Pollution and other environmental problems are resulting from a country's development and becoming richer. Some think this cannot be avoided. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Numerous studies have demonstrated that environmental problems and the development of a country is inevitable. However, I disagree with this school of thought, which is demonstrated in this essay.
On one hand, I understand why many individuals support the idea that environmental degradation are resulting from a country's development and becoming richer. As a country develops, heavy industrialization is required to boost the economy of that nation. Such factories and power plants will consume more resources from the environment such as water and soil to spur the development of a nation. This could be detrimental to the environment in light of much contaminants from fossil fuel and waste from power plants may destroy the natural habitats and decrease the air quality.
On the other hand, I disagree with the perspective that environmental pollution is unavoidable to develop a country. There are more ways to enhance a nation’s economy without harming the environment. Initially Country can invest more on renewable energies such as solar or wind, which do not have impact on climate change or pollution and also create more jobs for people. For example, there are a significant decrease in the amount of carbon footprints in Scottland as it had switched electricity with wind energy in manufactures factories. In addition, the government can encourage citizens to foster the quality of the environment by switch to more ecofriendly mean of transports. Taking Beijing for an example, the authorities of that nation have encourage people by opening more lane for bicycle, which leads to numerous individuals switch to other eco-friendly transportation while commuting.
In conclusion, I disagree that environmental problems are an inevitable consequence of a country's development and becoming richer. By taking steps to reduce pollution and invest in renewable energy, countries can achieve both economic growth and environmental conservation.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"Numerous studies have demonstrated" -> "Numerous studies have shown"
Explanation: "Demonstrated" can imply a more active role in the process of proving or showing something, whereas "shown" is more passive and neutral, fitting better in an academic context where the focus is on the evidence presented rather than the action of demonstrating.
"the development of a country is inevitable" -> "the development of a country is inevitable"
Explanation: This is a redundant statement as "inevitable" already implies that something is unavoidable. Removing "is" corrects the grammatical error and maintains the intended meaning.
"I disagree with this school of thought" -> "I disagree with this perspective"
Explanation: "School of thought" can be seen as overly formal and slightly archaic in this context. "Perspective" is more commonly used in academic writing and is more precise in this context, referring to a particular point of view or viewpoint.
"environmental degradation are resulting" -> "environmental degradation results"
Explanation: "Are resulting" is grammatically incorrect as "degradation" is a singular noun. "Results" should be used to maintain grammatical correctness and clarity.
"Such factories and power plants will consume more resources from the environment" -> "Such factories and power plants consume more environmental resources"
Explanation: The phrase "from the environment" is redundant as "environmental resources" directly conveys the intended meaning without the redundancy.
"to spur the development of a nation" -> "to spur national development"
Explanation: "The development of a nation" is a bit verbose and can be simplified to "national development" for a more concise and formal tone.
"much contaminants" -> "significant contaminants"
Explanation: "Much" is vague and informal; "significant" is more precise and appropriate for academic writing, indicating a measurable impact.
"decrease the air quality" -> "reduce air quality"
Explanation: "Decrease" is correct but "reduce" is more commonly used in environmental contexts, making the phrase more natural and precise.
"There are more ways to enhance a nation’s economy" -> "there are alternative methods to enhance a nation’s economy"
Explanation: "More ways" is vague and informal; "alternative methods" specifies the type of ways, enhancing the formality and clarity of the statement.
"invest more on renewable energies" -> "invest more in renewable energies"
Explanation: "On" is incorrect in this context; "in" is the correct preposition for indicating investment in something.
"do not have impact on climate change or pollution" -> "do not impact climate change or pollution"
Explanation: "Have impact" is less formal and slightly awkward; "impact" is more direct and suitable for academic writing.
"a significant decrease in the amount of carbon footprints" -> "a significant reduction in carbon footprint"
Explanation: "Carbon footprints" is a singular noun, and "amount" is incorrect; "reduction" is the correct term for decreasing something, and "carbon footprint" is the standard term in environmental contexts.
"switch to more ecofriendly mean of transports" -> "switch to more eco-friendly modes of transportation"
Explanation: "Mean" is incorrect; "modes" is the correct plural form for referring to different ways of transportation. "Eco-friendly" should be hyphenated for grammatical correctness and clarity.
"the authorities of that nation have encourage people" -> "the authorities of that nation have encouraged people"
Explanation: "Have encourage" is grammatically incorrect; "have encouraged" is the correct form of the verb in the past tense, indicating completed action.
"By taking steps to reduce pollution and invest in renewable energy" -> "By implementing measures to reduce pollution and investing in renewable energy"
Explanation: "Taking steps" is somewhat informal and vague; "implementing measures" is more specific and formal, suitable for academic writing.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 8

