Human activities have negative effects on the plant and animal species. Some people think that this cannot be changed, while others believe action can be taken to bring a change.

Nowadays, some people think that human activities wreak havoc on the existence of particular flora and fauna, while others advocate that other issues like natural disasters or the characteristic of species is the key reason to this disappearance. While both viewpoints are valid, i lean towards the former.
There are convincing reasons why people opine that the potential loss of plant and animal species is not human’s fault. Firstly, the catastrophic effects of nature namely frequent storms, droughts, forest fires may offer disadvantages to wildlife generics, which is an inevitable result in mother nature. For example, in 2019, a devastated Amazon brushfire have destroyed approximately 40% of forest area and 20% of animal species of this tropical rainforest. Consequently, the natural catastrophes will cut down the huge array of animal’s habitat and plant’s life. Secondly, there are numerous flora and fauna being predicted to disappear due to its original characteristics or food shortage, which means they will be extinct at a certain period of time. For instance, the large number part of white pandas which are unable to take care of their cubs, as well as the lacking of their food like bamboo, hence, they could out of existence but people have played a crucial role to preserve them. Therefore, the detrimental repercussions on biodiversity are unchanged.
However, I would agree that people’s practices bring a inadequate impact on the existence of flora and fauna. One of these is overexploitation, the rising popularity of land area catering for human’s consumption have resulted in the habitat of creatures. This can be attributed to the fact that people possess the boundary of animal and plant to build houses, factories or deforestations, causing the lacking of species’ s house and food then dying out. According to FAO, the proportion of forest cover have decreased by over 15% from 1990 until now, which was devastated the natural environment of millions of creatures. Furthermore, the emission of human’s activities may lead to climate changes such as global warming, floods that take a heavy tool on biodiversity’s health and habitat. Another more pressing problem is illegal hunting. This is due to the rare animals and plants being exchanged in dark websites with a costly price, which make people to detect and hunt these species. So that, they have been more and more disappear and eradicated, especially pangolin, terle or rhinos, for example.
To conclude, although both perspectives are valuable to some extent, i still opine that people have detrimental consequences to the life of flora and fauna such as deforestation, pollution, and illegal hunting.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"Nowadays" -> "Currently"
Explanation: "Currently" is a more formal and precise temporal indicator suitable for academic writing, replacing the colloquial "Nowadays."
"wreak havoc" -> "cause significant harm"
Explanation: "Cause significant harm" is a more formal and precise phrase compared to the idiomatic "wreak havoc," which is less appropriate in academic contexts.
"the characteristic of species" -> "the characteristics of species"
Explanation: The plural form "characteristics" is necessary to match the plural subject "species."
"i lean towards" -> "I lean towards"
Explanation: Capitalizing "I" corrects the grammatical error and maintains formal tone.
"catastrophic effects of nature" -> "catastrophic natural disasters"
Explanation: "Catastrophic natural disasters" is a more specific and formal term than the vague "catastrophic effects of nature."
"wildlife generics" -> "wildlife populations"
Explanation: "Wildlife populations" is the correct term, replacing the incorrect and unclear "wildlife generics."
"devastated Amazon brushfire" -> "devastating Amazon wildfires"
Explanation: "Wildfires" is the correct term for large-scale fires, and "devastating" is more appropriate than "devastated" in this context.
"cut down the huge array of animal’s habitat and plant’s life" -> "reduce the vast habitats of animals and the lives of plants"
Explanation: "Reduce" is more precise than "cut down," and the rephrasing clarifies the subject-verb agreement and grammatical structure.
"the large number part of white pandas" -> "a significant portion of white pandas"
Explanation: "A significant portion" is grammatically correct and more formal than "the large number part."
"out of existence" -> "extinct"
Explanation: "Extinct" is a more precise and formal term for species that have disappeared.
"people’s practices bring a inadequate impact" -> "human activities have an inadequate impact"
Explanation: "Human activities" is more specific and formal than "people’s practices," and "have an inadequate impact" corrects the grammatical structure.
"the rising popularity of land area catering for human’s consumption" -> "the increasing demand for land for human consumption"
Explanation: "The increasing demand for land for human consumption" is a clearer and more formal expression.
"the proportion of forest cover have decreased" -> "the proportion of forest cover has decreased"
Explanation: Corrects the subject-verb agreement error from "have" to "has."
"devastated the natural environment of millions of creatures" -> "devastated the natural environments of millions of species"
Explanation: "Environments" should be plural to match the plural subject "millions of species."
"take a heavy tool on" -> "take a heavy toll on"
Explanation: "Take a heavy toll on" is the correct idiomatic expression, replacing the incorrect "tool."
"dark websites" -> "illicit websites"
Explanation: "Illicit websites" is a more precise and formal term than "dark websites," which is vague and colloquial.
"make people to detect and hunt these species" -> "encourage people to detect and hunt these species"
Explanation: "Encourage" is a more precise verb than "make," which is too strong and informal for this context.
"i still opine" -> "I still maintain"
Explanation: Capitalizing "I" corrects the grammatical error, and "maintain" is a more formal synonym for "opine."

