Some people believe that access to the internet should be limited to protect individuals from harmful content, while others think that it is a matter of personal responsibility. Discuss both views and give your opinion

While many people claim that restricting access to the internet can protect them from malicious information, others believe individuals are responsible for watching such content. This essay agrees with the former view that barring users from harmful websites can provide a more secure and friendly online environment.

On the one hand, there are several reasons why internet users are to blame for watching malicious content. Firstly, people nowadays tend to easily fall for fake information without trying to verify its accuracy. In fact, many online users not only absent-mindedly engage in discussion about falsified and misleading facts online, but some also even go as far as to spread deceptive news to others, disregarding its authenticity. Secondly, it is the users’ personal choice to immerse themselves into malicious information. Despite the diversity of online content available, some individuals typically make decisions to consume harmful material, reflecting their personal taste, interests, or lack of knowledge regarding potential risks associated with such content.

On the other hand, I believe that limiting internet access to some extent can shield people from harmful websites. To begin with, many countries around the world, including Vietnam, has banned users from visiting unsafe websites. This can provide better censorship and help many netizens to avoid direct exposure to those content. Furthermore, the government has imposed strict policies to punish content creators who disseminate fake and unhealthy information. For example, a popular Vietnamese influencer known as “No O No” on Tiktok, was permanently banned from this platform for posting videos mocking the poor and the elderly in an awfully inappropriate way. Such punishment can act as a deterrent for other creators to ensure the quality of their content, thus creating a healthier and safer environment on the internet.

In conclusion, many people believe that internet users are responsible for watching harmful information. Nevertheless, I support the view that limiting internet usage can prevent people from looking into such content, thus making the internet more safe and friendly to use.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"many people claim" -> "many argue/assert"
Explanation: Using "claim" suggests a level of uncertainty. "Argue" or "assert" provides a stronger and more confident tone in academic writing.
"individuals are responsible for watching such content" -> "individuals bear responsibility for accessing/viewing such content"
Explanation: "Watching" seems casual; "accessing/viewing" aligns better with formal language. "Bear responsibility" emphasizes accountability.
"This essay agrees with the former view" -> "This essay aligns with the former perspective"
Explanation: "Agrees with" is slightly informal. "Aligns with" maintains formality while expressing agreement with a viewpoint.
"On the one hand" -> "Firstly"
Explanation: "On the one hand" is a bit informal; "Firstly" is a clearer transition for an academic context.
"fall for fake information" -> "accept false information"
Explanation: "Fall for" is idiomatic; "accept" in this context conveys a similar meaning in a more formal manner.
"absent-mindedly engage in discussion" -> "passively participate in discussions"
Explanation: "Absent-mindedly" is slightly informal; "passively participate" maintains formality and clarity.
"spread deceptive news" -> "disseminate misleading information"
Explanation: "Spread" is more colloquial; "disseminate" is a formal term often used in academic contexts.
"personal choice to immerse themselves" -> "individual discretion in exposing themselves"
Explanation: "Personal choice" is a bit informal; "individual discretion" offers a more formal tone.
"despite the diversity of online content available" -> "despite the plethora of available online content"
Explanation: "Diversity" might imply a positive connotation; "plethora" maintains neutrality in describing the abundance of content.
"To begin with" -> "First and foremost"
Explanation: "To begin with" is less formal; "First and foremost" is a stronger, more academic transition.
"many countries around the world, including Vietnam, has banned" -> "many countries, Vietnam included, have banned"
Explanation: "Has banned" is incorrect; "have banned" agrees in number with the subject.
"unsafe websites" -> "malicious websites"
Explanation: "Unsafe" is a bit generic; "malicious" is more precise and fitting for harmful websites.
"This can provide better censorship" -> "This contributes to enhanced censorship"
Explanation: "Can provide" is less assertive; "contributes to" shows a more active role in enhancing censorship.
"disseminate fake and unhealthy information" -> "spread false and detrimental information"
Explanation: "Disseminate" might be too formal; "spread" is more widely used. "Unhealthy" can be replaced with "detrimental" for a more academic tone.
"was permanently banned" -> "faced permanent prohibition"
Explanation: "Permanently banned" could be rephrased for variety; "faced permanent prohibition" maintains formality.
"mocking the poor and the elderly in an awfully inappropriate way" -> "ridiculing marginalized groups in an egregiously inappropriate manner"
Explanation: The revised phrase uses more formal language to describe the inappropriate behavior.
"Such punishment can act as a deterrent" -> "Such penalties serve as a deterrent"
Explanation: "Can act as" is less assertive; "serve as" offers a more direct and formal assertion.
"other creators to ensure the quality of their content" -> "other creators to uphold content quality"
Explanation: Simplifying "ensure the quality" to "uphold content quality" maintains formality while streamlining the expression.
"more safe" -> "safer"
Explanation: "More safe" is grammatically awkward; "safer" is the correct comparative form of the adjective.
"more safe and friendly" -> "safer and more user-friendly"
Explanation: For better parallelism and clarity, it’s advisable to maintain consistency in the structure by using "safer and more user-friendly."

