Some people claim that not enough of the waste from homes is recycled. They say that the only way to increase recycling is for governments to make it a legal requirement.
 To what extent do you think laws are needed to make people recycle more of their waste?

Some people claim that not enough of the waste from homes is recycled. They say that the only way to increase recycling is for governments to make it a legal requirement.

To what extent do you think laws are needed to make people recycle more of their waste?

It is generally belived that home recycling is not sufficently carried out by most households. The recycle law, consequently is supposed to be one of the governments’s efficient policies. Although many people opine that there should be such a law, I think the people should have a freedom in recycling waste.
To begin with, individuals should not be forced to recycle things in their house for several considerations. First, even laws are issued by government, level of recycling still remain unchanged. Because, most of the school and propaganda organization do not teach the people how to recycle and deal with waste classification. In other words, authorities cannot manage on how much or how effective people recycle things. For example, many locals do not have enough strict management about how people handle waste. Recycling laws might not be easy and understandable for locals to follow. In fact, in most of school and communities, specific guidanc or information is not really detailed. Therefore, the effectiveness of recycling efforts is limited so the laws maybe become inpossible in our life.
In stead of introducing laws, goverments should raise awareness of student local at a basic level. For instance, there should be at least one lesson per week to teach students about waste classification and recycling. When children understand the importance of this, they will become the first generation to be highly aware of waste classification. Adults will also learn many things about the children. Apparently, without the need to promulgate strict laws, people's awareness has still improved a lot.

In conclusion, the repurpose issue is very important. Nevertheless, the ordinance is not the best way to encourage people to dispose of their waste more responsibly.

---

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

1. "It is generally belived" -> "It is generally believed"
   Explanation: Correcting the spelling error from "belived" to "believed" ensures the proper use of the verb form, aligning with standard English spelling rules and enhancing the professionalism of the text.

2. "sufficently" -> "sufficiently"
   Explanation: Correcting the spelling error from "sufficently" to "sufficiently" maintains the accuracy and formality of the text.

3. "The recycle law" -> "recycling laws"
   Explanation: Changing "The recycle law" to "recycling laws" corrects the grammatical structure and pluralizes the noun to reflect the general trend of multiple laws or regulations.

4. "is supposed to be one of the governments’s efficient policies" -> "are considered one of the government’s most effective policies"
   Explanation: Replacing "is supposed to be" with "are considered" corrects the verb agreement and specificity, and "most effective" is more precise than "efficient" in this context.

5. "I think the people should have a freedom in recycling waste" -> "I believe individuals should have the freedom to recycle waste"
   Explanation: Replacing "I think" with "I believe" and "the people" with "individuals" refines the tone and specificity, and "the freedom to recycle" is a more natural and formal expression.

6. "even laws are issued by government, level of recycling still remain unchanged" -> "even with laws issued by the government, the level of recycling remains unchanged"
   Explanation: Adding "the" before "government" corrects the article usage, and changing "still remain" to "remains" corrects the verb form to match the singular subject "level."

7. "most of the school and propaganda organization" -> "most schools and educational institutions"
   Explanation: Replacing "school" with "schools" and "propaganda organization" with "educational institutions" corrects the plural form and removes the potentially negative connotation of "propaganda."

8. "do not teach the people how to recycle and deal with waste classification" -> "do not educate the public on recycling and waste classification"
   Explanation: Replacing "teach the people" with "educate the public" and "how to recycle and deal with waste classification" with "recycling and waste classification" simplifies and clarifies the phrase.

9. "authorities cannot manage on how much or how effective people recycle things" -> "authorities cannot effectively manage the extent or effectiveness of recycling"
   Explanation: Replacing "manage on how much or how effective people recycle things" with "effectively manage the extent or effectiveness of recycling" corrects the awkward phrasing and enhances clarity.

10. "Recycling laws might not be easy and understandable for locals to follow" -> "Recycling laws may not be easily understandable for local residents"
    Explanation: Changing "might not be easy and understandable" to "may not be easily understandable" corrects the tense and adds "for local residents" to specify the group affected.

11. "In stead of introducing laws, goverments should raise awareness" -> "Instead of introducing laws, governments should raise awareness"
    Explanation: Correcting "In stead" to "Instead" and "goverments" to "governments" fixes spelling errors and maintains grammatical correctness.

12. "local at a basic level" -> "local residents at a basic level"
    Explanation: Adding "residents" clarifies the subject and maintains the formal tone.

13. "the repurpose issue" -> "the recycling issue"
    Explanation: Replacing "repurpose" with "recycling" corrects the misuse of the word, which is not appropriate in this context.

