Some people believe that nuclear weapons benefit the world at large. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some individuals are of the opinion that the world has received the advantages from nuclear weapons at large. Personally, I disagree with this school of this opinion in this essay because of some following reasons
Nuclear weapons have a negative influence on the whole results of a prospect as they bring grief to every home. Death is one of them which seems to be a pain in the heart which can never be removed. For example, in World War II, American used 2 nuclear bombs to shift 2 cities of Japan, which put an end to peaceful life of the citizens: parents lost their children, children could not find their parents or an entire family disappeared.
The waste of money on unbeneficial stuff is another reason. Instead of developing economy, literary rate or health quality, money is concentrated on those weapons which directly break the most developments. North Korea, for instance, is one of the country where has been known for the life in past: no internet, no innovations from world because of 2 words “nuclear weapons”
In conclusion, nuclear weapons, which bring sorrow and destruction, are a mistake of mankind and I believe they bring a black wide picture.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"Some individuals are of the opinion that" -> "Some individuals hold the view that"
Explanation: "Hold the view that" is a more formal and precise way to express an opinion in academic writing, enhancing the formality of the statement.
"the world has received the advantages from nuclear weapons at large" -> "the world has derived significant benefits from nuclear weapons"
Explanation: "Derived significant benefits" is more precise and academically appropriate than "received the advantages," which is somewhat vague and informal.
"Personally, I disagree with this school of this opinion" -> "I strongly disagree with this perspective"
Explanation: "Strongly disagree" is more assertive and formal than "personally disagree," and "perspective" is a more academic term than "school of this opinion," which is colloquial.
"some following reasons" -> "the following reasons"
Explanation: "The following reasons" is grammatically correct and more formal than "some following reasons," which is awkward and incorrect.
"a negative influence on the whole results of a prospect" -> "a detrimental impact on the overall outcomes"
Explanation: "Detrimental impact" and "overall outcomes" are more precise and formal terms than "negative influence" and "whole results of a prospect," which are vague and awkwardly phrased.
"bring grief to every home" -> "cause distress to every household"
Explanation: "Cause distress to every household" is more specific and formal than "bring grief to every home," which is overly emotional and informal.
"which seems to be a pain in the heart which can never be removed" -> "which is a profound and irreparable emotional trauma"
Explanation: "Profound and irreparable emotional trauma" is a more precise and formal way to describe the lasting impact of death, avoiding the colloquial and metaphorical "pain in the heart which can never be removed."
"American used 2 nuclear bombs" -> "the United States dropped two nuclear bombs"
Explanation: "The United States dropped" is the correct term for the country’s actions, and "two" should be numerals to maintain formality and precision.
"shift 2 cities of Japan" -> "destroy two cities in Japan"
Explanation: "Destroy" is a more accurate verb than "shift" in this context, and "in Japan" is grammatically correct compared to "of Japan," which is incorrect.
"which put an end to peaceful life of the citizens" -> "which ended the peaceful lives of the citizens"
Explanation: "Ended the peaceful lives" is grammatically correct and more formal than "put an end to peaceful life," which is awkward and informal.
"literary rate" -> "literacy rate"
Explanation: "Literacy rate" is the correct term, whereas "literary rate" is a typographical error and misuse of the word "literary," which refers to literature.
"has been known for the life in past" -> "has been known for its past"
Explanation: "Has been known for its past" is grammatically correct and clearer than "has been known for the life in past," which is awkward and unclear.
"2 words “nuclear weapons”" -> "the two words ‘nuclear weapons’"
Explanation: "The two words ‘nuclear weapons’" is grammatically correct and more formal than "2 words “nuclear weapons”," which is informal and lacks proper punctuation.
"bring a black wide picture" -> "portray a bleak picture"
Explanation: "Portray a bleak picture" is a more precise and formal expression than "bring a black wide picture," which is unclear and informal.

