Scientific research should be funded by governments rather than commercial organisations. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

There exists a viewpoint that governments, other than profit-oriented enterprises, should be the entity responsible for grants of scientific research. Although commercial companies can alleviate fiscal strains on governments, I mostly agree with this notion as governments prioritize public welfare and offer more consistent funding schemes.

The first explanation for my advocacy to government funding based on the primary aim across two said parties. Particularly, governments mainly focus on the benefits of society as a whole, whereas commercial companies prioritize financial returns. Consequently, instead of upholding the integrity of the objectivity, organizations may introduce bias to influence the course of the research to align with their interests.

Another justification for my agreement is the stability of government sponsors. Indeed, government funding programs often provide more stable and continuous support compared to commercial ones, which may fluctuate based on profit margins, market conditions or simply changes in corporate structure. For instance, numerous vaccination projects of the Vietnam Research Institute of Biotechnology had been halted after the bankruptcy of its parent company, a large pharmaceutical company.

Admittedly, fundings from commercial companies may alleviate the burden for governments. Specifically, by sharing the responsibility of investing in scientific research and development, organizations can contribute significant capital to bear and reduce burden on governments. With their assistance, additional funds will be available for governments to address other pressing societal issues, such as poverty or unemployment.

In conclusion, despite the fact that commercial companies’ funding for scientific research may lighten economic pressure for governments, I predominantly contend that this kind of research should be sponsored by governments, since they prioritize the public interest and provide more stable funding programs. Ideally, a partnership of government and commercial funding can provide a balanced approach, leveraging the strengths of both sectors and optimizing the final results.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"There exists a viewpoint" -> "There is a viewpoint"
Explanation: Simplifying "There exists a viewpoint" to "There is a viewpoint" maintains the formal tone while avoiding unnecessary complexity.
"profit-oriented enterprises" -> "profit-driven enterprises"
Explanation: "Profit-driven" is a more precise and commonly used term in academic contexts to describe businesses focused on profit, enhancing the formal tone.
"can alleviate fiscal strains" -> "can alleviate fiscal burdens"
Explanation: "Burden" is a more specific term in this context, emphasizing the weight or pressure on governments, which is more appropriate for academic writing.
"I mostly agree" -> "I largely agree"
Explanation: "Largely" is a more formal synonym for "mostly," aligning better with academic style.
"The first explanation for my advocacy" -> "The first reason for my advocacy"
Explanation: "Reason" is more precise and academically appropriate than "explanation" in this context, as it directly relates to the justification.
"across two said parties" -> "between these two entities"
Explanation: "Entities" is a more formal term than "parties," and "between" is more precise than "across" in this context.
"upholding the integrity of the objectivity" -> "maintaining the objectivity"
Explanation: "Maintaining the objectivity" is a clearer and more direct expression, avoiding the awkward construction of "upholding the integrity of."
"Another justification for my agreement" -> "Another reason for my support"
Explanation: "Reason" is more direct and appropriate in this context, and "support" is a more formal synonym for "agreement."
"government sponsors" -> "government funding"
Explanation: "Government funding" is a more specific and formal term than "government sponsors," which is vague and less precise.
"bear and reduce burden" -> "bear the burden"
Explanation: "Bear the burden" is the correct idiomatic expression, which is more natural and formal.
"additional funds will be available" -> "additional funds become available"
Explanation: "Become available" is a more precise and formal way to describe the availability of funds in an academic context.
"Ideally, a partnership of government and commercial funding" -> "Ideally, a collaborative effort between government and commercial funding"
Explanation: "Collaborative effort" is a more formal and precise term than "partnership," which is somewhat informal and vague in this context.
"leveraging the strengths of both sectors" -> "leveraging the strengths of each sector"
Explanation: "Each sector" is more specific and accurate than "both sectors," which could imply a binary opposition rather than a collaborative effort.
"optimizing the final results" -> "optimizing the outcomes"
Explanation: "Outcomes" is a more formal and academically appropriate term than "results," which is somewhat informal and less precise.