14. "the ordinance is not the best way" -> "the ordinance is not the most effective method"
    Explanation: Replacing "the best way" with "the most effective method" uses more precise and formal language suitable for academic writing.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Task Response: 7

• Answer All Parts of the Question:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay addresses the prompt by discussing the necessity of laws for recycling, presenting a clear argument against the need for such laws. The writer acknowledges the claim that recycling is insufficient and suggests that laws could be ineffective. However, the essay could benefit from a more balanced exploration of both sides of the argument. For instance, while it argues against laws, it does not sufficiently explore the potential benefits of legal requirements for recycling.
  • How to improve: To enhance the response, the writer should consider addressing the opposing viewpoint more thoroughly. This could involve discussing specific examples of where laws have successfully increased recycling rates, or acknowledging situations where laws might be necessary. Including a more nuanced discussion would demonstrate a deeper engagement with the prompt.

• Present a Clear Position Throughout:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear position against the implementation of recycling laws, stating that individuals should have the freedom to choose how they recycle. However, the position could be more consistently reinforced throughout the essay. For example, while the introduction states a clear stance, the body paragraphs occasionally stray into discussing the ineffectiveness of laws without consistently linking back to the central argument of personal freedom.
  • How to improve: To maintain a clearer position, the writer should consistently relate each point back to the main argument. Using transitional phrases that reiterate the stance against laws would help reinforce the position. Additionally, summarizing the argument in the conclusion could strengthen the overall coherence of the essay.

• Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay presents several ideas, such as the ineffectiveness of laws and the importance of education in recycling. However, the support for these ideas is somewhat limited. For instance, while the writer mentions that laws may not be easy to follow, there are no specific examples or data provided to substantiate this claim. The argument about education is a strong point, but it could be developed further with more detailed examples of successful educational programs.
  • How to improve: To improve the development of ideas, the writer should include specific examples, statistics, or studies that support their claims. For instance, citing a successful recycling initiative in a particular community or country could provide concrete evidence for the argument. Additionally, expanding on the educational aspect with examples of effective programs would strengthen the essay.

• Stay on Topic:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, focusing on the issue of recycling and the role of laws. However, there are moments where the discussion becomes slightly tangential, such as when mentioning the lack of strict management by authorities without directly linking it back to the main argument about laws. This could confuse the reader about the relevance of certain points.
  • How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer should ensure that every point made directly relates to the central argument regarding the necessity of laws for recycling. Before including a new point, the writer should ask whether it directly supports their thesis. Additionally, summarizing key points at the end of each paragraph can help keep the discussion aligned with the topic.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 7

• Organize Information Logically:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear argument against the necessity of recycling laws, structured around two main points. The introduction sets the stage for the discussion, and each paragraph addresses a specific aspect of the argument. However, the logical flow is occasionally disrupted by unclear transitions and a lack of explicit connections between ideas. For example, the transition from discussing the ineffectiveness of laws to the suggestion of raising awareness could be more fluid, as the current structure feels somewhat abrupt.
  • How to improve: To enhance logical organization, the writer should ensure that each paragraph begins with a clear topic sentence that outlines the main idea. Additionally, using transitional phrases (e.g., "Furthermore," "In addition," "Conversely") can help guide the reader through the argument more smoothly. A brief summary of the previous point at the beginning of each new paragraph could also reinforce the logical progression of ideas.

• Use Paragraphs:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay effectively uses paragraphs to separate different ideas, which is a strength. Each paragraph focuses on a distinct point related to the central argument. However, some paragraphs are overly long and could benefit from being divided into smaller sections. For instance, the second paragraph contains multiple ideas that could be split into two separate paragraphs: one focusing on the ineffectiveness of laws and the other on the lack of education regarding recycling.
  • How to improve: To improve paragraphing, the writer should aim for a clear structure where each paragraph contains a single main idea supported by relevant examples. This can be achieved by limiting the number of ideas per paragraph and ensuring that each paragraph has a clear purpose. Additionally, concluding each paragraph with a sentence that ties back to the main argument can reinforce coherence.

• Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a reasonable use of cohesive devices, such as "first," "for example," and "therefore," which help to connect ideas within and between sentences. However, the range of cohesive devices is somewhat limited, and some phrases are used repetitively, which can detract from the overall fluency of the writing. For example, "for example" appears multiple times without variation, which can make the writing feel monotonous.
  • How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, the writer should incorporate a wider range of linking words and phrases. This includes alternatives to "for example" (e.g., "such as," "to illustrate," "namely") and varied conjunctions (e.g., "although," "however," "in contrast"). Additionally, using pronouns effectively can help to avoid repetition and maintain cohesion throughout the essay. For instance, referring back to "laws" or "recycling" with pronouns can streamline the text and enhance readability.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of the topic and presents a coherent argument, attention to the organization of ideas, paragraph structure, and the variety of cohesive devices will help elevate the writing to a higher band score.

