Human activity has had a negative impact on plants and animals around the world. Some people say that it is too late to do something, while others think that actions can be taken to improve the situation. Discuss both view and give your own opinion.

It would not be deniable that human interactions have a bad effect on environment, climate all over the “world”. While some people claimed that activities would not be aligned – I agree with these individuals that some approach should be implemented so to visually and physically affect only one how. Supporters of human choices said that it cannot be changed.

Many time ago, people have done it without considering wildlife or resource right from what I understood that many inventions and medicines are produced in this way – to help human so to reply to they live comparable, but also they were completely. As a result, human inventions could not be separated from today life. However, I think it would be morally wrong.

On the other hand, although human activity may injure animal right and destroy jungles. It is clear that plays an important role in many aspect of development. For example, finding medicinal allergies that unfortunately many quick death can many species of animal. Excessive annually testing can equipment destroys planet and vegetation. I believe that government should implement strategies to conserve wildlife and continue research and testing by allocating specific areas to minimizing valuable life of animals for experiment.

In conclusion, while I agree with those who are concerned about environmental issue and believe some activities should be taken

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"It would not be deniable" -> "It is undeniable"
Explanation: "Undeniable" is the correct form of the adjective, and using "it is" instead of "it would not be" corrects the grammatical structure for a more formal tone.
"a bad effect on environment, climate all over the “world”" -> "a detrimental impact on the environment and global climate"
Explanation: "Detrimental impact" is a more precise and formal term than "bad effect," and "environment and global climate" avoids the colloquial and awkward phrasing of "environment, climate all over the ‘world’."
"activities would not be aligned" -> "activities are not aligned"
Explanation: "Are not aligned" corrects the tense to present continuous, which is more appropriate for the ongoing nature of the issue, and removes the unnecessary "would."
"some approach should be implemented so to visually and physically affect only one how" -> "certain measures should be implemented to minimize visual and physical impacts"
Explanation: "Certain measures" is more specific and formal than "some approach," and "to minimize visual and physical impacts" clarifies the intended effect of the measures.
"Supporters of human choices said that it cannot be changed" -> "Proponents of human choices argue that it is impossible to change"
Explanation: "Proponents" is more formal than "Supporters," and "argue that it is impossible to change" is more precise and academically appropriate than "said that it cannot be changed."
"Many time ago" -> "In the past"
Explanation: "In the past" is a more formal and commonly accepted phrase than "Many time ago," which is grammatically incorrect.
"resource right" -> "resource rights"
Explanation: "Resource rights" is the correct term, referring to the rights to resources, rather than "resource right," which is grammatically incorrect.
"to help human so to reply to they live comparable" -> "to assist humans in maintaining a comparable standard of living"
Explanation: "To assist humans in maintaining a comparable standard of living" is clearer and more formal than the awkward and unclear original phrase.
"completely" -> "completely"
Explanation: The word "completely" is used twice in a row, which is redundant and can be removed without affecting the meaning.
"human inventions could not be separated from today life" -> "human inventions are inseparable from modern life"
Explanation: "Are inseparable from modern life" is more precise and formal, improving clarity and appropriateness for academic writing.
"It would be morally wrong" -> "It is morally reprehensible"
Explanation: "Is morally reprehensible" is a stronger, more formal expression than "would be morally wrong," which sounds tentative and less definitive.
"although human activity may injure animal right and destroy jungles" -> "although human activities may harm animal welfare and destroy forests"
Explanation: "Harm animal welfare" is more precise and formal than "injure animal right," and "forests" is a more accurate term than "jungles," which is less specific and can be misleading.
"plays an important role in many aspect of development" -> "plays a crucial role in various aspects of development"
Explanation: "A crucial role in various aspects of development" is more precise and formal, correcting the grammatical error and enhancing the academic tone.
"finding medicinal allergies that unfortunately many quick death can many species of animal" -> "the discovery of medicines that unfortunately lead to the rapid extinction of many animal species"
Explanation: This revision clarifies the meaning and corrects the awkward and grammatically incorrect original phrase.
"Excessive annually testing can equipment destroys planet and vegetation" -> "Excessive annual testing can damage equipment, the planet, and vegetation"
Explanation: "Excessive annual testing" corrects the grammatical error, and "damage equipment, the planet, and vegetation" is clearer and more formal than the original, which was vague and incorrect.
"I believe that government should implement strategies" -> "I advocate that governments should implement strategies"
Explanation: "I advocate that governments should implement strategies" uses the more formal "advocate" and "governments" to generalize the recommendation, enhancing the academic tone.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 5

