Smoking is a major cause of serious illness and death throughout the world today. In the interest of the public heath, governments should ban cigarettes and other tobacco products. Do you agree or disagree?

We live in an age when many of us are victims of smoking . This is the cause of serious illness and death throughout the word nowadays . For the benefit of public health , governments should prohibit cigarets and other tobacco goods . From my perspective , I partly disagree with this idea due to various reasons .

It is indisputable that the smoke people breathe in while smoking greatly damages their health. Medical studies shown that heavy smoking is impact our respiratory organs ,then we should get flu with various disease. Furthermore , certain data from medical studies indicates that smokers typically have a higher likelihood of developing lung cancer. Consequently, individuals who are hooked on cigarettes are ultimately causing harm to themselves. For instance, my neighbour has been smoking a pack of cigarettes daily for twenty years. For that reason, his current state of health is poor. Furthermore, his addiction is a constant source of suffering for his family.

I understand people who think that avoiding tobacco consume would be great thing for humanity. But, It could conclude many ramifications as I said. Rising of drug use would be too bad for people and there are lots of example about that. For example, in my country, there is no any ban about cigarettes but every year there is a price increase on tobaccos and due to this rising many people prefer to use some cheap drugs relative to legal smoking product. Therefore, both mental and physical health have been in danger for people.

In conclusion, I severely disagree with this proposal and I believe that this can cause reverse effects on people. That is why government should not think this implementation .

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"We live in an age when many of us are victims of smoking" -> "In contemporary society, many individuals are affected by smoking"
Explanation: The phrase "We live in an age" is somewhat informal and vague. "In contemporary society" provides a more precise and formal context. Replacing "victims of smoking" with "affected by smoking" avoids the emotional connotation of "victims," which is more appropriate for an academic tone.
"This is the cause of serious illness and death throughout the word" -> "This is a major cause of serious illness and death worldwide"
Explanation: "Throughout the word" is incorrect and should be replaced with "worldwide" for clarity and correctness. "A major cause" is more precise than "the cause," acknowledging the complexity of the issue.
"cigarets" -> "cigarettes"
Explanation: This is a simple spelling correction to maintain professionalism and accuracy.
"governments should prohibit cigarets and other tobacco goods" -> "governments should prohibit cigarettes and other tobacco products"
Explanation: Correcting "cigarets" to "cigarettes" and "goods" to "products" aligns with standard terminology and enhances formality.
"I partly disagree with this idea" -> "I partially disagree with this proposal"
Explanation: "Partly" is less formal than "partially," and "idea" is vague; "proposal" is more specific and appropriate in an academic context.
"Medical studies shown" -> "Medical studies have shown"
Explanation: Adding "have" corrects the grammatical error and improves the sentence structure for formal writing.
"impact our respiratory organs" -> "affect our respiratory organs"
Explanation: "Impact" is not the correct verb in this context; "affect" is the appropriate term for describing the influence on organs.
"then we should get flu with various disease" -> "therefore, we are more susceptible to various diseases"
Explanation: "Then" is incorrectly used; "therefore" is the correct transitional word. "Get flu" is informal and imprecise; "more susceptible to various diseases" is more accurate and formal.
"smokers typically have a higher likelihood of developing lung cancer" -> "smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer"
Explanation: Simplifying the phrase improves clarity and formality, making it more suitable for academic writing.
"hooked on cigarettes" -> "dependent on cigarettes"
Explanation: "Hooked on" is informal and colloquial; "dependent on" is more precise and formal.
"avoiding tobacco consume" -> "avoiding tobacco consumption"
Explanation: "Tobacco consume" is grammatically incorrect; "tobacco consumption" is the correct term.
"It could conclude many ramifications" -> "This could have several ramifications"
Explanation: "It could conclude" is incorrect; "This could have several ramifications" is grammatically correct and clearer.
"Rising of drug use" -> "the rise in drug use"
Explanation: "Rising of" is grammatically incorrect; "the rise in" is the correct phrase.
"there is no any ban" -> "there is no ban"
Explanation: "Any" is redundant before "no," so it should be removed for grammatical correctness.
"every year there is a price increase on tobaccos" -> "each year, there is a price increase in tobacco products"
Explanation: "On tobaccos" is incorrect; "in tobacco products" is the correct phrase. Also, "every year" is more formal than "each year."
"both mental and physical health have been in danger for people" -> "both mental and physical health are at risk for individuals"
Explanation: "Have been in danger" is passive and less formal; "are at risk" is more direct and appropriate for academic writing. "For people" is informal; "for individuals" is more precise and formal.
"I severely disagree with this proposal" -> "I strongly disagree with this proposal"
Explanation: "Severely" is not typically used in formal writing; "strongly" is a more appropriate intensity marker in academic contexts.
"That is why government should not think this implementation" -> "Therefore, the government should not implement this measure"
Explanation: "That is why government should not think this implementation" is awkward and unclear. "Therefore, the government should not implement this measure" is clearer and more formal.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 5