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 reasonable range of vocabulary, with some attempts to use less common terms such as "propaganda organization" and "waste classification." However, there are instances of repetition, particularly with the word "recycle" and its derivatives, which detracts from the overall lexical variety. Phrases like "the recycle law" and "the effectiveness of recycling efforts" could be expressed with more varied vocabulary to enhance the essay’s richness.
  • How to improve: To improve lexical range, the writer should incorporate synonyms and related terms. For example, instead of repeatedly using "recycle," they could use "reuse," "repurpose," or "recover." Additionally, exploring phrases like "waste management policies" or "environmental regulations" could diversify the vocabulary used in the essay.

• Use Vocabulary Precisely:

  • Detailed explanation: There are several instances of imprecise vocabulary usage that could lead to confusion. For example, the phrase "the recycle law, consequently is supposed to be one of the governments’s efficient policies" is awkward and unclear. The term "governments’s" is also incorrect, as it should be "government’s." Furthermore, "guidanc" is a misspelling of "guidance," which affects clarity.
  • How to improve: To enhance precision, the writer should focus on using vocabulary that accurately conveys their intended meaning. Instead of saying "the recycle law," they could specify "mandatory recycling legislation." Additionally, proofreading for spelling and grammatical errors will help ensure clarity. Utilizing tools such as thesauruses or vocabulary lists can aid in selecting more precise terms.

• Use Correct Spelling:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay contains multiple spelling errors, such as "belived" (believed), "sufficently" (sufficiently), "goverments" (governments), "in stead" (instead), and "inpossible" (impossible). These errors can distract the reader and undermine the overall professionalism of the writing.
  • How to improve: To improve spelling accuracy, the writer should implement a proofreading strategy that includes reading the essay aloud, using spell check tools, and reviewing common spelling rules. Additionally, practicing spelling through writing exercises or flashcards can help reinforce correct spelling of frequently used words.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic and attempts to use a varied vocabulary, there are significant areas for improvement in lexical resource. By expanding vocabulary range, ensuring precise usage, and correcting spelling errors, the writer can enhance the overall quality of their writing and potentially achieve a higher band score.

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 that could enhance the depth of the argument. For example, phrases like "individuals should not be forced to recycle things in their house for several considerations" and "the effectiveness of recycling efforts is limited so the laws maybe become inpossible in our life" reflect a straightforward structure but lack complexity. The use of conjunctions is minimal, which restricts the flow and sophistication of the writing.
  • How to improve: To diversify sentence structures, the writer should practice incorporating more complex sentences that include subordinate clauses. For instance, instead of saying "individuals should not be forced to recycle things," the writer could say, "While individuals should not be forced to recycle, it is essential that they understand the benefits of doing so." Additionally, using a variety of conjunctions (e.g., although, whereas, despite) can help create more nuanced arguments.

• Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay contains several grammatical errors and punctuation issues that detract from its clarity. For example, "belived" should be "believed," "sufficently" should be "sufficiently," and "governments’s" should be "government’s." Additionally, the phrase "the recycle law, consequently is supposed to be one of the governments’s efficient policies" lacks proper punctuation; there should be a comma after "consequently." The misuse of "inpossible" instead of "impossible" and "guidanc" instead of "guidance" further illustrates the need for careful proofreading.
  • How to improve: To enhance grammatical accuracy, the writer should engage in regular grammar exercises focusing on common errors, such as subject-verb agreement and verb tense consistency. Additionally, proofreading the essay for spelling and punctuation errors before submission can significantly improve the overall quality. Utilizing grammar-checking tools or seeking feedback from peers can also help identify and rectify mistakes.

In summary, to improve the band score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy, the writer should focus on expanding their use of sentence structures and enhancing grammatical and punctuation accuracy. Regular practice and careful revision will contribute to a more polished and effective essay.

Bài sửa mẫu

It is generally believed that home recycling is not sufficiently carried out by most households. The recycling laws, consequently, are considered one of the government’s most effective policies. Although many people opine that there should be such a law, I believe individuals should have the freedom to recycle waste.

To begin with, individuals should not be forced to recycle items in their homes for several reasons. First, even with laws issued by the government, the level of recycling remains unchanged. This is because most schools and educational institutions do not educate the public on recycling and waste classification. In other words, authorities cannot effectively manage the extent or effectiveness of recycling. For example, many locals do not have strict guidelines regarding how to handle waste. Recycling laws may not be easily understandable for local residents to follow. In fact, in most schools and communities, specific guidance or information is not provided in detail. Therefore, the effectiveness of recycling efforts is limited, and the laws may become impractical in our daily lives.

Instead of introducing laws, governments should raise awareness among local residents at a basic level. For instance, there should be at least one lesson per week to teach students about waste classification and recycling. When children understand the importance of this, they will become the first generation to be highly aware of waste management. Adults will also learn from the knowledge that children bring home. Apparently, without the need to promulgate strict laws, people’s awareness can still improve significantly.

In conclusion, the recycling issue is very important. Nevertheless, the ordinance is not the most effective method to encourage people to dispose of their waste more responsibly.