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Task Response: 7

Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively addresses the prompt by presenting both viewpoints regarding the impact of human activities on plant and animal species. The first half discusses the perspective that natural disasters and species characteristics are primarily responsible for biodiversity loss, while the second half argues that human actions significantly contribute to this issue. However, the balance between the two viewpoints could be improved, as the argument against human impact is more developed than the counterargument.
- How to improve: To enhance the response, the writer should ensure that both sides of the argument are equally explored. This could involve providing more detailed examples or evidence supporting the viewpoint that human activities can be mitigated or changed, thereby making the argument more robust.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear position that human activities have detrimental effects on biodiversity, particularly in the conclusion. However, the transition from discussing the opposing viewpoint to the writer’s stance could be clearer. Phrases like "I lean towards the former" might confuse readers as it is not explicitly stated which viewpoint this refers to until later in the essay.
- How to improve: To maintain a clearer position, the writer should explicitly state their stance in the introduction and reinforce it throughout the essay. Using transitional phrases that clearly indicate shifts in perspective will help guide the reader through the argument.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents several ideas, such as the effects of natural disasters and human overexploitation, but some points lack depth. For instance, the example of the Amazon rainforest fire is relevant, but the explanation could be expanded to include more context about its impact on biodiversity. Additionally, some claims, such as the illegal hunting of species, could benefit from more specific examples or statistics to strengthen the argument.
- How to improve: The writer should aim to elaborate on key points with additional examples, statistics, or studies that support their claims. This will not only extend the ideas but also provide a more compelling argument.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, focusing on the effects of human activities on plant and animal species. However, there are moments where the discussion becomes slightly convoluted, particularly in the second paragraph where the mention of species characteristics could be more clearly linked to the overall argument about human impact.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer should ensure that each paragraph directly relates back to the central question. Creating a clear outline before writing can help in organizing thoughts and ensuring that all points made are relevant to the prompt.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a good understanding of the task and presents a clear argument, it could benefit from more balanced exploration of viewpoints, clearer positioning, deeper development of ideas, and tighter adherence to the topic.

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 that outlines the two perspectives on the issue of human impact on biodiversity. The body paragraphs are organized to first present the viewpoint that human activities are not the primary cause of species loss, followed by the argument that they are. However, the transition between these two viewpoints could be smoother. For instance, the shift from discussing natural disasters to human impact feels abrupt. The conclusion effectively summarizes the writer’s stance but could benefit from a more explicit connection to the arguments made.
- How to improve: To enhance logical flow, consider using transitional phrases that guide the reader through the argument. For example, when transitioning from the first viewpoint to the second, phrases like "On the other hand" or "Conversely" can help clarify the shift. Additionally, ensuring that each paragraph clearly relates back to the thesis statement will strengthen the overall coherence.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay uses paragraphs effectively to separate different ideas, which aids readability. Each paragraph focuses on a specific aspect of the argument, which is a strength. However, some paragraphs could be more balanced in length and depth. For example, the paragraph discussing the negative impacts of human activities is longer and more detailed than the one addressing natural disasters, which may lead to an imbalance in the argument.
- How to improve: Aim for a more balanced approach in paragraph length by ensuring that each viewpoint is given equal attention. Consider breaking down longer paragraphs into smaller ones that focus on specific points. This will not only improve readability but also allow for more detailed explanations of each argument.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay employs some cohesive devices, such as "Firstly," "Secondly," and "To conclude," which help to structure the argument. However, the range of cohesive devices is somewhat limited, and there are instances where the connections between ideas could be clearer. For example, the phrase "this can be attributed to the fact that" is somewhat repetitive and could be replaced with more varied expressions.
- How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, incorporate a wider range of linking words and phrases. For instance, use "Moreover," "In addition," or "Furthermore" to connect similar ideas, and "However," "On the contrary," or "Nevertheless" to introduce contrasting points. Additionally, ensure that pronouns and demonstrative adjectives are used effectively to refer back to previously mentioned ideas, enhancing the overall cohesion of the essay.

By addressing these areas for improvement, the essay can achieve a higher level of coherence and cohesion, potentially raising the band score in this criterion.

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 "wreak havoc," "catastrophic effects," and "overexploitation." However, there are instances where the vocabulary is somewhat repetitive or lacks sophistication, such as the repeated use of "species" and "flora and fauna." Additionally, phrases like "the detrimental repercussions on biodiversity are unchanged" could be expressed more effectively.
- How to improve: To enhance vocabulary range, the writer should incorporate synonyms and varied expressions. For example, instead of repeatedly using "species," alternatives like "organisms," "wildlife," or "biodiversity" could be employed. Expanding the use of adjectives and adverbs would also enrich the essay, such as using "significant" instead of "huge" when describing impacts.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: There are several instances of imprecise vocabulary usage. For example, "the large number part of white pandas" is unclear and awkwardly phrased. The phrase "the lacking of their food like bamboo" also lacks clarity and grammatical correctness. Additionally, "have resulted in the habitat of creatures" is vague and could be more accurately expressed.
- How to improve: To improve precision, the writer should focus on clarity and grammatical correctness. For example, rephrasing "the large number part of white pandas" to "a significant number of giant pandas" would enhance clarity. Additionally, ensuring that phrases are grammatically correct, such as changing "the lacking of their food" to "the lack of their food," would improve precision.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains several spelling errors, such as "i" instead of "I," "terle" instead of "turtles," and "have" instead of "has" in "the proportion of forest cover have decreased." These errors detract from the overall professionalism of the writing and can confuse the reader.
- How to improve: To enhance spelling accuracy, the writer should proofread the essay carefully before submission. Utilizing spell-check tools or writing software can help identify and correct spelling mistakes. Additionally, practicing spelling of commonly used academic vocabulary can further improve accuracy.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of the topic and presents valid arguments, improvements in vocabulary range, precision, and spelling are necessary to achieve a higher band score in Lexical Resource.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 6