These changes enhance the formality, precision, and clarity of the essay, aligning it more closely with academic writing standards.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 5

Band Score for Task Response: 5 – UNDER WORD

Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay attempts to address the prompt by presenting a disagreement with the notion that nuclear weapons benefit the world. However, it lacks a thorough exploration of the topic. The introduction states a disagreement but does not clarify the extent to which the author disagrees. The body paragraphs provide reasons against nuclear weapons but do not consider any potential benefits, which is essential for a balanced response to the prompt.
- How to improve: To enhance the response, the writer should explicitly state their position regarding the extent of their disagreement in the introduction. Additionally, including a brief acknowledgment of the opposing viewpoint (e.g., potential deterrent effects of nuclear weapons) would demonstrate a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear position against nuclear weapons, but this stance is somewhat muddled by vague language and a lack of consistent argumentation. Phrases like "some following reasons" and "this school of this opinion" detract from clarity. While the author maintains a general opposition, the lack of a clear framework makes it difficult for the reader to follow the argument.
- How to improve: The writer should use more precise language and clearly outline their main points in the introduction. Structuring the essay with clear topic sentences for each paragraph will help reinforce the position throughout the essay.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents some ideas against nuclear weapons, such as their negative impact on families and the misallocation of resources. However, these ideas are not fully developed or supported with sufficient evidence. For instance, the example of World War II is relevant but lacks depth and analysis. The mention of North Korea is vague and does not clearly link back to the argument against nuclear weapons.
- How to improve: To strengthen the essay, the writer should expand on each point with more detailed examples and explanations. Each argument should be clearly linked to the thesis, and the writer should aim to provide specific evidence or data to support their claims.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, focusing on the negative aspects of nuclear weapons. However, the discussion occasionally veers into vague statements that do not directly support the main argument. For example, the phrase "which bring sorrow and destruction" is overly broad and does not contribute to a focused argument.
- How to improve: The writer should ensure that every sentence contributes directly to the main argument. Avoiding generalizations and focusing on specific impacts or consequences of nuclear weapons will help maintain relevance and clarity throughout the essay.

In summary, to improve the essay and potentially raise the band score, the writer should ensure they fully address all parts of the prompt, clearly present their position, develop and support their ideas with specific examples, and maintain a focused discussion throughout. Additionally, meeting the word count requirement is crucial, as being under word count can significantly impact the overall score.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 6

Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear stance against the benefits of nuclear weapons, but the organization of ideas lacks clarity. The introduction states the writer’s disagreement but does not effectively outline the main points that will be discussed. The body paragraphs present reasons against nuclear weapons, but the transitions between ideas are weak. For example, the shift from discussing the emotional impact of nuclear weapons to the economic implications feels abrupt and lacks a clear connection.
- How to improve: To enhance logical flow, the writer should start with a more structured introduction that outlines the main points to be discussed. Each body paragraph should begin with a clear topic sentence that summarizes the main idea of that paragraph, followed by supporting details. Additionally, using transitional phrases (e.g., "Furthermore," "In addition," "Conversely") can help guide the reader through the argument more smoothly.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains distinct paragraphs, but their structure could be improved. The first paragraph serves as an introduction, while the subsequent paragraphs attempt to address different points. However, the second paragraph is overly long and combines multiple ideas without clear separation. The conclusion, while present, does not effectively summarize the main arguments or reinforce the thesis.
- How to improve: Each paragraph should focus on a single main idea. The writer could break the second paragraph into two: one focusing on the emotional impact of nuclear weapons and the other on the economic implications. This would create a clearer structure and make it easier for the reader to follow the argument. Additionally, the conclusion should reiterate the main points discussed and restate the writer’s position more emphatically.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates some use of cohesive devices, such as "for example" and "instead of," but these are limited and often misused. The phrase "which seems to be a pain in the heart which can never be removed" lacks clarity and could confuse the reader. Furthermore, the use of cohesive devices does not always enhance the flow of ideas; sometimes, it feels forced or repetitive.
- How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, the writer should incorporate a wider range of linking words and phrases. For instance, using "Moreover" to add information, "However" to introduce contrasting ideas, and "Consequently" to show results can improve the essay’s coherence. Additionally, the writer should ensure that cohesive devices are used appropriately and that they genuinely contribute to the clarity and flow of the argument.

