People should be fined if they don’t recycle. To what extent do you agree or disagree ?

People should be fined if they don’t recycle.
To what extent do you agree or disagree ?

Environmental pollution is a serious and popular problem all over the world. Therefore, recycling, reusing or reducing waste is necessary. ​​Some people believe that you should be fined if you do not recycle. I both agree and disagree with the opinion and will discuss the reasons why in this essay.
There are several reasons why I agree with the fining for not recycling. It can be seen that, fines can act as a strong deterrent, pushing individuals to be more responsible about recycling. For example, when people face financial penalties, they are more likely to make an effort to separate waste and recycle properly. Finance can encourage accountability of people. In addition, it also impacts environment. Recycling reduces waste sent to landfills, conserves natural resources, and reduces pollution. Making non-recyclers as a fine makes sure that everyone does their part to lessen environmental harm. For example, Korea and Japan are countries that have penalties for people who do not recycle, which shows success in increasing recycling rates.
On the other hand, there are the reasons to disagree with solely fining people for not recycling. the first reason is economic and social disparities. Fines might disproportionately affect low- income households who may struggle with the added financial burden. Some communities might lack access to convenient recycling facilities, making it difficult to comply with recycling regulations. Furthermore, education is a better way to approach. Rather than solely relying on fines, governments should invest in public education to teach the importance of recycling. Providing clear information and accessible recycling systems can encourage people to recycle without the need for punitive measures. Instead of fines, incentives could be introduced to reward people for recycling, such as tax breaks or rebates for those who actively participate.
Inconclusion, I believe that instead of fines, incentives could be introduced to reward people for recycling, such as tax breaks or rebates for those who actively participate.

---

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

1. "serious and popular problem" -> "serious and widespread problem"
   Explanation: The term "popular" is not typically used to describe environmental issues in an academic context. "Widespread" is more appropriate as it conveys the extent of the issue without the informal connotation of "popular."

2. "reducing waste is necessary" -> "reducing waste is essential"
   Explanation: "Essential" is a stronger, more formal term than "necessary," which enhances the academic tone of the statement.

3. "you should be fined" -> "individuals should be fined"
   Explanation: Using "individuals" instead of "you" maintains a formal tone and avoids direct address, which is more appropriate in academic writing.

4. "I both agree and disagree" -> "I concur and disagree"
   Explanation: "Concur" is a more formal synonym for "agree," which is more suitable for academic writing.

5. "It can be seen that, fines can act as a strong deterrent" -> "It is evident that fines serve as a potent deterrent"
   Explanation: "It is evident that" is a more formal expression than "It can be seen that," and "potent" is a more precise adjective than "strong" in this context.

6. "Finance can encourage accountability of people" -> "Financial incentives can foster accountability among individuals"
   Explanation: "Financial incentives" is a more specific term than "finance," and "foster" is more precise than "encourage" in this context. "Among individuals" is also more formal than "of people."

7. "it also impacts environment" -> "it also affects the environment"
   Explanation: "Affects" is the correct verb to use in this context, and "the environment" should be capitalized as it refers to a specific entity.

8. "Making non-recyclers as a fine" -> "Implementing fines for non-recyclers"
   Explanation: "Implementing fines" is a clearer and more formal way to express the action of introducing penalties, and "for non-recyclers" is grammatically correct.

9. "the reasons to disagree" -> "the reasons for disagreement"
   Explanation: "The reasons for disagreement" is grammatically correct and more formal than "the reasons to disagree."

10. "economic and social disparities" -> "economic and social disparities"
    Explanation: This is a correct and complete phrase, but it could be rephrased as "economic and social inequalities" for a slightly more formal tone.

11. "Rather than solely relying on fines" -> "Rather than solely relying solely on fines"
    Explanation: Adding "solely" before "relying" corrects the grammatical structure, making the sentence more formal and precise.

12. "Providing clear information and accessible recycling systems" -> "Providing clear information and accessible recycling infrastructure"
    Explanation: "Infrastructure" is a more specific and formal term than "systems" in this context, enhancing the academic tone.

13. "Inconclusion" -> "In conclusion"
    Explanation: "In conclusion" is the correct phrase for ending a conclusion, whereas "inconclusion" is a typographical error.

