In the future it may be necessary for us to live on other planets. For this reason, some people believe that we should spend money now to research other planets, such as Mars. To what extent do you agree or disagree

There is a possibility that in the future, people on this planet must eventually settle in another location in the universe. As a result, some people claim that spending money on researching other planets, such as Mars, is highly beneficial. I partly agree with this suggestion based on some reasons that are explained in this essay.

On the one hand, some compelling reasons explain why putting resources into learning about a future location for humanity should be done. As the population size has increased at an unprecedented rate, the possibility of overpopulation has become more imminent. Once this happens, resources on this planet will not be enough to sustain people’s lives, meaning that we have only one option moving to a different planet. Also, as our planet consistently warms up due to climate change, once this problem becomes irreversible, moving to another planet is unavoidable.

On the other hand, interplanetary travel is highly unrealistic as it can inflict severe damage on people’s physiology and can entail massive resources. It has been proven from the experiences of people who travel into the cosmos that their bodies have been comprised of the extreme conditions of outer space. For instance, numerous studies have documented the loss of vision acuity, bone density, and cardiovascular health after a person returns from space. Also, the current propulsion mechanism that helps push rockets into space is highly inefficient, meaning that the cost of relocating the entire humanity to another planet is insurmountable and can not be obtained even through years of accumulation.

In conclusion, although proposals indicate that learning about another planet for future resettlement has some logical grounding, it is still not practical and needed. Not only does traveling into space damage our bodies severely, but also it costs the amount of resources that can not be obtained or made by human beings.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"There is a possibility that" -> "It is possible that"
Explanation: "It is possible that" is a more direct and formal way to introduce a speculative idea, enhancing the academic tone of the sentence.
"people on this planet must eventually settle" -> "humankind may eventually settle"
Explanation: "Humankind" is a more formal and encompassing term than "people," and "may" is more precise than "must" in speculative discussions.
"spending money on researching" -> "investing in research on"
Explanation: "Investing in research on" is more formal and precise, aligning better with academic language by emphasizing the financial commitment and focus on research.
"some compelling reasons explain why" -> "several compelling reasons justify"
Explanation: "Justify" is more appropriate in an academic context than "explain," as it implies a stronger, more formal justification of the reasons.
"putting resources into learning about" -> "investing in the study of"
Explanation: "Investing in the study of" is more formal and precise, fitting the academic style better than "putting resources into learning about."
"the possibility of overpopulation has become more imminent" -> "the likelihood of overpopulation has increased"
Explanation: "The likelihood of overpopulation has increased" is a more precise and academically appropriate way to describe the progression of a situation.
"Once this happens, resources on this planet will not be enough" -> "should this occur, the planet’s resources would be insufficient"
Explanation: "Should this occur, the planet’s resources would be insufficient" uses more formal language and avoids the hypothetical "once this happens," which is less formal.
"moving to another planet is unavoidable" -> "resettlement on another planet is inevitable"
Explanation: "Resettlement on another planet is inevitable" uses more specific and formal terminology, enhancing the academic tone of the statement.
"interplanetary travel is highly unrealistic" -> "interplanetary travel is highly impractical"
Explanation: "Impractical" is a more precise term in this context, as it specifically refers to the feasibility of a plan or action, which is more suitable for an academic discussion.
"can inflict severe damage on people’s physiology" -> "can cause significant physiological harm to individuals"
Explanation: "Cause significant physiological harm to individuals" is more formal and precise, avoiding the colloquial "people’s physiology" and enhancing the academic tone.
"can entail massive resources" -> "requires substantial resources"
Explanation: "Requires substantial resources" is more precise and formal, fitting the academic style better than "can entail massive resources," which is vague and informal.
"the cost of relocating the entire humanity to another planet is insurmountable" -> "the cost of relocating humanity to another planet is prohibitively expensive"
Explanation: "Prohibitively expensive" is a more precise and formal way to describe the high cost, aligning better with academic language.
"can not be obtained or made by human beings" -> "cannot be acquired or produced by human beings"
Explanation: "Cannot be acquired or produced" is a more formal and precise expression, suitable for academic writing, compared to the contraction "can not" and the less formal "obtained or made."