By focusing on these areas for improvement, the writer can enhance the overall coherence and cohesion of the essay, potentially raising the band score in this criterion.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Lexical Resource: 6

Use a Wide Range of Vocabulary:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a moderate range of vocabulary. Phrases such as "negative influence," "grief," and "waste of money" are effective in conveying the writer’s stance. However, the vocabulary tends to be repetitive and lacks sophistication. For instance, the phrase "nuclear weapons" is used multiple times without variation, which could have been replaced with synonyms or paraphrased expressions to enhance lexical diversity.
- How to improve: To improve, the writer should aim to incorporate a broader range of vocabulary. For example, instead of repeatedly using "nuclear weapons," alternatives like "nuclear arms," "atomic weapons," or "nuclear arsenal" could be employed. Additionally, using more descriptive adjectives or adverbs could enhance the overall richness of the language.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains instances of imprecise vocabulary usage. For example, the phrase "the world has received the advantages from nuclear weapons" is awkward and unclear. The term "unbeneficial stuff" is also vague and lacks the academic tone expected in an IELTS essay. Moreover, "literary rate" seems to be a misinterpretation of "literacy rate," which affects clarity.
- How to improve: To enhance precision, the writer should focus on using more specific terms. Instead of "unbeneficial stuff," a more precise phrase like "ineffective expenditures" or "misallocated resources" would be appropriate. Additionally, ensuring correct terminology, such as using "literacy rate," will improve clarity and demonstrate a better command of the language.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains several spelling errors, such as "literary rate" instead of "literacy rate," and "country where has been known" which should be "country that is known." These errors detract from the overall professionalism of the writing and can confuse the reader.
- How to improve: To improve spelling accuracy, the writer should engage in regular practice, such as using spelling apps or tools that provide feedback. Additionally, proofreading the essay multiple times before submission can help catch errors. Reading more academic texts can also enhance spelling skills by exposing the writer to correct forms of words in context.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a foundational understanding of vocabulary, there are significant areas for improvement in range, precision, and spelling. By diversifying vocabulary, ensuring precise usage, and enhancing spelling accuracy, the writer can work towards achieving a higher band score in the Lexical Resource 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, lacking complexity. For example, the sentence "Nuclear weapons have a negative influence on the whole results of a prospect as they bring grief to every home" is a compound sentence but does not utilize more complex structures, such as relative clauses or varied conjunctions. Additionally, the phrase "which put an end to peaceful life of the citizens" could have been enhanced by using a more complex structure to convey the same idea.
- How to improve: To diversify sentence structures, the writer should practice incorporating more complex sentences, such as those with subordinate clauses or varied conjunctions. For example, instead of saying "Nuclear weapons have a negative influence," the writer could say, "Although some argue that nuclear weapons provide security, they ultimately have a profoundly negative influence on society by instilling fear and grief." This not only introduces complexity but also enhances clarity and engagement.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains several grammatical errors and punctuation issues that detract from its clarity. For instance, "American used 2 nuclear bombs" should be "Americans used two nuclear bombs," correcting both the subject and the numeral format. Additionally, the phrase "which seems to be a pain in the heart which can never be removed" is awkwardly constructed and could be improved for clarity. The use of commas is also inconsistent; for example, "the whole results of a prospect as they bring grief to every home" lacks a comma before "as," which could help clarify the relationship between the clauses.
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, the writer should focus on subject-verb agreement, proper noun usage, and numeral formatting (writing out numbers under ten). Additionally, practicing punctuation rules, particularly regarding the use of commas in complex sentences, will enhance clarity. A thorough proofreading process can help identify and correct these errors before submission.

By addressing these areas, the writer can significantly improve the grammatical range and accuracy of their writing, potentially raising their band score in future assessments.

Bài sửa mẫu

Some individuals hold the view that the world has derived significant benefits from nuclear weapons. Personally, I strongly disagree with this perspective for the following reasons.

Nuclear weapons have a detrimental impact on the overall outcomes of society, as they cause distress to every household. Death is one of the most profound consequences, leaving a pain in the heart that can never be removed. For example, during World War II, the United States dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan, which destroyed two cities and ended the peaceful lives of the citizens. Parents lost their children, children could not find their parents, and entire families disappeared.

The waste of money on unbeneficial endeavors is another compelling reason against nuclear weapons. Instead of investing in economic development, literacy rates, or healthcare quality, funds are concentrated on these weapons, which directly hinder progress. North Korea, for instance, is one country known for its troubled past: it has limited internet access and lacks innovations from the rest of the world, largely due to the two words “nuclear weapons.”

In conclusion, nuclear weapons, which bring sorrow and destruction, represent a grave mistake of mankind. I believe they portray a bleak picture of our future.