Some people claim that it is acceptable to use animals in medical research for the benefit of human beings, while other people argue that it is wrong. Discuss both views and give your opinion?

Some people believe that using animals in research for the benefit of human beings is acceptable, while other people argue that it is wrong. Although, that will bring lots of good thing for society but I firmly agree with the later view for some reasons.
On the one hand, animal testing plays an essential role in the medical field. In recent years, there have been a number of medical breakthroughs using animals experimentation, which has saved millions of lives. For instance, according to some surveys, the measles vaccine, which was developed using animal testing, has saved over 20 million people since 2000. Another reason is that if new drugs are not tested at all or are tested on human first, it could lead to devastating consequences such as drug shock, severe allergies or overreact to some ingredients of drug.
On the other hand, animals have their own rights and therefore their lives should be respected. This means we have no moral right to use them in our research. Laboratory animals usually suffer detrimental substances, which cause them pain, stress or even death.Annually , millions of lab mice, for example, become deformed or die after being subjected to such tests.
Moreover, there are lots of alternative ways to that need to be considered. For example, using sophisticated computer is also an effective way for our research not only in helping animals escape being suffered from toxic substances but also for scientist to not feeling guilty after killing a lot of animals.
Take everything into account, I believe that animals shouldn’t be killed for our research in medical despite its good things for community.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"that will bring lots of good thing for society" -> "that could yield substantial benefits for society"
Explanation: Replacing "that will bring lots of good thing for society" with "that could yield substantial benefits for society" enhances the formality and precision of the statement.
"On the one hand" -> "Firstly"
Explanation: "On the one hand" is somewhat informal; using "Firstly" is a more formal transition to introduce the first point.
"animal testing" -> "animal experimentation"
Explanation: "Animal experimentation" is a more precise and academically appropriate term for this context.
"using animals experimentation" -> "utilizing animal experimentation"
Explanation: Replacing "using animals experimentation" with "utilizing animal experimentation" improves the formality of the sentence.
"millions of lives" -> "countless lives"
Explanation: "Countless lives" adds a more sophisticated touch to the statement compared to "millions of lives."
"such as drug shock" -> "like drug-induced shock"
Explanation: "Like drug-induced shock" is a more precise and academic alternative to "such as drug shock."
"animals have their own rights" -> "animals possess inherent rights"
Explanation: "Animals possess inherent rights" conveys the idea more formally and precisely than "animals have their own rights."
"detremental substances" -> "harmful substances"
Explanation: "Harmful substances" is a more standard and formal phrase.
"which cause them pain, stress or even death" -> "resulting in pain, stress, or even fatality"
Explanation: The revised phrase is more academically structured and uses more formal vocabulary.
"Annually" -> "Each year"
Explanation: "Annually" is a bit less formal than "Each year" in an academic context.
"suffered from toxic substances" -> "endure exposure to toxic substances"
Explanation: "Endure exposure to toxic substances" is a more formal and precise phrasing.
"for scientist to not feeling guilty" -> "for scientists to avoid feelings of guilt"
Explanation: The revised phrase is more grammatically correct and formal.
"Take everything into account" -> "Taking all factors into consideration"
Explanation: "Taking all factors into consideration" is a more formal way to introduce the concluding statement.
"shouldn’t be killed" -> "should not be sacrificed"
Explanation: "Should not be sacrificed" conveys the idea in a more formal manner while maintaining clarity.

Please note that the suggestions aim to enhance the essay’s formality and precision while retaining natural language flow.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 8

Band Score for Task Response: 8

Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay addresses all parts of the question. It discusses both views (using animals in medical research is acceptable and it is wrong) and gives the writer’s opinion (opposes using animals for research).
- How to improve: No improvement needed in this aspect. The essay effectively covers all elements of the question.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear and consistent stance throughout. It consistently argues against the use of animals in medical research.
- How to improve: No improvement needed in this aspect. The essay successfully maintains a clear and consistent position.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents ideas with adequate detail and supports them with some specific examples. It mentions the role of animal testing in medical breakthroughs, citing the example of the measles vaccine. However, the support could be strengthened with more examples and data.
- How to improve: To improve, the writer can provide additional examples and statistics to bolster their arguments. This would make the essay more persuasive.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay mostly stays on topic, discussing the ethical dilemma of using animals in medical research and the alternatives. However, there is a slight deviation when it mentions the use of sophisticated computers. While relevant, this could have been tied back to the ethical concerns more explicitly.
- How to improve: To stay more on topic, the writer should connect the use of sophisticated computers back to the ethical concerns, emphasizing how it addresses the issue of animal suffering.

Overall, this essay has a strong response to the prompt, with clear arguments and a consistent position. It would benefit from adding more examples and ensuring that all points directly relate to the ethical considerations of using animals in medical research.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 6

Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay exhibits a logical organization by presenting both sides of the argument before stating the author’s opinion. The introduction sets the stage for the discussion, followed by clear paragraphs discussing the benefits of animal testing and the ethical concerns. The essay concludes with a succinct restatement of the author’s viewpoint. This structure aids in comprehension and coherence.
- How to improve: To further enhance logical organization, the author could consider providing more explicit topic sentences at the beginning of each paragraph to guide the reader’s understanding of the main point. Additionally, transitional phrases between paragraphs can improve the overall flow.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively uses paragraphs to separate different aspects of the argument. Each paragraph discusses a specific point, such as the benefits of animal testing, ethical concerns, and alternatives, which contributes to a clear and organized structure.
- How to improve: The author may benefit from varying sentence structure and length within paragraphs to add variety and maintain the reader’s engagement. Furthermore, ensuring that each paragraph has a clear topic sentence and adequate supporting details can improve the overall effectiveness of paragraphing.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay uses some cohesive devices, such as "on the one hand" and "on the other hand," to connect contrasting ideas. However, there is room for improvement in terms of diversifying cohesive devices, as the essay predominantly relies on these phrases.
- How to improve: To enhance cohesion, the author should consider incorporating a wider range of cohesive devices, such as transition words and phrases (e.g., "furthermore," "in addition," "in contrast"). This will help create a smoother and more cohesive flow between sentences and paragraphs.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a reasonable level of coherence and cohesion, with a clear organization and effective paragraphing. To improve, the author should work on providing stronger topic sentences, using a broader range of cohesive devices, and varying sentence structures for enhanced readability.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Lexical Resource: 6

Use a Wide Range of Vocabulary:
- Detailed explanation: The essay displays a reasonable range of vocabulary, covering both sides of the argument. It includes words such as "acceptable," "benefit," "breakthroughs," "devastating consequences," "rights," "respect," "suffer," "alternative," "sophisticated," "toxic substances," and "community." These words contribute to a somewhat varied vocabulary, but there is room for further diversification and more precise vocabulary usage.
- How to improve: To enhance vocabulary range, consider incorporating more synonyms, idiomatic expressions, and nuanced vocabulary related to the topic. For instance, instead of frequently using "research," try utilizing alternatives like "investigation," "exploration," or "study" when appropriate.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay occasionally uses vocabulary precisely, but there are instances where vocabulary could be more precise. For example, the phrase "new drugs are not tested at all or are tested on humans first" could be more specific by mentioning "clinical trials" or "human trials." Additionally, phrases like "detrimental substances" and "sophisticated computer" lack precision.
- How to improve: Aim for more specific and accurate word choices. Replace general terms with specialized terminology whenever possible, such as "harmful substances" instead of "detrimental substances" and "advanced computer technology" instead of "sophisticated computer."
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains some spelling errors, such as "good thing" instead of "good things," "measles vaccine" instead of "the measles vaccine," "to that need" instead of "that need," "feeling guilty" instead of "feeling guilty about," and "lab mice" instead of "laboratory mice." These errors slightly affect the overall readability and accuracy of the essay.
- How to improve: To improve spelling accuracy, consider proofreading the essay carefully. Additionally, you can utilize spelling and grammar checkers available in word processing software to identify and correct spelling errors.

Overall, this essay demonstrates a reasonable grasp of vocabulary, but there is room for improvement in terms of vocabulary range and precision. Additionally, attention to spelling accuracy can enhance the overall quality of the writing.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 6

Use a Wide Range of Structures:
- Detailed explanation: The essay utilizes a moderate range of sentence structures, including simple and compound sentences. It occasionally incorporates complex sentences, but these are relatively infrequent. There is room for improvement in sentence variety.
- How to improve: To enhance the essay’s grammatical range and make it more engaging, consider incorporating a wider variety of sentence structures, such as complex and compound-complex sentences. This can be achieved by using introductory phrases, dependent clauses, and varying sentence lengths. For example, instead of primarily using simple sentences, try combining ideas in a more complex manner to demonstrate greater fluency.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay displays some grammatical errors and punctuation issues. For instance, there is a lack of subject-verb agreement in the sentence "Some people believe that using animals in research for the benefit of human beings is acceptable, while other people argue that it is wrong." The correct form would be, "Some people believe that using animals in research for the benefit of human beings is acceptable, while others argue that it is wrong." Additionally, there are instances where articles are missing, such as "the good thing for society" should be "the good things for society," and "for scientist" should be "for scientists."
- How to improve: To enhance grammatical accuracy, it is essential to review and revise the essay carefully. Pay particular attention to subject-verb agreement, article usage, and verb tenses. Proofreading the essay multiple times can help identify and rectify these issues. Additionally, consider seeking assistance from a grammar guide or language tutor to improve punctuation skills and overall grammatical accuracy.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a reasonable command of English, there is room for improvement in both sentence variety and grammatical accuracy. By incorporating a wider range of sentence structures and addressing grammatical errors, the essay can achieve a higher band score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy.

Bài sửa mẫu

Some people argue that it is acceptable to use animals in medical research for the benefit of human beings, while others believe it is wrong. Although utilizing animal experimentation could yield substantial benefits for society, I firmly agree with the latter view for some reasons.

On the one hand, animal testing plays an essential role in the medical field. In recent years, there have been numerous medical breakthroughs using animal experimentation, which have saved countless lives. For instance, according to some surveys, the measles vaccine, which was developed using animal testing, has saved over 20 million people since 2000. Another reason is that if new drugs are not tested on animals or are tested on humans first, it could lead to devastating consequences like drug-induced shock, severe allergies, or overreactions to some drug ingredients.

On the other hand, animals possess inherent rights, and therefore, their lives should not be sacrificed for our research. Laboratory animals usually endure exposure to harmful substances, resulting in pain, stress, or even fatality. Each year, millions of lab mice, for example, endure exposure to toxic substances and become deformed or die after such tests.

Moreover, there are numerous alternative methods that need to be considered. For example, utilizing sophisticated computers is also an effective way for our research, not only helping animals avoid suffering from toxic substances but also allowing scientists to avoid feelings of guilt associated with the killing of animals.

Taking all factors into consideration, I believe that animals should not be sacrificed for our medical research, despite the potential benefits it may bring to society.