Several languages are in danger of extinction because they are spoken by very small numbers of people. Some people say that governments should spend public money on saving these languages, while others believe that would be a waste of money. Discuss both these views and give your opinion.

Several languages are in danger of extinction because they are spoken by very small numbers of people. Some people say that governments should spend public money on saving these languages, while others believe that would be a waste of money.
Discuss both these views and give your opinion.

It is widely acknowledged that there are numerous languages on the brink of extinction due to a lack of people using them. This has led opinions to be divided on whether public funds should be invested in saving these languages or not because such investment is a waste of money. Personally, I contend that governments should have the responsibility for protecting these languages from being disappeared.

Granted, one might argue that to conserve a language from extinction demands a nation a large amount of money, which, in turn, might cause a lack of financial resources in other fundamental fields, including economic areas. This, according to this theory consequently may negatively impact the development of the whole country, as the economy is the priority for every country’s improvement. However, this line of reasoning is not sound because if a nation establishes bright and insightful strategies of source allocation to keep the country financially sustainable, the lack of funds in other areas almost never becomes a concern, rendering the argument that spending on such languages protection is an extravagant expenditure irrelevant.

Furthermore, I enunciate the idea that spending financial resources on conserving an unpopular language exerts several benefits in scientific exploration and national development. By keeping a language from vanishing, governments provide scientists with opportunities for cultural and historical research. This is because every language originates from a story that has not been discovered yet, and by studying such an uncovered language, people can acquire a broad spectrum of knowledge about history. By the very same token, the diversity of languages, which is the fruit of the endeavor of protecting languages, likely attracts a great number of tourists to a country. This leads to the advancement in the tourism industry of a particular nation, faciliatating the economic development of this country.

In conclusion, it is a mistake to say that it is a misuse of money to invest in the protection of unpopular languages. From my perspective, national governments should spend on such conservation for several benefits, including the improvement in historical discovery and economic development of this country.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

Errors and Improvements:

1. "This has led opinions to be divided on whether public funds should be invested in saving these languages or not because such investment is a waste of money." -> "This has sparked debate over whether public funds should be allocated to preserving these languages, as some argue it is an imprudent use of resources."
   Explanation: The original sentence is wordy and lacks precision. "Led opinions to be divided" can be simplified to "sparked debate," and "because such investment is a waste of money" can be replaced with "as some argue it is an imprudent use of resources" for clarity and formality.

2. "Personally, I contend that governments should have the responsibility for protecting these languages from being disappeared." -> "Personally, I maintain that governments should bear the responsibility for preserving these endangered languages."
   Explanation: "Contend" can be replaced with "maintain" for a smoother transition. Additionally, "from being disappeared" is awkward and unclear; "preserving" is a clearer alternative.

3. "Granted, one might argue that to conserve a language from extinction demands a nation a large amount of money, which, in turn, might cause a lack of financial resources in other fundamental fields, including economic areas." -> "Admittedly, one might argue that preserving a language from extinction requires significant financial investment, potentially diverting resources from other essential sectors, such as the economy."
   Explanation: The original sentence is convoluted and lacks clarity. "Demands a nation a large amount of money" can be simplified to "requires significant financial investment." "Economic areas" can be replaced with "the economy" for conciseness.

4. "However, this line of reasoning is not sound because if a nation establishes bright and insightful strategies of source allocation to keep the country financially sustainable, the lack of funds in other areas almost never becomes a concern, rendering the argument that spending on such languages protection is an extravagant expenditure irrelevant." -> "However, this argument lacks merit because effective resource allocation strategies can ensure financial sustainability, mitigating concerns about resource scarcity in other sectors. Thus, the notion that investing in language preservation is wasteful becomes inconsequential."
   Explanation: The original sentence is overly complex and difficult to follow. Simplification and clarity are achieved by restructuring the sentence and replacing "bright and insightful strategies of source allocation" with "effective resource allocation strategies."