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 whether people should be fined for not recycling. It presents reasons in favor of fines, such as their deterrent effect and examples from Korea and Japan, as well as reasons against, including economic disparities and the importance of education. However, the essay could benefit from a clearer delineation of the extent of agreement or disagreement, as the introduction states, "I both agree and disagree," which may confuse the reader about the author’s overall stance.
  • How to improve: To enhance the response, the writer should explicitly state their position on the extent of agreement or disagreement in the introduction and summarize it clearly in the conclusion. This could involve specifying whether they lean more towards supporting fines or opposing them, thus providing a clearer framework for the discussion.

• Present a Clear Position Throughout:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay presents a mixed position but lacks clarity in maintaining a consistent viewpoint. While it provides valid arguments for both sides, the phrase "I both agree and disagree" creates ambiguity. The conclusion reiterates a preference for incentives over fines, which could lead readers to question the initial stance.
  • How to improve: To strengthen the clarity of the position, the writer should choose a definitive stance in the introduction and consistently support that position throughout the essay. If the intent is to argue for a balanced view, this should be articulated more clearly, perhaps by stating that while fines may be effective, they should not be the sole approach.

• Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay presents several ideas related to the topic, such as the deterrent effect of fines and the potential for educational initiatives. However, some points lack depth and could benefit from further elaboration. For instance, while the essay mentions economic disparities, it does not explore how these disparities manifest or provide specific examples of communities affected.
  • How to improve: The writer should aim to extend their ideas by providing more detailed explanations and examples. For instance, elaborating on how educational programs have succeeded in other contexts or providing statistics on recycling rates before and after the implementation of fines could strengthen the argument. Additionally, using transitional phrases could help in logically connecting ideas.

• Stay on Topic:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, discussing recycling and the implications of fines. However, the introduction’s broad statement about environmental pollution could be streamlined to focus more directly on the recycling issue. Additionally, the conclusion introduces the idea of incentives without fully integrating it into the main body of the essay.
  • How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer should ensure that each paragraph directly relates back to the central question of fines for not recycling. The introduction could be revised to more directly address the prompt, and the conclusion should summarize the main arguments made in the essay, reinforcing the chosen position without introducing new concepts.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of the topic and presents relevant arguments, refining the clarity of the position, deepening the analysis of ideas, and ensuring a tighter focus on the prompt will enhance the overall effectiveness of the response.

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. However, the flow of ideas could be improved. For instance, the transition from discussing the advantages of fines to the disadvantages is somewhat abrupt. The first body paragraph effectively outlines the benefits of fines, but the shift to the counterargument lacks a smooth transition, which can confuse the reader.
  • How to improve: To enhance logical organization, consider using transitional phrases such as "Conversely," or "On the other hand," at the beginning of the second body paragraph. Additionally, clearly delineating the main points in each paragraph with topic sentences can help guide the reader through the argument more effectively.

• Use Paragraphs:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay uses paragraphs appropriately, with each paragraph focusing on a distinct aspect of the argument. However, the second body paragraph could be more effectively structured. The ideas regarding economic disparities and the need for education are somewhat jumbled together, which can detract from the clarity of the argument.
  • How to improve: Consider breaking the second body paragraph into two separate paragraphs: one focusing on the economic implications of fines and the other on the importance of education and incentives. This separation will allow for a more focused discussion of each point and improve overall clarity.

• Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay employs some cohesive devices, such as "for example" and "in addition," to connect ideas. However, the range of cohesive devices is limited, and some sentences could benefit from better linking. For instance, the phrase "making non-recyclers as a fine" is awkward and unclear, which disrupts the flow of the argument.
  • How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, incorporate a wider range of linking words and phrases, such as "furthermore," "however," and "in contrast." Additionally, rephrase awkward constructions for clarity; for example, "imposing fines on non-recyclers" would be clearer than "making non-recyclers as a fine." This will enhance the overall coherence of the essay.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a good understanding of the topic and presents a balanced argument, improvements in logical organization, paragraph structure, and the use of cohesive devices can elevate the score in Coherence and Cohesion.

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 "deterrent," "accountability," and "incentives" used appropriately. However, there are instances of repetition, such as the use of "recycling" and "fines," which could be varied to enhance the lexical diversity. For example, instead of repeating "recycling," synonyms like "waste management" or "resource recovery" could be employed.
  • How to improve: To improve lexical range, the writer should actively seek synonyms and related terms. Engaging with vocabulary exercises or using a thesaurus can help expand their word choice. Additionally, incorporating more varied phrases and expressions related to environmental issues would enrich the essay.

