Scientific research should be carried out by governments, rather than private companies. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Scientific research should be carried out by governments, rather than
private companies. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Many others think that scientific research should be achieved by authorities instead of individual firms. From my point of view, the governmets may deal with those scientific information and experiment because they can provide the money and the national security with safety.
On one hand, scientific exploration requires funding to be able to do research, so financial is one of the most important thing that needed for every scientific research. Moreover, the government’s fund probarely better than any private companies. For example, a company in Viet Nam name is Vingroup which is the biggest firm in this country with trillions of billion in revenue a year. However, that amount of money is not even a fraction of the authorites income while the money spend for a single scientific exploration is costly. Thus, the government should carry out scientific investigation because of their money.
On the other hand, security and safety arethe two most important things for scientific research. However, those things are too hard for a private company to supplies and the government has enough conditions to do both of the above. For instance, every nations already have their own national protection and department of health. Hence, if an unexpected event happens, the authorities may ensure the safety of the resident while this is the thing that no firms can do.
Inconclusion, I am in agreement with the statement that the authorities should carry out scientific exploration, gather than private companies because of the financial assurance and the protection and safety in every single countries.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

Errors and Improvements:

1. "Many others think that scientific research should be achieved by authorities instead of individual firms."
   -> "Many others advocate for scientific research to be conducted by governmental bodies rather than individual firms."
   Explanation: "Achieved" is not the most suitable term here as it doesn’t convey the process of conducting research. "Authorities" is vague; specifying "governmental bodies" is clearer. "Instead of" can be replaced with "rather than" for a more formal tone.

2. "From my point of view, the governmets may deal with those scientific information and experiment because they can provide the money and the national security with safety."
   -> "In my perspective, governments are better positioned to manage scientific information and experiments due to their capacity to allocate resources and ensure national security."
   Explanation: "May deal with" lacks precision; "manage" or "handle" are more appropriate. "Scientific information and experiment" should be "scientific information and experiments." "With safety" is redundant; "ensure safety" suffices.

3. "On one hand, scientific exploration requires funding to be able to do research, so financial is one of the most important thing that needed for every scientific research."
   -> "Scientific exploration necessitates funding to conduct research; therefore, financial support is paramount for all scientific endeavors."
   Explanation: "Financial" is better used as an adjective ("financial support") rather than a noun. "Thing" is vague and colloquial; "factor" or "aspect" is more appropriate.

4. "Moreover, the government’s fund probarely better than any private companies."
   -> "Moreover, governmental funding is likely superior to that of private companies."
   Explanation: "Probarely" is not a standard word; "likely" is more appropriate. Also, "better than" can be replaced with "superior to" for a more formal tone.

5. "However, that amount of money is not even a fraction of the authorites income while the money spend for a single scientific exploration is costly."
   -> "However, the financial resources of individual firms, such as Vingroup in Vietnam, pale in comparison to governmental budgets, especially considering the substantial costs associated with scientific exploration."
   Explanation: "Authorites" should be "authorities." "Income" is not the most precise term here; "budget" or "funds" would be better. "Spend" should be "spent," and "costly" can be expanded to "substantial costs associated with scientific exploration" for clarity and formality.

6. "Thus, the government should carry out scientific investigation because of their money."
   -> "Thus, governmental bodies should undertake scientific investigations due to their financial resources."
   Explanation: "Carry out" is appropriate, but "conduct" is a more formal synonym. "Their money" can be replaced with "their financial resources" for clarity and formality.

7. "On the other hand, security and safety arethe two most important things for scientific research."
   -> "On the other hand, security and safety are paramount considerations in scientific research."
   Explanation: "Arethe" should be "are the." "Things" is too generic; "considerations" is more precise.

8. "However, those things are too hard for a private company to supplies and the government has enough conditions to do both of the above."
   -> "However, private companies often lack the capacity to provide adequate security measures, whereas governments possess the requisite infrastructure to fulfill both security and safety requirements."
   Explanation: "Too hard for" is overly colloquial; "lack the capacity to provide" is more formal. "Supplies" should be "supply." "Enough conditions" is unclear; specifying "infrastructure" clarifies the point.

9. "Hence, if an unexpected event happens, the authorities may ensure the safety of the resident while this is the thing that no firms can do."
   -> "Thus, in the event of an unforeseen circumstance, governmental bodies can ensure the safety of residents, a task beyond the capability of private enterprises."
   Explanation: "Hence" can be replaced with "Thus" for a more formal tone. "Unexpected event happens" can be condensed to "unforeseen circumstance." "Authorities" should be "governmental bodies" for clarity. "The thing that" is unnecessarily wordy; "a task beyond the capability of" is clearer.