5. "Furthermore, I enunciate the idea that spending financial resources on conserving an unpopular language exerts several benefits in scientific exploration and national development." -> "Furthermore, I assert that allocating financial resources to preserve endangered languages yields various benefits for scientific exploration and national development."
   Explanation: "Enunciate" is too formal and doesn’t fit well here. "Assert" is a more appropriate term. Additionally, "spending financial resources on conserving" can be replaced with "allocating financial resources to preserve" for clarity.

6. "By keeping a language from vanishing, governments provide scientists with opportunities for cultural and historical research." -> "Preserving a language from extinction provides scientists with opportunities for cultural and historical research."
   Explanation: The original sentence is unnecessarily wordy. Simplification is achieved by removing "governments" and "by keeping," as the subject and action are already implied.

7. "This is because every language originates from a story that has not been discovered yet, and by studying such an uncovered language, people can acquire a broad spectrum of knowledge about history." -> "This is because every language has an untold story behind it; studying such languages allows for a deeper understanding of history."
   Explanation: The original sentence is wordy and awkward. "Originate from a story that has not been discovered yet" is unclear and can be simplified to "has an untold story behind it." "Uncovered language" is replaced with "such languages" for clarity and conciseness.

8. "By the very same token, the diversity of languages, which is the fruit of the endeavor of protecting languages, likely attracts a great number of tourists to a country." -> "Similarly, the preservation of linguistic diversity, resulting from efforts to protect languages, often attracts a significant number of tourists to a country."
   Explanation: "By the very same token" is overly formal and can be replaced with "Similarly" for a smoother transition. "Fruit of the endeavor of protecting languages" is verbose and can be simplified to "resulting from efforts to protect languages."

9. "This leads to the advancement in the tourism industry of a particular nation, faciliatating the economic development of this country." -> "This contributes to the advancement of the tourism industry in a particular nation, facilitating its economic development."
   Explanation: "Leads to the advancement in the tourism industry of a particular nation" is awkward and unclear. Simplification and clarity are achieved by rephrasing the sentence and replacing "faciliatating" with "facilitating" for correct spelling.

10. "In conclusion, it is a mistake to say that it is a misuse of money to invest in the protection of unpopular languages." -> "In conclusion, it is erroneous to deem investment in the preservation of less widely spoken languages as a misuse of funds."
    Explanation: The original sentence is repetitive and lacks precision. "Misuse of money to invest" can be simplified to "misuse of funds." "Unpopular languages" is replaced with "less widely spoken languages" for clarity and specificity.

11. "From my perspective, national governments should spend on such conservation for several benefits, including the improvement in historical discovery and economic development of this country." -> "From my perspective, national governments should allocate funds for such conservation efforts, which offer various benefits, including advancements in historical research and economic development."
    Explanation: "Spend on such conservation" is ambiguous and can be clarified by specifying "allocate funds for such conservation efforts." Additionally, "improvement in historical discovery" is unclear and can be replaced with "advancements in historical research" for clarity.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Task Response: 7

• Answer All Parts of the Question:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay adequately addresses both sides of the argument, discussing the perspective that governments should allocate public funds to save endangered languages, as well as the opposing view that such expenditure would be wasteful.

  • The introduction clearly presents the two viewpoints, setting the stage for a balanced discussion.

  • Throughout the essay, there is a consistent effort to analyze both perspectives, demonstrating understanding of the prompt.

  • How to improve: While the essay does cover both sides, it could enhance its depth by providing more nuanced analysis and exploring potential counterarguments in greater detail. For instance, delving into the cultural significance of preserving languages for indigenous communities or the potential long-term consequences of language loss could enrich the discussion.

• Present a Clear Position Throughout:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear stance supporting the idea that governments should invest in protecting endangered languages. This position is evident from the thesis statement to the concluding remarks, providing coherence and direction to the argument.

  • Each paragraph reinforces the author’s viewpoint, offering reasons and examples to support the argument.

  • The conclusion succinctly restates the author’s opinion without introducing new ideas.