Band Score for Task Response: 5

Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay partially addresses the prompt by stating a disagreement with the idea of banning cigarettes and tobacco products. However, it lacks a thorough exploration of the reasons for this stance. The introduction mentions "various reasons" but does not clearly outline them. The body paragraphs focus primarily on the health impacts of smoking and the potential consequences of a ban, but they do not adequately explore the benefits of a ban or counterarguments effectively.
- How to improve: To improve this aspect, the writer should clearly outline their position in the introduction and provide a structured argument that addresses both sides of the issue. Including a paragraph that discusses the potential benefits of a ban, even if the writer disagrees with it, would create a more balanced response and demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the topic.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay states a clear disagreement with the proposal to ban tobacco, but the position is not consistently maintained throughout. The phrase "I partly disagree" introduces ambiguity, which may confuse the reader regarding the writer’s true stance. The conclusion reiterates a strong disagreement, but the body paragraphs contain mixed messages, particularly when discussing the ramifications of a ban.
- How to improve: To maintain a clear position, the writer should choose a definitive stance (either fully agree or fully disagree) and ensure that all arguments support this position. If the intention is to express partial disagreement, the writer should clarify what aspects they agree with and how those aspects fit into their overall argument.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents some ideas related to the dangers of smoking and the potential negative consequences of banning tobacco. However, these ideas are not well-developed or supported with sufficient evidence. For example, the mention of rising drug use as a consequence of a tobacco ban is an interesting point but lacks detailed explanation and supporting data.
- How to improve: To enhance this criterion, the writer should aim to elaborate on each point made. This could involve providing more detailed examples, statistics, or expert opinions to support claims. Additionally, organizing ideas logically and ensuring each paragraph focuses on a single main idea would help in extending and supporting arguments more effectively.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, discussing smoking and the implications of a potential ban. However, some sections deviate slightly, particularly when discussing drug use, which could distract from the main argument. The connection between drug use and the ban on tobacco products is not clearly articulated, leading to a lack of coherence.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer should ensure that every point made directly relates back to the main argument regarding the ban on tobacco. It would be beneficial to clearly link any additional points (such as drug use) back to the central thesis, explaining how they support or challenge the argument against a ban. Using topic sentences to introduce each paragraph’s main idea can also help keep the essay on track.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 7

Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear stance on the issue of smoking and government intervention. The introduction outlines the topic and the writer’s position, which is a good start. Each paragraph addresses a specific point, with the first focusing on the health impacts of smoking and the second discussing the potential negative consequences of a ban. However, the logical flow could be improved. For instance, the transition from discussing the health impacts to the consequences of a ban feels abrupt. The connection between the two ideas could be strengthened to enhance the overall coherence.
- How to improve: To improve logical organization, consider using clearer topic sentences that explicitly link each paragraph’s main idea to the overall argument. Additionally, transitional phrases such as "On the other hand," or "Conversely," could help clarify the relationship between the points being made, ensuring that the reader can easily follow the progression of ideas.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay uses paragraphs effectively to separate different ideas, which is a strength. Each paragraph has a central theme and includes supporting details. However, the second paragraph could benefit from clearer internal structure. For example, the mention of the neighbor’s smoking habit could be better integrated into the argument rather than presented as a standalone example.
- How to improve: To enhance paragraph structure, ensure that each paragraph begins with a clear topic sentence that summarizes the main idea. Follow this with supporting evidence or examples that directly relate to the topic sentence. Additionally, consider breaking longer paragraphs into smaller ones if they contain multiple ideas, which can help maintain clarity and focus.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay employs some cohesive devices, such as "furthermore," "for that reason," and "but," which help connect ideas. However, the range of cohesive devices used is somewhat limited, and there are instances where the connections between sentences could be clearer. For example, the phrase "But, It could conclude many ramifications as I said" lacks clarity and does not effectively link back to the previous point.
- How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, incorporate a wider variety of linking words and phrases, such as "in addition," "however," "for example," and "therefore." Additionally, ensure that cohesive devices are used correctly and in context to enhance clarity. For instance, rephrasing sentences for better flow and coherence can help the reader understand the connections between ideas more clearly.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a good understanding of the topic and presents a coherent argument. By focusing on improving logical organization, enhancing paragraph structure, and diversifying cohesive devices, the writer can elevate the clarity and effectiveness of their writing, potentially achieving a higher band 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 an adequate range of vocabulary, with terms related to health and smoking, such as "serious illness," "public health," and "addiction." However, the vocabulary is somewhat limited and repetitive. For instance, the word "smoking" is used frequently without variation, and phrases like "serious illness" could be expanded to include synonyms or related terms (e.g., "health complications," "chronic diseases").
- How to improve: To enhance lexical variety, the writer should incorporate synonyms and related phrases. For example, instead of repeatedly using "smoking," alternatives like "tobacco use" or "cigarette consumption" could be employed. Additionally, using more advanced vocabulary related to health, such as "morbidity," "dependency," or "public health crisis," would elevate the essay’s lexical resource.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: There are instances of imprecise vocabulary usage that detract from the clarity of the essay. For example, the phrase "get flu with various disease" is awkward and unclear. The intended meaning seems to be that smoking can lead to respiratory diseases, but the wording is imprecise. Similarly, "Rising of drug use would be too bad for people" lacks clarity and could be articulated more effectively.
- How to improve: The writer should focus on using vocabulary that accurately conveys their intended meaning. For instance, instead of "get flu with various disease," a more precise expression could be "increase susceptibility to respiratory infections." Additionally, instead of "Rising of drug use would be too bad for people," the writer could say, "An increase in illicit drug use could have detrimental effects on public health." Practicing paraphrasing and refining word choices can help improve precision.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains several spelling errors, such as "cigarets" (should be "cigarettes"), "word" (should be "world"), and "tobaccos" (should be "tobacco"). These errors can distract the reader and undermine the overall professionalism of the writing.
- How to improve: To enhance spelling accuracy, the writer should proofread their work carefully before submission. Utilizing spell-check tools and reading the essay aloud can help identify errors. Additionally, practicing commonly misspelled words and maintaining a personal list of challenging vocabulary can be beneficial for improving spelling skills.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a foundational understanding of the topic and employs some relevant vocabulary, there are significant areas for improvement in lexical resource. By expanding vocabulary range, ensuring precise word choice, and enhancing spelling accuracy, the writer can work towards achieving a higher band score in this criterion.