Band Score for Task Response: 8

Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively addresses the prompt by presenting a clear argument against the notion that environmental degradation is an unavoidable consequence of a country’s development. The introduction clearly states the writer’s disagreement with the prevailing view, and the body paragraphs provide supporting arguments and examples that illustrate alternative paths for economic growth that do not compromise environmental integrity. The essay discusses both sides of the argument, which adds depth to the response.
- How to improve: To enhance the response further, the writer could explicitly outline the key points that will be discussed in the essay in the introduction. This would provide a clearer roadmap for the reader and ensure that all parts of the question are addressed in a structured manner.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear position throughout, consistently arguing against the idea that environmental problems are inevitable as countries develop. The use of phrases like "I disagree with this school of thought" and "I disagree with the perspective" reinforces the writer’s stance. However, there are moments where the language could be more assertive and confident to further solidify the position.
- How to improve: To strengthen the clarity of the position, the writer could use more definitive language and avoid hedging phrases. For instance, instead of saying "I understand why many individuals support the idea," the writer could assert, "While some individuals believe this, I firmly contend that…" This would enhance the assertiveness of the position.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents several well-developed ideas, such as the potential for renewable energy and eco-friendly transportation initiatives. The examples provided, such as Scotland’s use of wind energy and Beijing’s promotion of cycling, effectively support the arguments made. However, some ideas could be extended further with additional details or statistics to enhance their persuasive power.
- How to improve: The writer should aim to provide more specific data or studies to back up claims. For example, when discussing the decrease in carbon footprints in Scotland, citing a specific percentage or year would add credibility. Additionally, elaborating on how renewable energy creates jobs could strengthen the argument further.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay remains largely focused on the topic of environmental problems in relation to a country’s development. The writer successfully ties back to the main argument throughout the essay. However, there are minor instances where the discussion could be more tightly aligned with the prompt, particularly in the second body paragraph where the transition between ideas could be smoother.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer should ensure that each point made directly relates back to the central thesis. Using clear topic sentences at the beginning of each paragraph can help reinforce the main argument and keep the discussion on track. Additionally, transitions between ideas should be more fluid to enhance coherence.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong understanding of the task and presents a compelling argument. By implementing the suggested improvements, the writer could elevate their score even further.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 7

Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear argument structure, distinguishing between the opposing viewpoints regarding the relationship between environmental degradation and economic development. The introduction effectively outlines the author’s stance, while the body paragraphs logically separate the arguments for and against the idea that pollution is an unavoidable consequence of development. However, the transition between ideas could be smoother; for instance, the shift from discussing the negative impacts of industrialization to presenting alternative solutions feels abrupt.
- How to improve: To enhance logical flow, consider using clearer topic sentences that summarize the main idea of each paragraph. Additionally, transitional phrases such as "Furthermore," "In contrast," or "Moreover" can help guide the reader through the argument more seamlessly. For example, when moving from discussing industrialization to renewable energy solutions, a phrase like "Despite the challenges posed by industrialization, there are viable alternatives that can promote economic growth without harming the environment" could serve as a bridge.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay utilizes paragraphs effectively, with each paragraph focusing on a distinct aspect of the argument. The first body paragraph discusses the viewpoint supporting the inevitability of environmental degradation, while the second presents counterarguments. However, the second paragraph could benefit from clearer internal organization, as the ideas about renewable energy and eco-friendly transportation seem to be presented in a somewhat disjointed manner.
- How to improve: To improve paragraph structure, ensure that each paragraph begins with a clear topic sentence, followed by supporting details that are logically ordered. For instance, within the second body paragraph, the discussion could first focus on renewable energy investments, followed by a transition into the role of public transportation initiatives. This would create a more coherent narrative within the paragraph.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay employs some cohesive devices, such as "On one hand" and "On the other hand," which help to delineate contrasting viewpoints. However, the range of cohesive devices is somewhat limited, and there are instances where the connections between sentences and ideas could be strengthened. For example, the phrase "this could be detrimental to the environment" lacks a clear antecedent, which may confuse readers about what "this" refers to.
- How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, incorporate a wider variety of linking words and phrases. For instance, using "Consequently," "As a result," or "In addition" can help clarify relationships between ideas. Additionally, ensure that pronouns and demonstratives are used clearly to avoid ambiguity. Instead of saying "this could be detrimental," specify what "this" refers to, such as "the heavy industrialization required for development could be detrimental to the environment."

By addressing these areas for improvement, the essay can achieve greater clarity and coherence, potentially raising its band score in the Coherence and Cohesion criteria.

