Some people say that individuals should change jobs during their working life often while others believe that doing the same job has advantages to individuals, companies, and society. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some people say that individuals should change jobs during their working life often while others believe that doing the same job has advantages to individuals, companies, and society.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.

One school of thought holds that people ought to shift to different occupations often throughout their life; however, others assume that working as the same position can bring benefits to workers themselves, businesses as well as the whole society. Personally, my conviction aligns with the latter notion.

Admittedly, job-hopping can exert several positive effects on individuals. First and foremost, people can gain job satisfaction by constantly alternating between a variety of occupations. Upon closer scrutiny, those job holders can find the most suitable job for them after a period of experiencing and considering various factors such as working environment, salary or corporations’ culture. Not only that, workers can also reap another advantage from job-hopping, particularly a competitive edge over other candidates. In detail, they may be equipped with diverse professional background, thus being able to bring fresh perspective and generate novel ideas by accumulating conducive knowledge. Those job holders can also carve a niche for themselves thanks to their adaptability and flexibility acquired from serving as workers of different jobs. This can be “golden keys” for them when applying for a vacancy, especially in tech industry which constantly evolves over time.

However, I contend that doing the same job can far outweigh the aforementioned approach and be more beneficial to individuals, companies and society. To begin with, on the individual level, job satisfaction still can be obtained if there are recognitions, rewards or policy on regular pay increments implemented by the businesses. Additionally, certain workers can find it arduous to gain a competitive edge over others in case they previously changed occupations as several employers can hold a prejudice against them. Recruiters can base their arguments on those workers’ failure to do a job for a specific time, which can be a sign of instability, potentially causing a financial loss for companies in recruiting and training costs and doing them a disservice when facing crises. Instead, the more people belong with the job, the more effortless they can manage their budget by having a stable remuneration. Taking out loans or mortgages and making long-term goals can be possible in the light of financial stability. Furthermore, companies can also gain benefits from the sustainable workforce as there are low turnover rates, high efficiency and productivity created by long-serving workers’ experience and industry-specific knowledge. Closely associated with that, sudden unemployment can no longer trigger economic downturns when people pursue the same professional path.

To recapitulate, it is justifiable for the proponents of job-hopping since this idea can bring certain advantages. Nonetheless, I still believe that following a job wholeheartedly ought to be recommended as it can tackle the problems of the previous approach and simultaneously be beneficial to workers, firms and the society.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"One school of thought holds that" -> "Some argue that"
Explanation: "Some argue that" is a more concise and academically appropriate way to introduce a viewpoint, avoiding the somewhat formal but less common phrase "One school of thought holds that."
"people ought to shift to different occupations often" -> "individuals should frequently change occupations"
Explanation: "Individuals should frequently change occupations" is more direct and formal, enhancing the academic tone of the sentence.
"others assume" -> "others contend"
Explanation: "Contend" is a more precise and formal verb than "assume," which is somewhat vague and informal in this context.
"working as the same position" -> "working in the same position"
Explanation: "In" is the correct preposition to use with "position," not "as."
"can exert several positive effects" -> "can have several positive effects"
Explanation: "Have" is more commonly used in academic writing to describe the occurrence of effects, making the sentence more natural and formal.
"job holders can find the most suitable job" -> "individuals can find the most suitable job"
Explanation: "Individuals" is a more formal term than "job holders," which is somewhat colloquial.
"Not only that, workers can also reap another advantage" -> "Furthermore, workers can also reap another advantage"
Explanation: "Furthermore" is a more formal transitional phrase than "Not only that," which is somewhat informal and conversational.
"being able to bring fresh perspective" -> "being able to bring fresh perspectives"
Explanation: "Perspectives" is the plural form needed here to match the plural context of "various factors."
"can carve a niche for themselves" -> "can establish a niche for themselves"
Explanation: "Establish" is a more precise and formal verb than "carve," which is somewhat metaphorical and less commonly used in formal writing.
"This can be “golden keys”" -> "This can be a "golden key""
Explanation: "A golden key" is grammatically correct and more formal than "golden keys," which is incorrect in this context.
"doing the same job can far outweigh" -> "continuing in the same job can far outweigh"
Explanation: "Continuing in the same job" is more specific and formal than "doing the same job," which is vague.
"job satisfaction still can be obtained" -> "job satisfaction can still be achieved"
Explanation: "Achieved" is a more formal and precise term than "obtained" in this context, aligning better with academic style.
"can find it arduous to gain a competitive edge" -> "may find it challenging to gain a competitive edge"
Explanation: "May" is more appropriate than "can" in this context, as it indicates possibility rather than certainty, which is more suitable for academic writing.
"Recruiters can base their arguments on those workers’ failure" -> "Recruiters may base their arguments on those workers’ failure"
Explanation: "May" is more appropriate than "can" to indicate possibility, and "workers’" is the correct possessive form.
"doing them a disservice when facing crises" -> "causing them harm during crises"
Explanation: "Causing them harm" is a clearer and more direct expression than "doing them a disservice," which is somewhat vague and informal.
"Taking out loans or mortgages and making long-term goals" -> "obtaining loans or mortgages and setting long-term goals"
Explanation: "Obtaining" and "setting" are more precise and formal verbs than "taking out" and "making," which are less formal and slightly colloquial.
"can be possible" -> "can be feasible"
Explanation: "Feasible" is a more precise and formal term than "possible" in this context, indicating practicality and suitability.
"sudden unemployment can no longer trigger economic downturns" -> "sudden unemployment may no longer trigger economic downturns"
Explanation: "May" is more appropriate than "can" to indicate possibility, which is more suitable for academic writing.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 8