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 few complex sentences. For example, phrases like "For the benefit of public health, governments should prohibit cigarettes and other tobacco goods" and "It is indisputable that the smoke people breathe in while smoking greatly damages their health" are clear but follow a predictable structure. The use of conjunctions is present, but the essay lacks more sophisticated structures that could enhance the argument, such as conditional clauses or varied sentence openings.
- How to improve: To diversify sentence structures, the writer should practice incorporating more complex sentences. For instance, they could use conditional sentences (e.g., "If the government bans smoking, it may lead to a decrease in health issues") or relative clauses (e.g., "People who smoke are often unaware of the long-term health risks"). Additionally, varying the sentence beginnings can create a more engaging flow.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains several grammatical errors and punctuation issues. For instance, "Medical studies shown that heavy smoking is impact our respiratory organs" should be corrected to "Medical studies show that heavy smoking impacts our respiratory organs." There are also punctuation errors such as unnecessary spaces before punctuation marks (e.g., "smoking .") and inconsistent capitalization (e.g., "But, It could conclude many ramifications"). These errors detract from the overall clarity and professionalism of the writing.
- How to improve: To enhance grammatical accuracy, the writer should focus on subject-verb agreement and verb tense consistency. Regular practice with grammar exercises can help reinforce these concepts. For punctuation, the writer should review the rules for comma usage and ensure that punctuation marks are placed correctly without unnecessary spaces. Reading more academic essays can also provide insight into proper punctuation and grammatical structures.

In summary, while the essay presents a relevant argument, improving the variety of sentence structures and addressing grammatical and punctuation errors will significantly enhance the overall quality and coherence of the writing. Regular practice and feedback will be beneficial in achieving these improvements.

Bài sửa mẫu

We live in an age when many of us are victims of smoking. This is a major cause of serious illness and death throughout the world today. For the benefit of public health, governments should prohibit cigarettes and other tobacco products. From my perspective, I partially disagree with this idea due to various reasons.

It is indisputable that the smoke people breathe in while smoking greatly damages their health. Medical studies have shown that heavy smoking impacts our respiratory organs; therefore, we are more susceptible to various diseases. Furthermore, certain data from medical studies indicates that smokers typically have a higher likelihood of developing lung cancer. Consequently, individuals who are dependent on cigarettes are ultimately causing harm to themselves. For instance, my neighbour has been smoking a pack of cigarettes daily for twenty years. For that reason, his current state of health is poor. Additionally, his addiction is a constant source of suffering for his family.

I understand people who think that avoiding tobacco consumption would be a great thing for humanity. However, it could lead to several ramifications, as I mentioned. The rise in drug use would be detrimental to people, and there are many examples of this. For example, in my country, there is no ban on cigarettes, but every year there is a price increase on tobacco products. Due to this increase, many people prefer to use cheaper drugs instead of legal smoking products. Therefore, both mental and physical health are at risk for individuals.

In conclusion, I strongly disagree with this proposal, and I believe that this could cause reverse effects on people. That is why the government should not consider this implementation.