Some people feel that manufacturers and supermarkets have the responsibility to reduce the amount of packaging of goods. Others argue that customers should avoid buying goods with a lot of packaging. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

In the competitive era of today, alluring customers by offering attention-grabbing to upscale the business figures has been given precedence, sparking the a debate about whether the responsibility of packaging reduction should be held by customers or manufacturers. This essay is written with a view to discussing both sides in a mutual manner, ultimately reaching to a balanced approach.
On one hand, good providers, distributing uncountable amount of goods with packaging to consumers have been viewed as one of the culprits of environment degradation, resulting the idea held by some individuals that the duty of limiting the packaging of goods should be accounted by providers such as manufacturers and supermarkets. Such argument is made due to effectiveness of manufacturers ‘role in reduction of packaging and cost . The former is expected to exert a much more significant influence as the whole companies or supermarkets’ agreements in dispensing the process of packaging goods could render unnecessary packaging surplus to requirements, resulting in a large scale of cutting down the needs of using packaging among users. Such argument seems to be valid when it comes to comparison with just only a few consumers agreeing to refuse goods with packaging, which is obviously in a small-scale. In addition, reduction of packaging of goods in such agreement of the whole supermarkets could help to save the cost of manufacturing, favoring both customers and manufacturers in prices of purchases.

on the other hand, some advocating that customers should be accounted for packaging reduction assert that when the demand of favoring flamboyant and sensuous packaging is surplus to requirements among purchasers, it would dawn on the manufacturers that packaging is unnecessary. This indicates that the root of problem is the demand of customers. Advocates for such argument pinpoint that the excessive need of goods packaging could be attributed to the demand of purchasing products packed by an eye-catching and hypnotizing boxes, leading to the practice of packaging among supermarkets and manufacturers. Therefore, customers should be trailblazers in reducing packaging every time making purchasing.
In conclusion, this issue is dealt from just one party but rather requires the consensus of both customers and manufacturers as it could address the roots of problem in a very effective way.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

Errors and Improvements:

"alluring customers by offering attention-grabbing to upscale the business figures" -> "enticing customers through attention-grabbing strategies to enhance business performance"
Explanation: The original phrase is convoluted and lacks clarity. The suggested alternative maintains the meaning while using more formal and concise language.
"sparking the a debate" -> "sparking a debate"
Explanation: The article "the" before "a debate" is redundant and grammatically incorrect.
"the duty of limiting the packaging of goods should be accounted by providers" -> "the responsibility for reducing packaging should lie with providers"
Explanation: "Accounted by" is awkward and unclear. "The duty of limiting" can be simplified to "the responsibility for reducing." "Lie with" is a more idiomatic and formal expression.
"resulting the idea held by some individuals" -> "resulting in the notion held by some individuals"
Explanation: "Resulting the idea" is grammatically incorrect. "Resulting in the notion" is a more precise and formal phrase.
"render unnecessary packaging surplus to requirements" -> "eliminate unnecessary packaging"
Explanation: "Surplus to requirements" is overly verbose. "Eliminate" is a more direct and formal term.
"resulting in a large scale of cutting down the needs of using packaging among users" -> "resulting in a significant reduction in the use of packaging by consumers"
Explanation: The original phrase is awkward and lacks clarity. "A large scale of cutting down the needs of using packaging among users" is convoluted and unclear. The suggested alternative is more concise and precise.
"just only a few consumers" -> "only a few consumers"
Explanation: "Just only" is redundant; "only" is sufficient to convey the meaning.
"which is obviously in a small-scale" -> "which is evidently on a small scale"
Explanation: "In a small-scale" is grammatically incorrect. "On a small scale" is the appropriate phrase.
"favoring both customers and manufacturers in prices of purchases" -> "benefiting both customers and manufacturers in terms of pricing"
Explanation: "Favoring both customers and manufacturers in prices of purchases" is awkward and unclear. "Benefiting both customers and manufacturers in terms of pricing" is more precise and formal.
"some advocating that customers should be accounted for packaging reduction assert" -> "some advocates argue that customers should be responsible for reducing packaging"
Explanation: "Some advocating that customers should be accounted for packaging reduction assert" is awkward and unclear. "Some advocates argue that customers should be responsible for reducing packaging" is more concise and formal.
"favoring flamboyant and sensuous packaging is surplus to requirements among purchasers" -> "the demand for extravagant and aesthetically pleasing packaging exceeds what is necessary among consumers"
Explanation: "Favoring flamboyant and sensuous packaging is surplus to requirements among purchasers" is awkward and unclear. "The demand for extravagant and aesthetically pleasing packaging exceeds what is necessary among consumers" is more precise and formal.
"it would dawn on the manufacturers that packaging is unnecessary" -> "manufacturers would realize that packaging is unnecessary"
Explanation: "It would dawn on the manufacturers" is informal and somewhat colloquial. "Manufacturers would realize" is a more direct and formal expression.
"the root of problem is the demand of customers" -> "the root of the problem lies in customer demand"
Explanation: "The root of problem is the demand of customers" lacks clarity and is grammatically incorrect. "The root of the problem lies in customer demand" is more precise and formal.
"Advocates for such argument pinpoint that" -> "Advocates of this viewpoint argue that"
Explanation: "Advocates for such argument pinpoint that" is awkward and unclear. "Advocates of this viewpoint argue that" is more concise and formal.
"Therefore, customers should be trailblazers" -> "Therefore, customers should take the lead"
Explanation: "Trailblazers" is somewhat informal and not the most appropriate term here. "Take the lead" is a more formal expression.
"In conclusion, this issue is dealt from just one party" -> "In conclusion, addressing this issue requires cooperation from both parties"
Explanation: "Is dealt from just one party" is awkward and unclear. "Addressing this issue requires cooperation from both parties" is more precise and formal.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Task Response: 6

Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay adequately addresses both perspectives outlined in the prompt. It discusses the responsibility of manufacturers and supermarkets to reduce packaging, as well as the argument that customers should avoid buying goods with excessive packaging. The introduction effectively introduces the topic and presents the intention to discuss both views.
- How to improve: While the essay touches upon both perspectives, it could benefit from a clearer delineation of each viewpoint and a more structured approach to presenting arguments for and against each stance. Providing specific examples or statistics to support each perspective could enhance the depth of analysis.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a neutral stance throughout, aiming to present a balanced view of both sides of the argument. However, this neutrality occasionally leads to ambiguity in the author’s own opinion.
- How to improve: While it’s commendable to provide a balanced discussion, the essay could strengthen its clarity by explicitly stating the author’s opinion in the introduction and reinforcing it throughout the body paragraphs. This would enhance coherence and reader engagement.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents ideas but lacks sufficient development and support. While it briefly discusses the arguments for each perspective, it does not delve deeply into the implications or provide compelling evidence to bolster its points.
- How to improve: To improve, the essay could include more detailed examples, case studies, or expert opinions to illustrate the consequences of excessive packaging and the potential solutions proposed by both manufacturers and consumers. Additionally, elaborating on the economic, environmental, and social impacts of packaging reduction would enrich the discussion.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, addressing the issue of packaging reduction as outlined in the prompt. However, there are instances of vague or tangential discussion, particularly in the second body paragraph.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, the essay should ensure that every point made directly relates to the topic of packaging reduction. Avoiding tangents and maintaining a clear thread of argumentation will enhance coherence and effectiveness.

Overall, while the essay provides a comprehensive discussion of both perspectives on packaging reduction, there is room for improvement in clarity, depth of analysis, and coherence. By refining the structure, providing stronger supporting evidence, and maintaining focus on the topic, the essay could elevate its effectiveness and coherence, potentially leading to a higher band score.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 6

Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay attempts to discuss both sides of the argument regarding the responsibility for reducing packaging, but its organization is somewhat convoluted. While it starts with a clear introduction that outlines the intention to discuss both viewpoints, the subsequent paragraphs lack clear delineation between the arguments supporting manufacturers’ responsibility and those advocating for customer responsibility. The essay jumps between discussing manufacturers’ role and then customers’ role without a smooth transition, making it challenging for the reader to follow the logical flow of the arguments.
- How to improve: To enhance logical organization, the essay should adopt a more structured approach. Consider dedicating separate paragraphs to each viewpoint (manufacturers’ responsibility and customers’ responsibility), with clear topic sentences to introduce each argument. Within each paragraph, provide specific examples or evidence to support the respective viewpoint. Additionally, use transition words and phrases to guide the reader through the essay’s progression, ensuring a coherent and logical flow from one idea to the next.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay attempts to use paragraphs to organize its content, but the structure and effectiveness of paragraphing could be improved. Each paragraph should ideally focus on a single main idea or aspect of the argument. However, some paragraphs in this essay cover multiple ideas without clear transitions between them, leading to confusion and fragmentation of the essay’s arguments. Additionally, the essay lacks topic sentences at the beginning of each paragraph, making it difficult for readers to discern the main point of each section.
- How to improve: To improve paragraphing, ensure that each paragraph has a clear and focused topic sentence that encapsulates the main idea of that paragraph. Then, provide supporting details or examples to develop that idea coherently within the paragraph. Consider breaking down longer paragraphs into smaller, more focused ones to enhance readability and clarity. Use transition words and phrases to smoothly connect ideas between paragraphs, facilitating a logical progression of thought throughout the essay.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay attempts to use cohesive devices to connect ideas and improve coherence, but there is limited variety and effectiveness in their usage. While some cohesive devices like pronouns ("such argument," "such agreement") are employed, their repetitive use without variation diminishes their effectiveness in maintaining coherence. Additionally, the essay lacks a diverse range of cohesive devices such as transitional words and phrases (e.g., however, therefore, in addition) that could enhance the connections between ideas and paragraphs.
- How to improve: To diversify and effectively use cohesive devices, strive for variety in their application throughout the essay. Instead of relying heavily on repetitive pronouns, incorporate a wider range of cohesive devices such as transitional words, conjunctions, and synonyms to establish clear relationships between ideas and paragraphs. Ensure that cohesive devices are used appropriately and purposefully to reinforce the logical flow of the essay and maintain coherence for the reader. Additionally, pay attention to the placement of cohesive devices to ensure smooth transitions between sentences and paragraphs.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Lexical Resource: 7