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 in favor of government funding for scientific research while acknowledging the role of commercial organizations. The introduction clearly states the writer’s position, and each paragraph contributes to the argument. The essay discusses the benefits of government funding, such as prioritizing public welfare and providing stability, while also recognizing the potential advantages of commercial funding. However, the essay could benefit from a more explicit exploration of the extent to which the writer agrees or disagrees with the statement.
- How to improve: To enhance the response, the writer could explicitly state the degree of agreement in the introduction and conclusion. For example, they could clarify whether they fully agree, partially agree, or disagree with the statement. Additionally, providing a more balanced discussion of the potential benefits of commercial funding could strengthen the argument.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear position favoring government funding throughout. The writer consistently argues that government funding is preferable due to its focus on public welfare and stability. However, the acknowledgment of commercial funding’s benefits could create some ambiguity regarding the writer’s stance. While the writer states they "mostly agree," the discussion of commercial funding might lead some readers to question the strength of this position.
- How to improve: To ensure clarity, the writer should reinforce their position more strongly in the body paragraphs. They could use phrases like "Despite the benefits of commercial funding, I firmly believe…" to emphasize their stance. Additionally, reiterating their main argument in each paragraph would help maintain a clear focus.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents and supports ideas effectively, particularly in discussing the stability of government funding and the potential biases introduced by commercial interests. The use of specific examples, such as the case of the Vietnam Research Institute of Biotechnology, adds depth to the argument. However, while the ideas are well-developed, some points could be elaborated further to enhance the overall argument.
- How to improve: To improve the presentation and support of ideas, the writer could include additional examples or statistics that illustrate the benefits of government funding versus commercial funding. Expanding on the implications of bias in research funded by commercial organizations could also strengthen the argument.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay remains focused on the topic of funding for scientific research, with all points relevant to the prompt. The writer successfully avoids introducing unrelated ideas, which helps maintain coherence. However, the discussion of commercial funding, while relevant, could be perceived as slightly detracting from the main argument in favor of government funding.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer could limit the discussion of commercial funding to a few key points that directly contrast with government funding. They could also ensure that every point made ties back to the central argument, reinforcing the preference for government funding throughout the essay.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong understanding of the topic and presents a well-structured argument. With some adjustments to clarify the degree of agreement and to strengthen the support for ideas, the essay could achieve an even higher band score.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 8

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 8

Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a clear and logical organization of ideas. The introduction effectively sets up the argument, stating the writer’s position and outlining the reasons for this stance. Each paragraph presents a distinct point, with the first two paragraphs focusing on the advantages of government funding and the third acknowledging the potential benefits of commercial funding. The progression from one idea to the next is smooth, allowing the reader to follow the argument easily.
- How to improve: To enhance logical flow, consider using more explicit transitional phrases between paragraphs. For example, at the beginning of the third paragraph, a phrase like "However, it is important to acknowledge…" could reinforce the contrast between the previous points and the acknowledgment of commercial funding. This would help clarify the shift in focus and strengthen the overall coherence.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively uses paragraphs to separate different ideas, which contributes to its coherence. Each paragraph has a clear main idea, with supporting details that elaborate on that idea. The introduction and conclusion are well-defined, framing the argument effectively. However, the second paragraph could be further divided to enhance clarity, as it contains two distinct ideas regarding government focus and the potential bias introduced by commercial funding.
- How to improve: Consider breaking the second paragraph into two separate paragraphs: one focusing on the societal benefits prioritized by governments and the other discussing the potential bias introduced by commercial interests. This would allow for a more in-depth exploration of each point and improve readability.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay employs a variety of cohesive devices, such as "consequently," "indeed," and "admittedly," which effectively connect ideas within and between sentences. This demonstrates a good command of cohesive devices that enhance the flow of the argument. However, while the use of cohesive devices is generally effective, there are moments where repetition occurs, particularly with the phrase "government funding" and "commercial companies."
- How to improve: To diversify cohesive devices, consider using synonyms or rephrasing to avoid repetition. For instance, instead of repeatedly stating "government funding," you could use "public funding" or "state-sponsored research" in some instances. Additionally, incorporating more varied transitional phrases, such as "on the other hand" or "in contrast," could further enrich the essay’s cohesion.

Overall, the essay is well-structured and coherent, effectively presenting a balanced argument. By implementing the suggested improvements, the writer can enhance the clarity and sophistication of their writing, potentially achieving an even higher band score in Coherence and Cohesion.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Lexical Resource: 7