  • How to improve: While clarity is a strength, ensuring that the counterargument is adequately addressed and refuted can strengthen the essay’s persuasiveness. Additionally, acknowledging potential limitations or opposing perspectives could demonstrate a more nuanced understanding of the issue.

• Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay effectively presents, extends, and supports ideas throughout the response.

  • Ideas are logically organized, with each paragraph dedicated to developing a specific point related to the argument.

  • Examples and explanations are provided to illustrate key concepts, such as the impact of preserving languages on scientific research and economic development.

  • How to improve: To enhance the depth of analysis, consider providing more varied examples or incorporating evidence from diverse sources, such as research studies or expert opinions. Additionally, ensuring that each idea is fully elaborated upon can strengthen the coherence and persuasiveness of the argument.

• Stay on Topic:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay largely stays on topic, maintaining focus on the issue of whether governments should allocate public funds to save endangered languages.

  • Each paragraph contributes to the central argument, avoiding significant digressions or unrelated tangents.

  • The conclusion reinforces the relevance of the discussion to the prompt, effectively summarizing the main points.

  • How to improve: While the essay maintains focus overall, there are instances where certain points could be more directly tied back to the central argument. Ensuring that each paragraph directly contributes to the overall thesis can further enhance coherence and relevance.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong understanding of the prompt and effectively presents a coherent argument supporting the allocation of public funds to preserve endangered languages. To improve, the author could consider providing deeper analysis, addressing potential counterarguments more thoroughly, and ensuring that all ideas are fully developed and directly tied to the main thesis.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 7

• Organize Information Logically:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a generally logical organization of information. Each paragraph addresses a specific aspect of the argument, progressing logically from discussing the opposing view to presenting the author’s opinion. For example, the first paragraph introduces the topic and presents both sides of the argument, setting the stage for the subsequent paragraphs that delve into each viewpoint in detail.
  • How to improve: To further enhance logical organization, consider strengthening the transitional phrases between paragraphs. While the essay transitions smoothly between ideas within paragraphs, stronger transitions between paragraphs could improve the overall coherence. For instance, using phrases like "On the other hand" or "Furthermore" to signal shifts in focus can aid readers in following the progression of ideas more easily.

• Use Paragraphs:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay effectively utilizes paragraphs to structure the argument. Each paragraph focuses on a specific aspect of the discussion, maintaining coherence within individual sections. Additionally, the paragraphs are of appropriate length, neither excessively long nor too brief.
  • How to improve: While the paragraphing is generally effective, consider refining topic sentences to more explicitly introduce the main idea of each paragraph. Clearer topic sentences can help guide the reader through the essay’s argument more effectively. For example, in the second paragraph, the topic sentence could explicitly state the argument against investing in language preservation to provide a clearer roadmap for the reader.

• Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay employs a variety of cohesive devices to connect ideas and enhance coherence. These devices include transitional phrases (e.g., "Granted," "Furthermore"), pronouns (e.g., "this theory," "such languages"), and repetition of key terms (e.g., "financial resources"). These cohesive devices contribute to the overall coherence of the essay by signaling relationships between ideas and maintaining a smooth flow of thought.
  • How to improve: While the essay already utilizes cohesive devices effectively, consider incorporating a wider range of transitions and connectors to further strengthen coherence. Introducing a greater variety of cohesive devices, such as conjunctions (e.g., "however," "therefore") and parallel structures, can enhance the fluidity of the essay’s argument. Additionally, pay attention to the placement of cohesive devices to ensure they are used consistently throughout the essay. For example, ensure that transitional phrases consistently appear at the beginnings of paragraphs to facilitate smooth transitions between ideas.

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 commendable range of vocabulary throughout. For instance, phrases like "on the brink of extinction," "financially sustainable," "bright and insightful strategies," and "vanishing" showcase the writer’s ability to employ varied vocabulary effectively. Additionally, the essay employs terms such as "diversity of languages," "endeavor," and "advancement" to articulate nuanced ideas.
  • How to improve: While the essay displays a strong lexical range, enhancing it further by incorporating domain-specific vocabulary related to linguistics or economics could add depth to the analysis. For instance, introducing terms like "linguistic preservation" or "economic diversification" could enrich the discussion.