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 related to the topic of environmental issues and economic development. Terms like "industrialization," "contaminants," "renewable energies," and "eco-friendly" are appropriately used. However, the vocabulary is somewhat repetitive, particularly with phrases like "environmental problems" and "country’s development," which appear multiple times without variation. This limits the overall lexical range.
- How to improve: To enhance lexical variety, the writer could incorporate synonyms or related terms. For instance, instead of repeatedly using "environmental problems," alternatives like "ecological issues," "environmental challenges," or "environmental degradation" could be employed. Additionally, varying the phrasing around "country’s development" with terms like "national advancement" or "economic progress" would enrich the vocabulary.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains instances of imprecise vocabulary usage. For example, the phrase "environmental degradation are resulting from a country’s development" contains a grammatical error where "are" should be "is" to match the singular subject "degradation." Additionally, the phrase "much contaminants" is incorrect; it should be "many contaminants" as "contaminants" is countable. The use of "impact on climate change or pollution" could also be more clearly expressed as "impact climate change and contribute to pollution."
- How to improve: To improve precision, the writer should focus on subject-verb agreement and the countability of nouns. Regular practice with grammar exercises can help. Furthermore, using phrases like "affect climate change" instead of "have impact on" would enhance clarity and precision.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains several spelling errors, such as "Scottland" (should be "Scotland") and "eco-friendly" (spelled inconsistently as "eco-friendly" and "ecofriendly"). These errors detract from the overall professionalism of the writing and can confuse readers.
- How to improve: To enhance spelling accuracy, the writer should proofread the essay carefully or use spell-check tools before submission. Keeping a list of commonly misspelled words and practicing them can also be beneficial. Additionally, reading the essay aloud can help catch spelling mistakes and improve overall fluency.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of the topic and presents a clear argument, improvements in vocabulary range, precision, and spelling are necessary to achieve 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 reasonable variety of sentence structures, including simple, compound, and complex sentences. For instance, the use of phrases like "On one hand" and "On the other hand" effectively introduces contrasting ideas. However, there are instances of repetitive sentence beginnings and structures, such as starting multiple sentences with "As a country develops" or "There are." This can make the writing feel somewhat monotonous and less engaging.
- How to improve: To diversify sentence structures, the writer could incorporate more varied sentence openings and use different conjunctions or transition phrases. For example, instead of repeatedly starting with "As a country develops," the writer could use "With the advancement of a nation," or "In the process of development." Additionally, integrating more complex sentences that combine ideas could enhance the overall flow and sophistication of the writing.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains several grammatical errors that affect clarity and coherence. For example, in the phrase "environmental degradation are resulting," the subject-verb agreement is incorrect; it should be "environmental degradation is resulting." Additionally, there are punctuation issues, such as missing commas in complex sentences, which can lead to run-on sentences. For instance, "which do not have impact on climate change or pollution and also create more jobs for people" could benefit from a comma before "and" to separate the two independent clauses.
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, the writer should carefully proofread the essay to catch subject-verb agreement errors and ensure proper punctuation is used throughout. Practicing grammar exercises focused on common errors, such as subject-verb agreement and punctuation rules, can also be beneficial. Furthermore, reading more complex texts can help the writer internalize correct grammatical structures and punctuation usage.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a good command of grammatical range and accuracy, focusing on diversifying sentence structures and refining grammatical precision will enhance the quality of the writing and potentially lead to a higher band score.

Bài sửa mẫu

Numerous studies have demonstrated that environmental problems and the development of a country are inevitable. However, I disagree with this school of thought, which is demonstrated in this essay.

On one hand, I understand why many individuals support the idea that environmental degradation results from a country’s development and becoming richer. As a country develops, heavy industrialization is required to boost the economy of that nation. Such factories and power plants consume more resources from the environment, such as water and soil, to spur the development of a nation. This could be detrimental to the environment, as significant contaminants from fossil fuels and waste from power plants may destroy natural habitats and reduce air quality.

On the other hand, I disagree with the perspective that environmental pollution is unavoidable for the development of a country. There are alternative methods to enhance a nation’s economy without harming the environment. Initially, a country can invest more in renewable energies such as solar or wind, which do not impact climate change or pollution and also create more jobs for people. For example, there has been a significant decrease in the amount of carbon footprints in Scotland as it switched its electricity to wind energy in manufacturing factories. In addition, the government can encourage citizens to foster the quality of the environment by switching to more eco-friendly modes of transportation. Taking Beijing as an example, the authorities of that nation have encouraged people by opening more lanes for bicycles, which has led to numerous individuals switching to other eco-friendly transportation while commuting.

In conclusion, I disagree that environmental problems are an inevitable consequence of a country’s development and becoming richer. By taking steps to reduce pollution and invest in renewable energy, countries can achieve both economic growth and environmental conservation.