Use a Wide Range of Structures:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates some variety in sentence structures, including simple, compound, and complex sentences. For instance, the use of introductory phrases like "Firstly" and "However" helps to organize thoughts. However, many sentences are overly complex or awkwardly constructed, which can hinder clarity. For example, the sentence "the catastrophic effects of nature namely frequent storms, droughts, forest fires may offer disadvantages to wildlife generics" is convoluted and could be simplified for better understanding.
- How to improve: To enhance the range of structures, the writer should practice varying sentence lengths and types. Incorporating more compound and complex sentences with clear clauses can improve readability. Additionally, using transitional phrases effectively can help in linking ideas more smoothly. For example, instead of "the catastrophic effects of nature namely frequent storms, droughts, forest fires may offer disadvantages to wildlife generics," a clearer structure could be "Natural disasters, such as frequent storms, droughts, and forest fires, can severely impact wildlife."
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains several grammatical errors and punctuation issues that detract from its overall quality. For instance, "i lean towards the former" should be capitalized as "I." Additionally, phrases like "the large number part of white pandas" are awkward and grammatically incorrect; it should be "the large number of white pandas." Punctuation errors include missing commas, such as in "the emission of human’s activities may lead to climate changes such as global warming, floods that take a heavy tool on biodiversity’s health and habitat," where a comma is needed before "such as."
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, the writer should focus on proofreading for common errors, such as capitalization and subject-verb agreement. Practicing sentence diagramming can help clarify complex structures. Additionally, reviewing punctuation rules, particularly for lists and clauses, will enhance clarity. For example, restructuring "the emission of human’s activities may lead to climate changes such as global warming, floods that take a heavy tool on biodiversity’s health and habitat" to "the emissions from human activities may lead to climate changes, such as global warming and floods, which heavily impact biodiversity and habitats," would improve clarity and correctness.

Overall, while the essay presents relevant ideas and arguments, focusing on grammatical accuracy and diversifying sentence structures will significantly enhance the quality of writing and potentially raise the band score.

Bài sửa mẫu

**Improved Essay:**

Currently, some people believe that human activities cause significant harm to the existence of particular flora and fauna, while others argue that factors such as natural disasters or the characteristics of species are the primary reasons for this disappearance. While both viewpoints hold merit, I lean towards the former.

There are convincing reasons why some individuals opine that the potential loss of plant and animal species is not solely humanity’s fault. Firstly, the catastrophic effects of nature, namely frequent storms, droughts, and forest fires, can adversely affect wildlife populations, which is an inevitable result of Mother Nature. For example, in 2019, the devastating Amazon wildfires destroyed approximately 40% of the forest area and 20% of the animal species in this tropical rainforest. Consequently, these natural catastrophes reduce the vast habitats of animals and the lives of plants. Secondly, numerous flora and fauna are predicted to disappear due to their original characteristics or food shortages, which means they could become extinct over time. For instance, a significant portion of white pandas is unable to care for their cubs, along with a lack of food sources like bamboo; hence, they could face extinction, although humans have played a crucial role in their preservation. Therefore, the detrimental repercussions on biodiversity remain unchanged.

However, I maintain that human practices have an inadequate impact on the existence of flora and fauna. One of these is overexploitation; the increasing demand for land for human consumption has resulted in the destruction of habitats for many creatures. This can be attributed to the fact that people encroach upon the habitats of animals and plants to build houses, factories, or engage in deforestation, leading to a lack of shelter and food for various species, ultimately causing them to die out. According to the FAO, the proportion of forest cover has decreased by over 15% from 1990 until now, which has devastated the natural environments of millions of species. Furthermore, emissions from human activities may lead to climate changes, such as global warming and floods, that take a heavy toll on biodiversity’s health and habitat. Another pressing issue is illegal hunting. This is driven by the demand for rare animals and plants being traded on illicit websites at high prices, which encourages people to detect and hunt these species. As a result, they are increasingly disappearing and facing eradication, particularly pangolins, turtles, and rhinos, for example.

To conclude, although both perspectives are valuable to some extent, I still maintain that human activities have detrimental consequences for the life of flora and fauna, such as deforestation, pollution, and illegal hunting.