Band Score for Task Response: 8

Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively addresses both views regarding job-hopping and job stability. The first paragraph introduces the two perspectives clearly, with a balanced discussion of the advantages of job-hopping in the first body paragraph. The second body paragraph presents a strong argument in favor of staying in the same job, which aligns with the writer’s opinion. The conclusion succinctly summarizes the discussion and reiterates the writer’s stance. However, while both views are discussed, the essay could benefit from a more explicit acknowledgment of the counterarguments to strengthen the overall balance.
- How to improve: To enhance the response, the writer could include a brief mention of potential drawbacks of job stability or the limitations of job-hopping, which would provide a more nuanced view. This could involve discussing how job-hopping might lead to a lack of depth in skills or how long-term positions can sometimes lead to stagnation.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The writer maintains a clear position favoring job stability throughout the essay. The personal opinion is stated early on and is consistently supported with relevant arguments and examples. The transition from discussing job-hopping to advocating for job stability is smooth, and the writer’s conviction is evident. However, the initial presentation of the opposing view could be misinterpreted as giving equal weight to both sides, which might dilute the clarity of the position.
- How to improve: To reinforce the clarity of the position, the writer could use more definitive language when presenting their opinion. Phrases like "I strongly believe" or "It is clear that" could help emphasize their stance more forcefully. Additionally, reiterating the main argument in the conclusion could further solidify the position.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents several well-developed ideas, particularly regarding the benefits of job stability, such as financial security and increased productivity for companies. The use of specific examples, such as the impact of job-hopping on recruitment perceptions, adds depth to the argument. However, some points could be elaborated further, particularly the societal benefits of job stability, which are mentioned but not fully explored.
- How to improve: To strengthen the support for ideas, the writer could include more specific examples or data to back up claims, particularly regarding the societal impacts of job stability. For instance, discussing how stable employment can contribute to community development or economic stability could provide a more comprehensive view.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay remains focused on the topic throughout, addressing the prompt’s requirement to discuss both views and provide an opinion. The structure is logical, with clear paragraphs dedicated to each perspective. There are no significant deviations from the topic, and the writer effectively ties back to the main question in the conclusion. However, there are moments where the discussion of job-hopping could be more tightly linked to the overall argument.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer could ensure that each point made about job-hopping directly contrasts with the benefits of job stability. This could involve explicitly stating how the advantages of job stability counter the perceived benefits of job-hopping, thereby reinforcing the central argument throughout the essay.