Band Score for Task Response: 5 – UNDER WORD

Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay attempts to address both views regarding the impact of human activity on the environment and whether it is too late to take action. However, the exploration of these views is superficial and lacks depth. For instance, the mention of “some approach should be implemented” is vague and does not clearly articulate what these approaches are. Additionally, the essay does not adequately discuss the opposing viewpoint, which weakens the overall response to the prompt.
- How to improve: To enhance the response, the writer should explicitly outline both sides of the argument with clear examples. For instance, they could discuss specific actions that can be taken to mitigate environmental damage, as well as reasons why some believe it is too late. Including more concrete details and examples would provide a more balanced and comprehensive discussion.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay does express a personal opinion, indicating agreement with those who believe action should be taken. However, this position is not consistently maintained throughout the essay. Phrases like “I think it would be morally wrong” are vague and do not clearly connect to the argument being made. The lack of a strong, clear thesis statement at the beginning further complicates the reader’s understanding of the writer’s stance.
- How to improve: The writer should establish a clear thesis statement in the introduction that outlines their position. Throughout the essay, they should consistently refer back to this thesis to reinforce their viewpoint. Additionally, using transitional phrases can help maintain a coherent flow of ideas and strengthen the argument.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents some ideas, but they are often underdeveloped and lack sufficient support. For example, the mention of “medicinal allergies” and “excessive annually testing” is confusing and does not clearly relate to the argument. The lack of specific examples or evidence to support claims makes the argument less persuasive.
- How to improve: To improve, the writer should focus on developing each idea more fully. This includes providing specific examples and evidence to support their claims. For instance, they could discuss particular conservation efforts or scientific studies that illustrate the potential for positive change. This would not only strengthen their argument but also demonstrate a deeper understanding of the topic.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay occasionally deviates from the main topic, particularly when discussing “human inventions” and “medicinal allergies.” These points are not clearly connected to the prompt and distract from the central argument about the impact of human activity on the environment and the potential for change.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer should regularly refer back to the essay prompt and ensure that each paragraph directly relates to the question posed. Creating an outline before writing can help organize thoughts and ensure that all points made are relevant to the topic. Additionally, the writer should avoid introducing unrelated ideas that do not contribute to the discussion.

Overall, the essay would benefit from clearer organization, more detailed examples, and a stronger connection to the prompt. By addressing these areas, the writer can improve their score in the Task Response category.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 5

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 5

Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a discussion of two contrasting viewpoints regarding human impact on the environment. However, the organization of ideas is somewhat unclear. For instance, the transition between the introduction and the body paragraphs is abrupt, and the arguments presented do not follow a clear logical progression. The first paragraph introduces the writer’s agreement with the view that it is too late to change the situation but fails to clearly articulate the reasons behind this stance. The second paragraph attempts to present the opposing view but lacks clarity and coherence, making it difficult for the reader to follow the argument.
- How to improve: To enhance logical organization, the writer should clearly delineate the two viewpoints in separate paragraphs. Starting with a clear thesis statement in the introduction that outlines the main arguments will help guide the reader. Each paragraph should begin with a topic sentence that summarizes the main idea, followed by supporting details that are logically connected.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay uses paragraphs, but their structure and effectiveness are lacking. The first paragraph mixes ideas about human impact and personal opinion without a clear focus. The second paragraph attempts to present a counterargument but does so in a convoluted manner. Additionally, the conclusion is incomplete and does not effectively summarize the discussion or present a clear opinion.
- How to improve: To improve paragraphing, the writer should ensure that each paragraph has a clear main idea and that all sentences within the paragraph support this idea. Each viewpoint should ideally have its own paragraph, and the conclusion should succinctly restate the main points and provide a clear opinion. Using clear topic sentences and ensuring that each paragraph flows logically from one to the next will strengthen the overall structure.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates limited use of cohesive devices, which affects the overall flow of ideas. Phrases such as "on the other hand" are used, but there is a lack of variety in cohesive devices. Additionally, the connections between sentences and ideas are often unclear, making it difficult for the reader to follow the argument. For example, the phrase "as a result" is used, but the cause-and-effect relationship is not clearly established.
- How to improve: To diversify and effectively use cohesive devices, the writer should incorporate a wider range of linking words and phrases, such as "furthermore," "in addition," "however," and "consequently." These devices can help clarify relationships between ideas and improve the overall coherence of the essay. Practicing the use of these devices in different contexts will also help the writer become more comfortable with their application.