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 the necessity of spending money on researching other planets. The introduction clearly states a partial agreement with the idea, and the body paragraphs present reasons for both supporting and opposing this viewpoint. However, the essay could benefit from a more explicit acknowledgment of the extent of agreement or disagreement, as the prompt asks "to what extent" rather than simply whether the author agrees or disagrees.
- How to improve: To enhance the response, the writer should clearly articulate the extent of their agreement in the introduction and conclusion. For example, stating whether they believe a significant portion of funding should be allocated to space research or if it should be a minor focus would provide clarity. Additionally, including a more balanced discussion of the benefits and drawbacks could strengthen the argument.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear position of partial agreement, but this position could be more consistently reinforced throughout the essay. The transition between the supporting and opposing arguments is somewhat abrupt, which may confuse the reader about the author’s overall stance.
- How to improve: To maintain a clear position, the author could use transitional phrases that reiterate their stance. For instance, after discussing the drawbacks of interplanetary travel, they could restate how these concerns influence their partial agreement. This would help to reinforce their position and guide the reader through the argument.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents several relevant ideas, such as overpopulation and climate change as reasons for exploring other planets, as well as the physiological risks and high costs associated with interplanetary travel. However, some ideas are not fully developed. For instance, while the author mentions the inefficiency of current propulsion mechanisms, they do not elaborate on how this impacts the feasibility of colonizing another planet.
- How to improve: To improve the development of ideas, the author should provide more detailed explanations and examples. For instance, they could discuss specific technologies that are being researched to overcome current limitations in space travel or provide statistics on population growth to strengthen their argument about overpopulation.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, focusing on the necessity and implications of researching other planets. However, some sections could be seen as slightly tangential, particularly when discussing the physiological effects of space travel without tying them back to the core argument about the necessity of research.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, the author should ensure that every point made directly relates back to the central question of whether funding for space research is justified. They could achieve this by explicitly linking each point back to the prompt, perhaps by concluding each paragraph with a sentence that connects the discussion back to the necessity of research funding.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a good understanding of the topic and presents a coherent argument, refining the clarity of the position, developing ideas further, and ensuring tight relevance to the prompt will help elevate the score in the Task Response criteria.

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, two body paragraphs, and a conclusion. The introduction effectively outlines the topic and the writer’s stance. Each body paragraph addresses a distinct viewpoint, with the first discussing the necessity of researching other planets and the second highlighting the challenges of interplanetary travel. However, the transition between the two paragraphs could be smoother, as the connection between the ideas is somewhat abrupt.
- How to improve: To enhance logical flow, consider using transitional phrases that link the ideas between paragraphs more explicitly. For example, after discussing the need for research in the first paragraph, you could introduce the second paragraph with a phrase like, "However, despite these compelling reasons, there are significant challenges that must be addressed."
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay uses paragraphs effectively, with each paragraph focusing on a specific aspect of the argument. The first paragraph presents reasons for supporting research into other planets, while the second addresses counterarguments. However, the conclusion could be more developed to summarize the key points and reinforce the writer’s position.
- How to improve: Strengthen the conclusion by briefly reiterating the main arguments presented in the body paragraphs. This not only reinforces your position but also provides a more cohesive ending to the essay. For example, you could summarize the benefits of research and the challenges of travel before restating your agreement or disagreement.
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," to contrast different viewpoints. However, the range of cohesive devices used is somewhat limited, and there are instances where the connections between sentences could be clearer. For example, the phrase "As a result" in the introduction could be better linked to the subsequent ideas.
- How to improve: Diversify the use of cohesive devices by incorporating a wider range of linking words and phrases. For instance, you could use "furthermore," "in addition," or "consequently" to connect ideas within and between paragraphs. This will enhance the overall flow of the essay and make the relationships between ideas more explicit.

By addressing these areas, the essay can achieve a higher level of coherence and cohesion, potentially leading to an improved band score in future assessments.