Use a Wide Range of Vocabulary:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a commendable range of vocabulary, incorporating a variety of words and phrases throughout. For instance, the use of "alluring," "culprits," "degradation," "exert," "surplus to requirements," "flamboyant," "sensuous," "hypnotizing," and "trailblazers" showcases lexical diversity.
- How to improve: While the essay already exhibits a strong vocabulary, further enriching it with more nuanced and contextually appropriate terms could enhance the overall sophistication of expression. Consider incorporating specialized vocabulary related to environmental issues, consumer behavior, and economic factors to bolster the depth of analysis.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally employs vocabulary with precision, effectively conveying ideas. However, there are instances where word choice could be more precise. For example, the phrase "attention-grabbing to upscale the business figures" could be refined for clarity and conciseness.
- How to improve: To enhance precision, strive for clarity and specificity in word choice. Avoid ambiguous or convoluted phrasing by opting for straightforward language that directly communicates the intended meaning. Proofreading for clarity and coherence can help identify areas where vocabulary could be sharpened.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: Spelling accuracy is generally satisfactory, with minimal errors observed throughout the essay. However, there are a few instances of misspellings, such as "a debate about whether the responsibility of packaging reduction should be held by customers or manufacturers" (should be "debate" instead of "a debate about") and "effectiveness of manufacturers ‘role" (missing apostrophe in "manufacturers’").
- How to improve: To improve spelling accuracy, consider utilizing spelling and grammar checkers during the writing process. Additionally, proofreading the essay carefully before submission can help catch any remaining spelling errors. Developing a habit of reviewing written work for spelling consistency can contribute to overall improvement in this area.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong command of vocabulary, with room for refinement in precision and occasional spelling errors. By further enhancing lexical diversity, ensuring precise word choice, and improving spelling accuracy, the essay can continue to elevate its lexical resource to achieve an even higher band score.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 7

Use a Wide Range of Structures:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a fair range of sentence structures, including complex sentences, compound sentences, and some use of relative clauses. However, there is a tendency towards repetitive sentence structures, which can hinder the flow of the essay and make it less engaging for the reader. For instance, there is a frequent use of sentences starting with "On one hand" and "on the other hand", which could be varied for better readability.
- How to improve: To enhance the variety of sentence structures, consider incorporating more complex sentence constructions such as conditional sentences, passive voice, and inverted sentences. Additionally, vary the beginnings of sentences to avoid monotony and maintain the reader’s interest. For example, instead of consistently starting sentences with "On one hand" and "on the other hand", experiment with different introductory phrases or clauses to introduce new points or perspectives.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: Overall, the essay demonstrates a satisfactory level of grammatical accuracy, with few noticeable errors. However, there are some instances of grammatical mistakes, such as subject-verb agreement errors ("advocating that customers should be accounted for packaging reduction assert") and incorrect word choices ("sensuous packaging" instead of "sensory packaging"). Additionally, there are punctuation errors, including missing commas and inconsistent capitalization.
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, pay closer attention to subject-verb agreement and verb tense consistency throughout the essay. Proofreading carefully can help catch and correct these errors. Additionally, expand your vocabulary to ensure the correct usage of words and phrases in context. Regarding punctuation, review the rules for comma usage, especially in compound and complex sentences, and ensure consistent capitalization of proper nouns and the first word of each sentence. Practicing sentence structure and punctuation in writing exercises can also help reinforce these skills.

Bài sửa mẫu

In today’s fiercely competitive market, the practice of enticing customers through attention-grabbing strategies to enhance business performance has sparked a debate on whether the responsibility for reducing packaging should lie with customers or manufacturers. This essay aims to explore both perspectives in a balanced manner.

On one hand, some argue that manufacturers and supermarkets, being the providers of goods wrapped in packaging, bear the responsibility for reducing it. They highlight the significant impact these providers can have on reducing packaging waste and costs. By collectively agreeing to minimize packaging, manufacturers and supermarkets could greatly reduce the unnecessary use of packaging, thereby benefiting both consumers and the environment. Moreover, such a collective effort could lead to cost savings in manufacturing, ultimately lowering prices for customers.

On the other hand, there are those who believe that customers should take responsibility for reducing packaging. They argue that manufacturers respond to consumer demand for elaborate and visually appealing packaging. Therefore, if customers prioritize products with minimal packaging, it would prompt manufacturers to rethink their packaging practices. By exercising their purchasing power wisely, customers can drive a shift towards more sustainable packaging solutions.

In conclusion, addressing the issue of excessive packaging requires collaboration between customers and manufacturers. While manufacturers can play a significant role in reducing packaging waste, customers also have the power to influence packaging practices through their purchasing choices. Ultimately, a joint effort is necessary to tackle the root causes of the problem effectively.