In summary, the essay demonstrates a strong understanding of the task and presents a well-structured argument. To achieve an even higher band score, the writer should aim for a more nuanced discussion of both views, reinforce their position with more definitive language, provide additional supporting examples, and ensure that all points are tightly connected to the central argument.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 7

Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear structure with an introduction, body paragraphs discussing both views, and a conclusion. The arguments are logically sequenced, with the first body paragraph addressing the benefits of job-hopping and the second focusing on the advantages of job stability. For instance, the transition from discussing job-hopping to the benefits of staying in one job is smooth and helps the reader follow the argument. However, some points could be better connected; for example, the transition between the benefits of job satisfaction from job-hopping to the stability provided by long-term employment could be more explicit.
- How to improve: To enhance logical flow, consider using clearer transition phrases that explicitly connect ideas between paragraphs. For example, after discussing job-hopping, a sentence like "In contrast, the stability offered by long-term employment presents its own unique advantages" could help clarify the shift in focus.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively uses paragraphs to separate different ideas, with each paragraph focusing on a specific aspect of the discussion. The first paragraph discusses job-hopping, while the second addresses the benefits of staying in the same job. Each paragraph contains relevant examples and explanations, which contribute to the overall clarity. However, the conclusion could be more distinct and concise, as it currently reiterates points made earlier without adding new insights.
- How to improve: Ensure that the conclusion paragraph succinctly summarizes the main points without repeating them verbatim. Instead of restating arguments, it could briefly highlight the overall implications of the discussion, reinforcing the writer’s opinion without redundancy.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a good use of cohesive devices, such as "however," "not only… but also," and "to begin with," which help in linking ideas and contrasting viewpoints. These devices contribute to the overall coherence of the essay. Nonetheless, the range of cohesive devices could be expanded; for instance, while "first and foremost" is effective, varying the phrases used to introduce points could enhance the essay’s sophistication.
- How to improve: To diversify cohesive devices, consider incorporating a wider variety of linking words and phrases. For example, instead of repeatedly using "however," alternatives such as "on the other hand," "in contrast," or "alternatively" could be employed. Additionally, using phrases like "furthermore" or "in addition" can help to connect similar ideas more fluidly.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of coherence and cohesion, achieving a Band 7 score. By focusing on clearer transitions, refining paragraph structure, and expanding the range of cohesive devices, the essay could further improve its coherence and cohesion.

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 good range of vocabulary with terms like "job-hopping," "competitive edge," "adaptability," and "financial stability." These terms effectively convey the writer’s ideas and contribute to the overall clarity of the argument. However, there are instances where vocabulary could be more varied or sophisticated. For example, the repeated use of "job" and "workers" could be replaced with synonyms like "employment," "professionals," or "employees" to enhance lexical diversity.
- How to improve: To improve, the writer should aim to incorporate a broader variety of synonyms and phrases throughout the essay. This could involve using tools like thesauruses or vocabulary lists related to employment and economics to find alternative expressions that convey similar meanings without redundancy.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally uses vocabulary accurately, but there are a few instances of imprecise usage. For example, the phrase "golden keys" is a metaphor that may confuse some readers due to its informal nature and lack of clarity in this context. Additionally, "conducive knowledge" is somewhat awkward; it would be clearer to say "valuable knowledge" or "relevant knowledge."
- How to improve: To enhance precision, the writer should focus on clarity and appropriateness of word choice. It is advisable to avoid overly casual or ambiguous phrases in formal writing. Instead, the writer can opt for straightforward language that clearly conveys the intended meaning.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay exhibits a high level of spelling accuracy, with no significant errors that impede understanding. Words like "occupation," "recognitions," and "remuneration" are spelled correctly, showcasing the writer’s attention to detail in this area.
- How to improve: While spelling is generally strong, the writer should continue to proofread their work to catch any minor errors that may arise. Utilizing spell-check tools and reading the essay aloud can help identify any overlooked mistakes. Additionally, practicing spelling of complex vocabulary related to the essay topic can further solidify spelling skills.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a solid command of lexical resource, achieving a Band Score of 7. By expanding vocabulary range, enhancing precision in word choice, and maintaining spelling accuracy, the writer can work towards achieving an even higher score in this criterion.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 8