Use a Wide Range of Vocabulary:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a good range of vocabulary, with terms like "profit-oriented enterprises," "grants," "public welfare," and "bias." These choices reflect an understanding of the topic and contribute to the clarity of the argument. However, there are instances of repetition, such as the use of "funding" and "funds," which could be varied to enhance lexical diversity.
- How to improve: To improve, consider incorporating synonyms or related phrases to avoid redundancy. For example, instead of repeating "funding," you could use "financial support," "investment," or "backing." Additionally, using more advanced vocabulary or idiomatic expressions could elevate the essay further.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay shows a generally precise use of vocabulary, particularly in conveying the main ideas. However, there are moments where word choice could be more accurate. For instance, the phrase "the integrity of the objectivity" is somewhat awkward and could be clearer. The term "objectivity" could be better expressed as "objectivity of research" or simply "integrity of research."
- How to improve: Focus on ensuring that vocabulary accurately conveys the intended meaning. Reviewing phrases for clarity and coherence can help. For example, rephrasing "the integrity of the objectivity" to "the integrity of the research process" would enhance precision. Additionally, consider using context-specific terminology that aligns closely with the subject matter of scientific research.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay displays a high level of spelling accuracy, with no noticeable errors. Words such as "alleviate," "consistent," and "prioritize" are spelled correctly, reflecting a strong command of spelling conventions.
- How to improve: While spelling is accurate, it is beneficial to maintain this level of accuracy through regular practice. Engaging in activities such as reading academic articles or writing exercises can help reinforce correct spelling. Additionally, utilizing spell-check tools during the drafting process can serve as a safeguard against potential errors.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a solid command of lexical resource, achieving a Band Score of 7. By expanding vocabulary range, enhancing precision in word choice, and maintaining spelling accuracy, the writer can further improve their performance in this criterion.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 8

Band Score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 8

Use a Wide Range of Structures:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a strong command of various sentence structures. For instance, the use of complex sentences such as "Although commercial companies can alleviate fiscal strains on governments, I mostly agree with this notion as governments prioritize public welfare and offer more consistent funding schemes" showcases the ability to convey nuanced ideas effectively. Additionally, the essay employs a mix of simple, compound, and complex sentences, which contributes to a smooth flow of ideas. However, there are instances where sentence structures could be more varied, particularly in the opening sentences of paragraphs, which tend to follow a similar pattern.
- How to improve: To enhance the diversity of sentence structures, the writer could incorporate more varied introductory phrases or clauses. For example, instead of starting multiple paragraphs with "Another justification for my agreement is," the writer could use alternatives such as "Furthermore," or "In addition to this," to introduce new points. Additionally, integrating more passive voice constructions or conditional sentences could further enrich the grammatical range.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally exhibits a high level of grammatical accuracy, with only minor errors present. For example, the phrase "the primary aim across two said parties" is slightly awkward and could be more clearly articulated as "the primary aims of the two parties." Furthermore, the term "fundings" is incorrectly used; the correct term should be "funding," as it is an uncountable noun. Punctuation is mostly accurate, but there are a few instances where commas could enhance clarity, such as before "which may fluctuate based on profit margins" to separate the clause more clearly.
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, the writer should focus on refining awkward phrases and ensuring the correct use of nouns. Regularly reviewing common grammatical rules, such as noun usage and clause separation, can help in this regard. Additionally, proofreading for punctuation errors and reading the essay aloud can assist in identifying areas where clarity could be enhanced through better punctuation.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong grasp of grammatical range and accuracy, meriting a band score of 8. With targeted improvements in sentence variety and grammatical precision, the writer could further elevate their performance in this area.

Bài sửa mẫu

There is a viewpoint that governments, rather than profit-driven enterprises, should be the entity responsible for grants for scientific research. Although commercial companies can alleviate fiscal burdens on governments, I largely agree with this notion as governments prioritize public welfare and offer more consistent funding schemes.

The first reason for my advocacy for government funding is based on the primary aim of these two entities. Particularly, governments mainly focus on the benefits of society as a whole, whereas commercial companies prioritize financial returns. Consequently, instead of maintaining the objectivity of the research, organizations may introduce bias to influence the course of the research to align with their interests.

Another reason for my support is the stability of government funding. Indeed, government funding programs often provide more stable and continuous support compared to commercial ones, which may fluctuate based on profit margins, market conditions, or simply changes in corporate structure. For instance, numerous vaccination projects at the Vietnam Research Institute of Biotechnology were halted after the bankruptcy of its parent company, a large pharmaceutical firm.

Admittedly, funding from commercial companies may alleviate the burden for governments. Specifically, by sharing the responsibility of investing in scientific research and development, organizations can contribute significant capital to bear and reduce the burden on governments. With their assistance, additional funds become available for governments to address other pressing societal issues, such as poverty or unemployment.

In conclusion, despite the fact that funding from commercial companies for scientific research may lighten economic pressure for governments, I predominantly contend that this kind of research should be sponsored by governments, since they prioritize the public interest and provide more stable funding programs. Ideally, a collaborative effort between government and commercial funding can provide a balanced approach, leveraging the strengths of each sector and optimizing the outcomes.