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Quoted text: "This essay agrees with the former view that barring users from harmful websites can provide a more secure and friendly online environment."
- Explanation and Suggestions for Improvement: The position is clearly presented in the introduction, aligning with the former view regarding limiting internet access. However, it would be beneficial to briefly outline the main reasons or arguments that will be discussed in the subsequent paragraphs. This would enhance the clarity of the essay’s structure and give readers a roadmap of the points to follow.
- Improved example: "This essay supports the notion that restricting access to harmful websites contributes to a safer online environment. It will explore two primary reasons behind this stance: the responsibility of internet users and the impact of governmental regulations on content creators."
Quoted text: "Firstly, people nowadays tend to easily fall for fake information without trying to verify its accuracy. In fact, many online users not only absent-mindedly engage in discussion about falsified and misleading facts online, but some also even go as far as to spread deceptive news to others, disregarding its authenticity."
- Explanation and Suggestions for Improvement: The argument here is well-developed, highlighting the responsibility of internet users in perpetuating the spread of misinformation. To further strengthen this point, consider providing a concise real-life example or personal experience illustrating how individuals inadvertently contribute to the dissemination of false information online. This would enrich the argument by grounding it in a relatable context.
- Improved example: "For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, various unverified claims and conspiracy theories gained traction on social media platforms, leading to widespread panic and confusion. Many individuals, without fact-checking, shared these claims, inadvertently contributing to the proliferation of misleading information and undermining public trust in authentic sources."
Quoted text: "Despite the diversity of online content available, some individuals typically make decisions to consume harmful material, reflecting their personal taste, interests, or lack of knowledge regarding potential risks associated with such content."
- Explanation and Suggestions for Improvement: The point regarding individuals’ deliberate consumption of harmful content is articulated effectively. To enhance this argument, consider expanding upon why certain individuals are drawn to such content despite its harmful nature. Providing an example or anecdote showcasing the motivations or psychological factors behind this behavior could lend depth to this argument.
- Improved example: "Moreover, the allure of sensational or provocative content often captivates certain individuals, drawing them towards material that may be harmful. For instance, the addictive nature of clickbait headlines or emotionally charged content tends to grasp the attention of users seeking entertainment or sensation, irrespective of the negative repercussions associated with such choices."

Overall, the essay effectively presents a clear position in alignment with limiting internet access to safeguard individuals from harmful content. To further improve, consider enhancing the introduction by providing a brief overview of the main arguments and strengthening the presented arguments with specific real-life examples or personal experiences. This will contribute to a more robust and convincing discussion.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates a logical organization of information and ideas, maintaining a clear progression throughout. The introduction sets the stage by presenting the two views, and each subsequent paragraph develops a specific point coherently. The essay effectively uses cohesive devices, such as transitions and references, contributing to overall coherence. Paragraphing is mostly clear, with each paragraph centered around a specific aspect of the argument. However, there is a slight imbalance in paragraph length, with the second paragraph being considerably longer than the others. This could be seen as a minor cohesion issue, contributing to the essay’s placement in Band 7.

How to improve:
To enhance coherence and cohesion, consider balancing paragraph lengths to maintain a more consistent flow. Additionally, ensure that each paragraph contains a clear central topic and that the connection between ideas is seamless. While the use of cohesive devices is generally effective, be cautious of overusing certain transitions, as this may lead to redundancy. Strive for a more even distribution of ideas and evidence throughout the essay to further strengthen its overall coherence.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a sufficient range of vocabulary, allowing for some flexibility and precision. The writer effectively uses less common lexical items with awareness of style and collocation. However, there are occasional errors in word choice and spelling, such as "netizens" and "disseminate." These errors, while noticeable, do not significantly impede communication. The essay generally presents ideas with clarity and coherence, showcasing a good command of vocabulary, but some refinement is needed for higher accuracy.

How to improve: To enhance the Lexical Resource score, focus on refining word choice and avoiding inaccuracies in spelling. Ensure consistency in the use of less common vocabulary and pay attention to collocation. Consider proofreading carefully to eliminate minor errors and enhance the overall sophistication of language use.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates a good command of grammar and punctuation overall. It uses a variety of complex structures effectively to convey ideas, such as the use of subordinate clauses and compound sentences. There are frequent error-free sentences, showcasing a generally strong control of grammar and punctuation. However, there are a few instances of errors that slightly detract from the overall fluency and accuracy. These errors do not significantly hinder communication but are noticeable.

How to improve:
To reach a higher band score, focus on refining the accuracy further. Pay particular attention to subject-verb agreement, verb tense consistency, and sentence structure coherence. Reviewing and revising specific areas that might lead to occasional errors would elevate the overall grammatical accuracy, ensuring a smoother and more precise expression of ideas. Continued practice in varying sentence structures while maintaining accuracy will further enhance the quality of written expression.

Bài sửa mẫu

While many argue that restricting access to the internet can protect individuals from harmful content, others assert that individuals bear responsibility for accessing such content. This essay aligns with the former perspective, contending that limiting users from harmful websites can contribute to a more secure and user-friendly online environment.

On the one hand, there are several reasons why internet users may be accountable for encountering malicious content. Firstly, people nowadays tend to accept false information without verifying its accuracy. In fact, many online users not only passively participate in discussions about falsified and misleading facts but also disseminate deceptive news to others, regardless of its authenticity. Secondly, it is the users’ individual discretion in exposing themselves to malicious information. Despite the plethora of available online content, some individuals choose to consume harmful material, reflecting their personal taste, interests, or lack of knowledge regarding potential risks associated with such content.

On the other hand, I believe that limiting internet access to some extent can shield people from harmful websites. First and foremost, many countries, Vietnam included, have banned access to malicious websites. This contributes to enhanced censorship and helps netizens avoid direct exposure to such content. Furthermore, the government has imposed strict policies to punish content creators who spread false and detrimental information. For instance, a popular Vietnamese influencer known as “No O No” on TikTok faced permanent prohibition from the platform for ridiculing marginalized groups in an egregiously inappropriate manner. Such penalties serve as a deterrent for other creators to uphold content quality, thereby creating a safer and more user-friendly online environment.

In conclusion, while some argue that internet users are responsible for accessing harmful information, I support the view that limiting internet usage can prevent people from exposing themselves to such content, ultimately making the internet safer and more user-friendly.