• Use Vocabulary Precisely:

  • Detailed explanation: While some vocabulary is used correctly, there are instances of imprecise usage that could lead to confusion. For example, the phrase "making non-recyclers as a fine" is unclear and awkward. It would be more precise to say "imposing fines on non-recyclers." Additionally, the phrase "the impacts environment" is grammatically incorrect and should be "the impact on the environment."
  • How to improve: To enhance precision, the writer should focus on sentence structure and clarity. Proofreading for grammatical accuracy and ensuring that phrases convey the intended meaning will help. Practicing with sentence rephrasing exercises can also aid in achieving more precise vocabulary usage.

• Use Correct Spelling:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay contains several spelling errors, such as "Inconclusion" (should be "In conclusion") and "low- income" (should be "low-income"). These errors detract from the overall professionalism of the writing and can affect clarity.
  • How to improve: To improve spelling accuracy, the writer should implement a systematic proofreading process, checking for common spelling mistakes. Utilizing spell-check tools and maintaining a list of frequently misspelled words can also be beneficial. Regular practice through writing exercises and reading can help reinforce correct spelling habits.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a solid foundation in vocabulary, there are clear areas for improvement. By expanding lexical range, enhancing precision, 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: 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 simple, compound, and complex sentences. For instance, phrases like "It can be seen that, fines can act as a strong deterrent" and "Rather than solely relying on fines, governments should invest in public education" show an ability to construct complex ideas. However, there are instances of repetitive sentence beginnings and structures, such as starting multiple sentences with "In addition" or "For example," which can detract from the overall variety.
  • How to improve: To enhance the diversity of sentence structures, consider using a broader range of introductory phrases and varying the sentence lengths. For example, instead of repeatedly using "For example," you could use "To illustrate this point," or "A case in point is." Additionally, incorporating more relative clauses and participial phrases could add complexity and interest to your writing.

• Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay displays a generally good command of grammar and punctuation, but there are notable errors that affect clarity and coherence. For instance, the phrase "the first reason is economic and social disparities" should begin with a capital "T" as it starts a new sentence. Additionally, the sentence "Making non-recyclers as a fine makes sure that everyone does their part to lessen environmental harm" is awkwardly constructed and could be clearer. Punctuation errors, such as the missing comma before "which shows success in increasing recycling rates," can also lead to confusion.
  • How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, focus on proofreading for capitalization and punctuation errors. Reading the essay aloud can help identify awkward phrasing and run-on sentences. Additionally, consider revising sentences for clarity and conciseness. For example, instead of "Making non-recyclers as a fine makes sure that everyone does their part," you might say, "Imposing fines on non-recyclers ensures that everyone contributes to environmental protection." This revision clarifies the intention and improves the overall flow of the essay.

By addressing these areas for improvement, you can enhance the grammatical range and accuracy of your writing, potentially raising your band score in future assessments.

Bài sửa mẫu

Environmental pollution is a serious and widespread problem all over the world. Therefore, reducing waste is essential. Some people believe that individuals should be fined if they do not recycle. I both concur and disagree with this opinion and will discuss the reasons why in this essay.

There are several reasons why I agree with imposing fines for not recycling. It is evident that fines serve as a potent deterrent, pushing individuals to be more responsible about recycling. For example, when people face financial penalties, they are more likely to make an effort to separate waste and recycle properly. Financial incentives can foster accountability among individuals. In addition, it also affects the environment. Recycling reduces waste sent to landfills, conserves natural resources, and diminishes pollution. Implementing fines for non-recyclers ensures that everyone does their part to lessen environmental harm. For instance, Korea and Japan are countries that have penalties for individuals who do not recycle, which demonstrates success in increasing recycling rates.

On the other hand, there are reasons for disagreement with solely fining people for not recycling. The first reason is economic and social disparities. Fines might disproportionately affect low-income households who may struggle with the added financial burden. Some communities might lack access to convenient recycling facilities, making it difficult to comply with recycling regulations. Furthermore, education is a more effective approach. Rather than solely relying on fines, governments should invest in public education to teach the importance of recycling. Providing clear information and accessible recycling infrastructure can encourage people to recycle without the need for punitive measures. Instead of fines, incentives could be introduced to reward people for recycling, such as tax breaks or rebates for those who actively participate.

In conclusion, while I believe that fines can be an effective measure to encourage recycling, it is crucial to consider the economic and social implications. A balanced approach that includes education and incentives may be more effective in promoting responsible recycling behaviors.