Band Score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 8

Use a Wide Range of Structures:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a commendable variety of sentence structures. For instance, complex sentences such as "Upon closer scrutiny, those job holders can find the most suitable job for them after a period of experiencing and considering various factors such as working environment, salary or corporations’ culture" showcase the writer’s ability to convey intricate ideas effectively. Additionally, the use of conditional structures, as seen in "if there are recognitions, rewards or policy on regular pay increments implemented by the businesses," adds depth to the argument. However, while the range is generally strong, there are instances of repetitive sentence beginnings and phrasing, such as "this can be" and "to begin with," which could be varied further.
- How to improve: To enhance the diversity of sentence structures, the writer could incorporate more varied sentence openings and transitions. For example, instead of starting multiple sentences with "this can be," the writer could use phrases like "Such an approach may lead to…" or "Consequently, this results in…". Additionally, employing more varied conjunctions and transitional phrases could help in creating a smoother flow and more engaging narrative.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally exhibits a high level of grammatical accuracy, with only minor errors. For example, the phrase "corporations’ culture" should be "corporate culture" for clarity and correctness. The use of punctuation is mostly effective, with commas appropriately placed to separate clauses and items in lists. However, there are instances where commas could enhance readability, such as before "which can be a sign of instability" to clarify the relationship between clauses.
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, the writer should focus on proofreading for minor errors and ensuring clarity in phrasing. For example, revising "the same position can bring benefits to workers themselves, businesses as well as the whole society" to "the same position can bring benefits to workers, businesses, and society as a whole" would enhance clarity and correctness. Additionally, practicing the use of punctuation in complex sentences can help in improving overall readability and coherence.

Overall, the essay reflects a solid command of grammatical range and accuracy, meriting a band score of 8. With attention to diversifying sentence structures and refining grammatical precision, the writer can further elevate their writing quality.

Bài sửa mẫu

One school of thought holds that people ought to shift to different occupations often throughout their life; however, others assume that working in the same position can bring benefits to workers themselves, businesses, as well as the whole society. Personally, my conviction aligns with the latter notion.

Admittedly, job-hopping can exert several positive effects on individuals. First and foremost, people can gain job satisfaction by constantly alternating between a variety of occupations. Upon closer scrutiny, those job holders can find the most suitable job for them after a period of experiencing and considering various factors such as the working environment, salary, or corporate culture. Not only that, workers can also reap another advantage from job-hopping, particularly a competitive edge over other candidates. In detail, they may be equipped with diverse professional backgrounds, thus being able to bring fresh perspectives and generate novel ideas by accumulating conducive knowledge. Those job holders can also carve a niche for themselves thanks to their adaptability and flexibility acquired from serving in different jobs. This can be a “golden key” for them when applying for a vacancy, especially in the tech industry, which constantly evolves over time.

However, I contend that doing the same job can far outweigh the aforementioned approach and be more beneficial to individuals, companies, and society. To begin with, on the individual level, job satisfaction can still be obtained if there are recognitions, rewards, or policies on regular pay increments implemented by businesses. Additionally, certain workers can find it arduous to gain a competitive edge over others if they have previously changed occupations, as several employers may hold a prejudice against them. Recruiters may base their arguments on those workers’ failure to do a job for a specific time, which can be a sign of instability, potentially causing a financial loss for companies in recruiting and training costs and doing them a disservice when facing crises. Instead, the longer people stay in a job, the more effortlessly they can manage their budget by having a stable remuneration. Taking out loans or mortgages and making long-term goals can be feasible in light of financial stability. Furthermore, companies can also gain benefits from a sustainable workforce, as there are low turnover rates and high efficiency and productivity created by long-serving workers’ experience and industry-specific knowledge. Closely associated with that, sudden unemployment may no longer trigger economic downturns when people pursue the same professional path.

To recapitulate, it is justifiable for the proponents of job-hopping since this idea can bring certain advantages. Nonetheless, I still believe that following a job wholeheartedly ought to be recommended, as it can tackle the problems of the previous approach and simultaneously be beneficial to workers, firms, and society.