using "present" instead of "have" is more specific and appropriate for describing the expression of opinions or arguments in an academic context.
"get damaged" -> "sustain injuries"
Explanation: "Sustain injuries" is medically and contextually more appropriate than "get damaged," which is not typically used to describe injuries to people.
"their teammate" -> "their teammates"
Explanation: Correcting "teammate" to "teammates" ensures grammatical agreement in plural contexts.
"saves thousands of people ‘s lives" -> "saves the lives of thousands of people"
Explanation: Revising the phrase to "saves the lives of thousands of people" corrects the awkward possessive construction and enhances readability.
"After Vietnam banned playing extreme sports in public space" -> "After Vietnam enacted a ban on extreme sports in public spaces"
Explanation: "Enacted a ban on" is more formal and precise than "banned playing," and "public spaces" is grammatically correct compared to "public space."
"the percentage of people being injured declined significantly" -> "the incidence of injuries significantly declined"
Explanation: "The incidence of injuries" is a more precise and formal phrase for academic writing than "the percentage of people being injured."
"it is unreasonable to prevent someone from doing something that they want to do" -> "it is unreasonable to prohibit individuals from engaging in desired activities"
Explanation: "Prohibit individuals from engaging in desired activities" is more formal and precise, avoiding repetition and enhancing the academic tone.
"are willing to respond to it" -> "are prepared to accept these risks"
Explanation: "Are prepared to accept these risks" is clearer and more appropriate for discussing the acceptance of danger in formal writing.
"need to have certification before they want to skydive" -> "must obtain certification prior to skydiving"
Explanation: "Must obtain certification prior to skydiving" simplifies and formalizes the phrase, enhancing clarity and suitability for academic discourse.
"usually buy a high value insurance" -> "typically purchase high-value insurance"
Explanation: "Typically purchase high-value insurance" corrects grammatical errors ("a" before "high value") and uses more formal vocabulary.
"going hand in hand with high risk is that high reward" -> "accompanying high risk are significant rewards"
Explanation: "Accompanying high risk are significant rewards" provides a more formal and clear expression, avoiding colloquial phrasing.
"However I still support the latter opinion that" -> "However, I continue to support the latter opinion that"
Explanation: Adding a comma after "However" improves readability, and using "continue to support" instead of "still support" strengthens the formality and emphasis of continued support 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 adequately addresses both sides of the argument, discussing reasons why some advocate for government intervention in banning dangerous sports, as well as presenting arguments in favor of allowing individuals the freedom to engage in such activities. It acknowledges the potential risks associated with dangerous sports and provides examples to support both perspectives.
- How to improve: To further enhance the response, the essay could delve deeper into the implications of each perspective, exploring the societal, cultural, and economic factors involved in the debate. Additionally, providing more specific examples and data to support each viewpoint would strengthen the argumentation.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear position in favor of allowing individuals the freedom to participate in dangerous sports. This stance is evident from the introductory statement and is consistently supported throughout the essay.
- How to improve: While the position is clear, reinforcing it with stronger and more varied reasoning would bolster the essay’s persuasiveness. Additionally, acknowledging potential counterarguments and addressing them directly would demonstrate a more nuanced understanding of the issue.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents ideas on both sides of the argument and supports them with relevant examples, such as the impact of dangerous sports on injury rates and the potential rewards associated with such activities. However, some points could be further developed to provide a more comprehensive analysis.
- How to improve: To extend and support ideas more effectively, the essay could explore the psychological and cultural motivations behind individuals’ participation in dangerous sports, as well as the broader societal implications of government intervention in regulating such activities. Additionally, providing additional evidence and statistics would strengthen the argumentation and enhance the essay’s credibility.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay largely stays on topic by addressing the issue of whether governments should ban dangerous sports versus allowing individuals the freedom to participate in such activities. However, there are instances where the discussion could be more focused, such as when presenting examples and evidence.
- How to improve: To maintain focus on the topic, the essay should ensure that all examples and arguments directly relate to the central debate of government regulation versus individual freedom in the context of dangerous sports. Avoiding tangential points and maintaining a clear line of reasoning would enhance the coherence and relevance of the essay.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 6

Organize Information Logically:

Detailed explanation: The essay exhibits a basic structure with a clear introduction, body paragraphs discussing each view, and a conclusion reiterating the writer’s stance. However, the logical flow between ideas is occasionally disrupted by abrupt transitions and a somewhat uneven distribution of discussion between the viewpoints. For instance, the first argument for banning sports is well-supported with evidence like the survey, but similar detailed support is missing in the counter-argument section, which makes the essay feel slightly unbalanced.
How to improve: Enhance the logical flow by ensuring each paragraph transitions smoothly into the next. This can be achieved by using introductory or concluding sentences that refer back to the main thesis or forward to the next point. For example, after discussing the negative impacts of dangerous sports, a transition sentence like, "Despite these concerns, there are compelling reasons to support the freedom to engage in such activities" could bridge the sections more effectively.

Use Paragraphs:

Detailed explanation: The essay uses paragraphs to separate different ideas, which aids in overall readability and organization. Each paragraph generally begins with a clear topic sentence, such as "Those who believe that the government should ban dangerous sports may have several arguments." However, some paragraphs could be further refined to encapsulate single ideas more clearly, ensuring that each paragraph contributes to the argument in a focused manner.
How to improve: Work on structuring paragraphs so that each contains a single, coherent idea with adequate supporting details. Avoid overloading paragraphs with multiple themes. For example, separate the discussion of injury statistics and insurance details into distinct paragraphs to allow each point the space to be developed fully.

Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:

Detailed explanation: The essay utilizes basic cohesive devices such as "For example," "Nevertheless," and "In conclusion," which help in linking ideas and sections. However, the usage is somewhat limited and repetitive, which may prevent the text from flowing as smoothly as it could. The writer tends to rely on simple connectors and could benefit from varying their usage.
How to improve: Introduce a wider variety of cohesive devices and transitional phrases to enhance the connectivity between ideas and paragraphs. Instead of repeatedly using "For example," try alternatives like "For instance," "To illustrate," or "As evidenced by." Additionally, to contrast points, instead of just "Nevertheless," phrases like "On the other hand" or "Conversely" can be used to vary language and improve the readability of the arguments.

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, incorporating terms such as "extreme sports," "perspective," "survey," "certification," "insurance," "salary," among others. These lexical choices effectively convey the writer’s ideas and add depth to the discussion.
- How to improve: To further enhance lexical resource, consider incorporating more nuanced vocabulary to express ideas. For instance, instead of repeatedly using "dangerous sports," synonyms like "risky activities" or "adventurous pursuits" could diversify the language and elevate the sophistication of the argumentation.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally uses vocabulary with reasonable precision. For instance, terms like "extreme sports," "survey," and "certification" are employed accurately to convey specific concepts related to the discussion. However, there are instances where vocabulary could be more precise. For example, in the phrase "citizens in the area in which those sports are popular have higher chances of getting damaged," "damaged" could be replaced with a more precise term like "injured" for clarity and specificity.
- How to improve: Continuously refine vocabulary usage by paying close attention to context and selecting terms that precisely convey intended meanings. Utilizing synonyms and exploring the nuances of words through reading and vocabulary exercises can also enhance precision in expression.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: Overall, the essay demonstrates adequate spelling accuracy, with few errors detracting from comprehension. Notable instances of correct spelling include "survey," "perspective," and "certification." However, there are a couple of minor spelling errors, such as "hand in hand" (should be hyphenated as "hand-in-hand") and "skydive" (should be "skydiving" as a noun).
- How to improve: To further improve spelling accuracy, consider utilizing spell-check tools and proofreading thoroughly before submission. Additionally, practicing spelling through activities like word games and reviewing commonly misspelled words can help reinforce correct spelling habits.

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 commendable variety of sentence structures, including complex sentences, compound sentences, and conditional sentences. For example, the essay employs compound sentences such as "Those who believe that the government should ban dangerous sports may have several arguments," showcasing the ability to connect ideas effectively. Additionally, the conditional structure is evident in phrases like "when they know the risks involved and are willing to respond to it," which adds depth to the argumentation.
- How to improve: While the essay showcases a satisfactory range of structures, further diversification could enhance its sophistication. Introducing more complex structures, such as inversion or participial phrases, could elevate the overall quality of the essay. For instance, incorporating inversion in sentences like "Not only should individuals be allowed to pursue their chosen sports, but they should also be provided with proper safety measures" can add rhetorical flair and complexity.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: Overall, the essay demonstrates a solid grasp of grammar and punctuation. However, there are instances where minor errors detract from the overall accuracy. For instance, in the sentence "For example, a survey shows that dangerous sports players have a shorter career than other professional players, because of injury and the survey also shows that citizens in the area in which those sports are popular have higher chances of getting damaged," there is a lack of parallelism in the structure, and the use of "the survey also shows" disrupts the flow of the sentence. Additionally, there are occasional errors in subject-verb agreement, such as in "the reward of those sports were higher than others," where "were" should be replaced with "was" to maintain agreement.
- How to improve: To enhance grammatical accuracy, it is advisable to carefully review sentence structures for parallelism and subject-verb agreement. Utilizing concise and clear phrasing can mitigate the risk of grammatical errors. Furthermore, revising complex sentences to ensure coherence and cohesion can contribute to a smoother reading experience for the audience. Employing techniques such as proofreading, peer review, and utilizing grammar-checking tools can aid in identifying and rectifying grammatical inaccuracies effectively.

Bài sửa mẫu

Opinions are polarized regarding whether dangerous sports should be permitted by governments or if individuals should have the freedom to engage in any sport activity. I still concur with the latter perspective.

Those advocating for government intervention argue that banning dangerous sports may prevent injuries and protect the well-being of individuals and their communities. They argue that activities like skateboarding or rugby pose risks not only to the participants but also to those around them, including teammates. For instance, research indicates that participants in dangerous sports often experience shorter careers due to injuries, and communities where such sports are popular tend to have higher rates of injuries. Additionally, proponents of banning dangerous sports point to the significant reduction in injuries observed after Vietnam implemented restrictions on extreme sports in public spaces.

Nevertheless, I continue to support the belief that individuals should have the freedom to pursue any activity they choose. This stance is grounded in the principle that it is unfair to prohibit individuals from engaging in activities they enjoy, particularly when they are aware of the risks involved and take precautions to mitigate them. For example, individuals interested in skydiving are typically required to obtain certification and often invest in high-value insurance coverage. Furthermore, the inherent risk of dangerous sports often corresponds with significant rewards. Despite the potential for injury, participants in these sports may enjoy higher salaries and other benefits compared to athletes in less risky activities, such as boxing versus badminton.

In conclusion, while I acknowledge the arguments in favor of government intervention to ban dangerous sports, I maintain that individuals should have the freedom to participate in the activities of their choice.