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 "interplanetary travel," "overpopulation," and "propulsion mechanism." However, there are instances where vocabulary could be more varied or sophisticated. For example, phrases like "putting resources into learning" could be enhanced to "investing resources in research" for greater impact.
- How to improve: To elevate the lexical range, the writer should incorporate synonyms and more advanced vocabulary. For instance, instead of repeating "resources," alternatives like "funds," "capital," or "assets" could be used. Additionally, using phrases like "human migration to extraterrestrial habitats" instead of "moving to a different planet" would demonstrate a broader vocabulary.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: While some vocabulary is used correctly, there are instances of imprecise usage. For example, the phrase "can entail massive resources" could be more accurately expressed as "requires significant resources." The term "compromised" in "bodies have been comprised of the extreme conditions" is also misused; "affected" or "impacted" would be more appropriate.
- How to improve: Focus on ensuring that word choices accurately convey the intended meaning. Reading academic articles or essays can help familiarize the writer with precise vocabulary in context. Additionally, using a thesaurus can assist in finding more suitable words, but it’s essential to ensure that the chosen words fit the context accurately.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains several spelling errors, such as "can not" (should be "cannot") and "the amount of resources that can not be obtained" (should be "cannot be obtained"). These errors detract from the overall professionalism of the writing.
- How to improve: To enhance spelling accuracy, the writer should proofread their work carefully, possibly reading it aloud to catch errors. Utilizing spell-check tools and maintaining a list of commonly misspelled words can also be beneficial. Regular practice in writing and reviewing can help reinforce correct spelling habits.

By addressing these areas, the writer can improve their lexical resource score in future essays.

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 clauses. For example, phrases like "As the population size has increased at an unprecedented rate" and "once this problem becomes irreversible" showcase the use of subordinate clauses effectively. However, there are instances of repetitive structures, particularly in the use of "once" and "as," which could limit the overall range.
- How to improve: To enhance the variety of sentence structures, consider incorporating more diverse conjunctions and transitional phrases. For instance, instead of repeatedly using "once," you could use alternatives like "when," "after," or "as soon as." Additionally, integrating more varied sentence types, such as rhetorical questions or passive constructions, can enrich the essay’s complexity.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally maintains a good level of grammatical accuracy, with only a few minor errors. For example, the phrase "the cost of relocating the entire humanity to another planet is insurmountable" could be more accurately phrased as "the cost of relocating all of humanity to another planet is insurmountable." Punctuation is mostly correct, but there are some areas where clarity could be improved, such as in the sentence "it is still not practical and needed," which could benefit from restructuring for clarity.
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, pay close attention to subject-verb agreement and the use of articles. Practicing sentence restructuring can also help clarify meaning. For punctuation, ensure that commas are used effectively to separate clauses and enhance readability. For example, in the sentence "Also, as our planet consistently warms up due to climate change, once this problem becomes irreversible, moving to another planet is unavoidable," consider breaking it into two sentences for better clarity.

By addressing these areas, the essay can achieve a higher band score in Grammatical Range and Accuracy.

Bài sửa mẫu

There is a possibility that in the future, humankind may eventually settle on another location in the universe. As a result, some people claim that investing in research on other planets, such as Mars, is highly beneficial. I partly agree with this suggestion based on several reasons that are explained in this essay.

On the one hand, several compelling reasons justify why allocating resources to study potential future locations for humanity should be prioritized. As the population size has increased at an unprecedented rate, the possibility of overpopulation has become more imminent. Should this occur, the planet’s resources would be insufficient to sustain people’s lives, meaning that we may have no option but to move to a different planet. Additionally, as our planet consistently warms due to climate change, once this problem becomes irreversible, resettlement on another planet is inevitable.

On the other hand, interplanetary travel is highly impractical as it can cause significant physiological harm to individuals and requires substantial resources. It has been proven from the experiences of people who travel into space that their bodies have been adversely affected by the extreme conditions of outer space. For instance, numerous studies have documented the loss of vision acuity, bone density, and cardiovascular health after a person returns from space. Furthermore, the current propulsion mechanisms that enable rockets to travel into space are highly inefficient, meaning that the cost of relocating humanity to another planet is prohibitively expensive and cannot be acquired even through years of accumulation.

In conclusion, although proposals indicate that investing in the study of another planet for future resettlement has some logical grounding, it remains impractical and unnecessary at this time. Not only can traveling into space cause severe damage to our bodies, but it also demands resources that cannot be produced by human beings.