In summary, to achieve a higher band score for coherence and cohesion, the writer should focus on improving the logical organization of ideas, enhancing paragraph structure, and utilizing a broader range of cohesive devices. This will lead to a clearer and more effective presentation of arguments in response to the essay prompt.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 5

Band Score for Lexical Resource: 5

Use a Wide Range of Vocabulary:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates some attempt to use a variety of vocabulary, such as "human interactions," "bad effect," and "medicinal allergies." However, the range is limited and often repetitive, with phrases like "human activity" and "environment" appearing multiple times without variation. Additionally, the use of phrases like "many time ago" and "many quick death" indicates a lack of more sophisticated vocabulary choices.
- How to improve: To enhance vocabulary range, the writer should incorporate synonyms and more precise terms. For example, instead of repeating "human activity," alternatives like "human impact" or "anthropogenic actions" could be used. Expanding vocabulary through reading and practice can help in this regard.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains instances of imprecise vocabulary usage, such as "it would not be deniable" (which should be "it cannot be denied") and "to reply to they live comparable" (which is unclear and awkward). These phrases detract from the clarity of the argument and can confuse readers. Additionally, the phrase "injure animal right" should be "injure animal rights," indicating a misunderstanding of the plural form.
- How to improve: To improve precision, the writer should focus on using vocabulary that accurately conveys their intended meaning. Reviewing common collocations and phrases in English can help. For instance, instead of "bad effect," using "adverse effects" would be more precise. Engaging in vocabulary exercises that emphasize context can also aid in this improvement.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains several spelling errors, such as "environment" (misspelled as "environment," though it is correct in the essay), "approach" (used incorrectly in context), and "many quick death" (which should be "many quick deaths"). These errors can distract from the overall message and indicate a lack of attention to detail.
- How to improve: To enhance spelling accuracy, the writer should practice spelling commonly used words in academic writing. Utilizing tools like spell checkers and proofreading can help catch errors before submission. Additionally, keeping a list of frequently misspelled words and reviewing them regularly can be beneficial.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic but lacks the lexical sophistication and precision expected at higher band scores. By expanding vocabulary, improving precision in word choice, and focusing on spelling accuracy, the writer can work towards achieving a higher band score in the Lexical Resource criterion.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 5

Band Score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 5

Use a Wide Range of Structures:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates some attempt at using varied sentence structures, but the overall range is limited. For instance, the phrases "human interactions have a bad effect on environment" and "human activity may injure animal right" show a basic understanding of sentence construction. However, many sentences are awkwardly phrased or incomplete, such as "while some people claimed that activities would not be aligned" and "to help human so to reply to they live comparable." These constructions lack clarity and coherence, which detracts from the overall effectiveness of the argument.
- How to improve: To enhance the variety of sentence structures, the writer should practice using complex and compound sentences. For example, instead of saying, "human interactions have a bad effect," they could say, "Human interactions have negatively impacted the environment, leading to significant consequences for both flora and fauna." Additionally, incorporating more transitional phrases (e.g., "Furthermore," "In contrast," "Consequently") can help connect ideas and improve the flow of the essay.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains several grammatical errors and punctuation issues that hinder clarity. For instance, the phrase "bad effect on environment, climate all over the ‘world’" is grammatically incorrect and lacks proper punctuation. The use of "many time ago" should be "a long time ago," and "to reply to they live comparable" is not only incorrect but also confusing. Additionally, there are issues with subject-verb agreement, as seen in "many quick death can many species of animal," which should be rephrased for clarity and correctness.
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, the writer should focus on subject-verb agreement, proper use of articles, and the correct formation of phrases. Regular practice with grammar exercises, particularly those focusing on common errors, can be beneficial. Furthermore, proofreading the essay for punctuation errors—such as missing commas and periods—will help ensure clarity. Utilizing grammar-checking tools may also assist in identifying and correcting mistakes before submission.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates some understanding of the topic and attempts to engage with the prompt, significant improvements in grammatical range and accuracy are needed to achieve a higher band score. Focusing on sentence variety, grammatical correctness, and punctuation will enhance the overall quality of the writing.

Bài sửa mẫu

It is undeniable that human interactions have a negative effect on the environment and climate all over the world. While some people claim that these activities cannot be changed, I agree with those who believe that certain measures should be implemented to minimize visual and physical impacts.

In the past, people acted without considering wildlife or resource rights. From what I understand, many inventions and medicines have been produced in this way to assist humans in maintaining a comparable standard of living, but this has also led to detrimental impacts. As a result, human inventions are inseparable from modern life. However, I think it would be morally reprehensible to ignore these consequences.

On the other hand, although human activity may harm animal rights and destroy forests, it is clear that it plays a crucial role in various aspects of development. For example, the discovery of medicines has unfortunately led to the rapid extinction of many animal species. Excessive annual testing can damage equipment, the planet, and vegetation. I advocate that governments should implement strategies to conserve wildlife while continuing research and testing by allocating specific areas to minimize the impact on valuable animal life for experiments.

In conclusion, while I agree with those who are concerned about environmental issues, I believe that actions should be taken to improve the situation.