10. "Inconclusion, I am in agreement with the statement that the authorities should carry out scientific exploration, gather than private companies because of the financial assurance and the protection and safety in every single countries."
    -> "In conclusion, I concur with the notion that governmental bodies should spearhead scientific exploration, rather than private enterprises, due to their ability to provide financial stability and ensure protection and safety on a national scale."
    Explanation: "Inconclusion" should be "In conclusion." "Gather" should be "rather." "Every single countries" should be "on a national scale" for clarity.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Task Response: 6

• Answer All Parts of the Question:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay addresses the prompt by expressing agreement with the idea that scientific research should be conducted by governments instead of private companies. It discusses two main points: the financial capability of governments and their role in ensuring national security and safety.
  • How to improve: To enhance the response, the essay could delve deeper into the implications of government-led research versus private sector involvement. It could explore nuances such as the potential drawbacks of government control or the benefits of competition in research and development.

• Present a Clear Position Throughout:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear stance in favor of government-led scientific research. This position is evident throughout the essay, with the writer consistently arguing for the superiority of government funding and capacity in ensuring both financial support and safety in scientific endeavors.
  • How to improve: To further strengthen clarity, the essay could explicitly state the writer’s position in the introduction and reiterate it in the conclusion. Additionally, maintaining a consistent tone and language throughout the essay would enhance clarity.

• Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay presents two main ideas: the financial superiority of governments in funding research and their role in ensuring safety and security. However, these ideas are presented briefly and lack sufficient elaboration. Examples are provided, but they are not thoroughly developed.
  • How to improve: To improve, the essay could expand on each main point by providing more detailed explanations and examples. Additionally, integrating relevant statistics or studies could enhance the credibility of the arguments presented.

• Stay on Topic:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay largely stays on topic by discussing the advantages of government-led scientific research as opposed to private sector involvement. However, there are minor deviations, such as brief tangents on the financial capabilities of specific companies.
  • How to improve: To maintain focus, the essay should avoid straying into irrelevant details, such as specific company revenue figures. Instead, it should concentrate on directly supporting the central argument for government-led research.

Overall, while the essay effectively presents a clear position in agreement with the prompt and stays predominantly on topic, it would benefit from deeper analysis, more developed ideas, and tighter focus on the core argument.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 6

• Organize Information Logically:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a basic level of logical organization. It begins with an introduction presenting the author’s stance, followed by two body paragraphs discussing different aspects of the argument (financial support and security/safety). However, the progression of ideas within paragraphs is somewhat disjointed, leading to a lack of coherence. For instance, the transition between discussing financial support and security/safety could be smoother.
  • How to improve: To enhance logical organization, consider outlining the main points before writing each paragraph. Ensure that each paragraph focuses on a single idea and transitions smoothly to the next. Use topic sentences to clearly introduce the main point of each paragraph, and use connecting phrases to establish relationships between ideas, enhancing coherence.

• Use Paragraphs:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay utilizes paragraphs, but their effectiveness is limited. Each paragraph attempts to address a distinct point, but the structure within paragraphs lacks coherence. For instance, the second paragraph mixes points about financial support and transitions abruptly to discussing security/safety without a clear transition. Additionally, the concluding paragraph lacks a clear summary of the main points discussed.
  • How to improve: Revise paragraph structure to ensure each paragraph has a clear focus on one main idea. Begin each paragraph with a topic sentence that previews the main point, followed by supporting details and examples. Ensure smooth transitions between paragraphs to maintain coherence and flow of ideas. In the conclusion, summarize the key arguments presented in the body paragraphs to provide closure to the essay.

• Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay attempts to use cohesive devices, such as pronouns ("those," "that"), conjunctions ("however," "moreover"), and transitional phrases ("on one hand," "on the other hand," "for example"). However, their usage is inconsistent, and some transitions are abrupt, affecting the overall cohesion of the essay. Additionally, more sophisticated cohesive devices, such as parallelism and referencing, are lacking.
  • How to improve: Increase the variety and consistency of cohesive devices throughout the essay. Ensure that transitions between ideas are smooth and logical, using cohesive devices appropriately to connect sentences and paragraphs. Introduce more advanced cohesive devices, such as parallel structure or repetition, to strengthen coherence and cohesion. Review and revise the essay to eliminate any abrupt shifts in focus or ideas.