• Use Vocabulary Precisely:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay generally employs vocabulary precisely to convey ideas, such as "exerts several benefits," "scientific exploration," and "economic development." However, there are instances where word choice could be more precise. For example, the phrase "a nation establishes bright and insightful strategies" could be refined to specify the nature of these strategies for clarity.
  • How to improve: To enhance precision, consider substituting general terms with more specific ones. For instance, instead of "bright and insightful strategies," one could use "effective resource allocation policies" or "strategic investment initiatives." This would make the argument more precise and impactful.

• Use Correct Spelling:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay generally maintains correct spelling throughout, with no significant errors observed. However, there are a few minor spelling inaccuracies, such as "faciliatating" (facilitating). Overall, the level of spelling accuracy is satisfactory.
  • How to improve: To further improve spelling accuracy, proofreading the essay meticulously or utilizing spell-checking tools can help catch and rectify minor errors like the one mentioned. Additionally, familiarizing oneself with commonly misspelled words can aid in avoiding such mistakes in future compositions.

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 commendable variety of sentence structures, including complex sentences ("It is widely acknowledged that there are numerous languages on the brink of extinction due to a lack of people using them"), conditional clauses ("Granted, one might argue that…"), and parallel structures ("By keeping a language from vanishing, governments provide scientists with opportunities…"). These structures contribute to the coherence and sophistication of the essay.
  • How to improve: While the essay already utilizes a diverse range of sentence structures effectively, further enhancement can be achieved by incorporating rhetorical devices such as rhetorical questions, parallelism, and varied clause structures to add depth and complexity to the argumentation. Additionally, consider integrating more nuanced transitions and syntactical patterns to strengthen the flow of ideas.

• Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:

  • Detailed explanation: Overall, the essay demonstrates a high level of grammatical accuracy with few noticeable errors. However, there are instances where articles are omitted or used incorrectly ("to conserve a language from extinction demands a nation a large amount of money") and minor punctuation errors ("faciliatating the economic development"). Nonetheless, these errors do not significantly detract from the clarity or coherence of the essay.
  • How to improve: To enhance grammatical accuracy, pay close attention to the appropriate use of articles ("a nation requires a large amount of money") and ensure consistency in punctuation usage. Reviewing sentence structures for clarity and correctness during the editing process can help mitigate these errors. Additionally, consider seeking feedback from peers or utilizing grammar-checking tools to identify and rectify any remaining grammatical inaccuracies.

Bài sửa mẫu

It is widely recognized that numerous languages are at risk of disappearing due to dwindling numbers of speakers. This has sparked debate over whether public funds should be allocated to preserving these languages, as some argue it is an imprudent use of resources. Personally, I maintain that governments should bear the responsibility for preserving these endangered languages.

Admittedly, one might argue that preserving a language from extinction requires significant financial investment, potentially diverting resources from other essential sectors, such as the economy. However, this argument lacks merit because effective resource allocation strategies can ensure financial sustainability, mitigating concerns about resource scarcity in other sectors. Thus, the notion that investing in language preservation is wasteful becomes inconsequential.

Furthermore, I assert that allocating financial resources to preserve endangered languages yields various benefits for scientific exploration and national development. Preserving a language from extinction provides scientists with opportunities for cultural and historical research. This is because every language has an untold story behind it; studying such languages allows for a deeper understanding of history. Similarly, the preservation of linguistic diversity, resulting from efforts to protect languages, often attracts a significant number of tourists to a country. This contributes to the advancement of the tourism industry in a particular nation, facilitating its economic development.

In conclusion, it is erroneous to deem investment in the preservation of less widely spoken languages as a misuse of funds. From my perspective, national governments should allocate funds for such conservation efforts, which offer various benefits, including advancements in historical research and economic development.