Overall, while the essay presents relevant arguments and ideas, improvements in logical organization, paragraph structure, and cohesive device usage are necessary to enhance coherence and cohesion, ultimately improving the overall clarity and effectiveness of the essay.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 5

Band Score for Lexical Resource: 5

• Use a Wide Range of Vocabulary:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a commendable range of vocabulary. There’s evidence of varied word choice, though some instances could benefit from more precise selection. For instance, "scientific exploration" and "scientific investigation" are used interchangeably, but employing synonyms like "research endeavor" or "scientific inquiry" could enrich the lexical diversity further. Additionally, while the essay generally conveys ideas effectively, enhancing the use of transitional phrases or connectors could improve coherence.
  • How to improve: To enhance lexical resource, aim to incorporate a broader array of synonyms and advanced vocabulary pertinent to the topic. Focus on using terms precisely and judiciously. For instance, instead of repeatedly using "scientific research," explore alternatives like "scientific inquiry," "research endeavors," or "academic exploration." Furthermore, employ cohesive devices such as "furthermore," "on the contrary," or "consequently" to bolster the essay’s structural coherence.

• Use Vocabulary Precisely:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates both precise and imprecise vocabulary usage. While some terms, such as "national security" and "financial assurance," are employed accurately to convey specific meanings, others lack precision. For example, "scientific exploration" and "scientific investigation" are used interchangeably despite subtle differences in connotation. Similarly, the phrase "gather than private companies" appears to be a typographical error, indicating the need for meticulous proofreading.
  • How to improve: To refine vocabulary precision, strive for consistency in terminology usage. Distinguish between closely related terms to convey nuanced meanings effectively. For instance, differentiate between "scientific exploration" and "scientific investigation," selecting the most appropriate term based on context. Additionally, prioritize thorough proofreading to rectify typographical errors and ensure linguistic accuracy.

• Use Correct Spelling:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay exhibits varying levels of spelling accuracy. While many words are spelled correctly, several instances of misspelled words, such as "governmets," "probarely," "inconclusion," and "gather," detract from the overall clarity and professionalism of the writing. Consistent errors in spelling compromise the essay’s credibility and readability.
  • How to improve: To enhance spelling accuracy, adopt strategies such as thorough proofreading, utilizing spell-checking tools, and expanding your vocabulary to mitigate common errors. Pay close attention to frequently misspelled words and seek opportunities for practice and reinforcement. Additionally, consider seeking feedback from peers or educators to identify and address spelling weaknesses systematically. By prioritizing precision in spelling, you can elevate the quality and professionalism of your writing.

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 a limited range of sentence structures. Most sentences are simple or compound, with occasional complex structures. For instance, "Many others think that scientific research should be achieved by authorities instead of individual firms" presents a simple sentence structure. While there is an attempt at complexity in sentences like "Moreover, the government’s fund probably better than any private companies," it lacks clarity and grammatical accuracy. Variations in sentence structure are necessary to enhance readability and demonstrate a command of language.
  • How to improve: To improve the range of sentence structures, aim to incorporate a variety of sentence types, such as complex and compound-complex sentences. This can be achieved by using subordinating conjunctions (e.g., although, despite, whereas) to combine ideas and create more sophisticated structures. Additionally, pay attention to sentence clarity and coherence to ensure that complex structures are used effectively and contribute to the overall cohesion of the essay.

• Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay exhibits several grammatical errors and punctuation inaccuracies, affecting the clarity and coherence of the writing. For example, "From my point of view, the governmets may deal with those scientific information and experiment because they can provide the money and the national security with safety" contains errors such as "governmets" instead of "governments," and "the money and the national security with safety," which is grammatically incorrect. Additionally, there are punctuation errors throughout the essay, such as missing commas and incorrect placement of periods.
  • How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy and punctuation skills, it is essential to review and practice basic grammar rules, particularly subject-verb agreement, article usage, and sentence structure. Proofreading and editing should be emphasized to identify and correct errors in punctuation, such as commas, periods, and apostrophes. Additionally, seeking feedback from peers or instructors can provide valuable insights into areas for improvement and help refine writing skills over time.

Bài sửa mẫu

Many argue that scientific research should be conducted by governments rather than private companies. From my perspective, governments are better equipped to handle scientific information and experiments due to their ability to allocate resources and ensure national security.

Scientific exploration requires funding to conduct research; thus, financial support is crucial for all scientific endeavors. Moreover, governmental funding is likely superior to that of private companies. However, the financial resources of individual firms, such as Vingroup in Vietnam, pale in comparison to governmental budgets, especially considering the substantial costs associated with scientific exploration. Thus, governmental bodies should undertake scientific investigations due to their financial resources.

On the other hand, security and safety are paramount considerations in scientific research. Private companies often lack the capacity to provide adequate security measures, whereas governments possess the requisite infrastructure to fulfill both security and safety requirements. Thus, in the event of an unforeseen circumstance, governmental bodies can ensure the safety of residents, a task beyond the capability of private enterprises.

In conclusion, I agree that governmental bodies should spearhead scientific exploration, rather than private enterprises, due to their ability to provide financial stability and ensure protection and safety on a national scale.