Some people say that it is necessary to use animals for testing medicines intended for human use. Others, however, think it is cruel and unnecessary.Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Nowadays, there is a tendency that animal testing is carried out to test medicines for the utilization of humans. Some oppose this idea and think that it is unnecessary to do so. From my perspective, I strongly believe that the positive of this development outweighs the negative since animal testing plays an integral part in medicine improvement.
On the one hand, there are several reasons why people deny the idea of using animals to test medicines. First, this new development does not value animal's lives at all. Many animals are being projected with unknown substances year-round, they experience physical pains, dehydration, starvation or even death; Therefore, people consider this development as cruel and inhumane. This can be exemplified by the fact that about 110 million animals are being used in laboratory testing each year. Secondly, spending too much money on animal testing might mitigate a country's economy. To be more specific, laboratories, tools, substances, and even animals cost billions of dollars and this might take away opportunities of a country for its development in other fields.

On the other hand, despite how cruel and inhumane this development is, I strongly agree that animal testing is needed to be carried out for human safety. Firstly, testing on animals has proved efficiency in developing new medicines. To be more specific, with animal experiments, a wide range of medicines are tested to show its effectiveness and safety for humans. Thanks to this development, some remote parts of the world are saved. Secondly, animals are the only specimens that can alternative humans for testing. This might sound egotistical, but directly injecting unknown substances on humans is too risky and can easily cause chaos in the public; Therefore, there is no other choice rather than performing experiments on animals.
In summary, although there is undoubted that animal testing is cruel, inhumane and possibly costs a large amount of money, it still needs to be carried out in order to develop worldwide medicines.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"Nowadays" -> "Currently"
Explanation: "Currently" is a more formal and precise temporal indicator suitable for academic writing, replacing the colloquial "Nowadays."
"there is a tendency that" -> "there is a trend that"
Explanation: "Trend" is more specific and academically appropriate than "tendency," which can be vague and less precise in this context.
"utilization of humans" -> "use by humans"
Explanation: "Use by humans" is more direct and avoids the awkward and incorrect phrase "utilization of humans," which incorrectly implies that humans are being used as objects.
"oppose this idea" -> "oppose this practice"
Explanation: "Practice" is more specific and appropriate in this context, referring to the action of testing medicines on animals, rather than the abstract concept of an "idea."
"the positive of this development" -> "the benefits of this development"
Explanation: "Benefits" is the correct term for advantages or positive outcomes, whereas "positive" is an adjective that does not fit in this context.
"animal’s lives" -> "animal lives"
Explanation: "Animal lives" is grammatically correct and more natural in this context, avoiding the possessive form which is unnecessary.
"being projected with" -> "being subjected to"
Explanation: "Subjected to" is the correct term for being exposed to or treated in a certain way, whereas "projected" is incorrectly used here.
"physical pains, dehydration, starvation or even death" -> "physical pain, dehydration, starvation, and even death"
Explanation: Adding "and" before "even death" corrects the list structure and maintains a formal tone.
"spending too much money on animal testing might mitigate a country’s economy" -> "excessive spending on animal testing could undermine a country’s economy"
Explanation: "Excessive spending" is more precise and formal than "spending too much," and "undermine" is a more appropriate verb than "mitigate" in this context, suggesting a negative impact on the economy.
"laboratories, tools, substances, and even animals cost billions of dollars" -> "laboratories, equipment, materials, and animals cost billions of dollars"
Explanation: "Equipment" and "materials" are more specific and appropriate terms than "tools" and "substances," enhancing the formal tone and clarity.
"might take away opportunities of a country for its development" -> "might divert resources from a country’s development"
Explanation: "Divert resources" is a more precise and formal way to express the idea of redirecting funds away from development projects.
"despite how cruel and inhumane this development is" -> "despite the cruelty and inhumanity of this practice"
Explanation: "The cruelty and inhumanity of this practice" is a more formal and precise way to describe the ethical concerns, avoiding the colloquial "how."
"testing on animals has proved efficiency" -> "testing on animals has proven to be effective"
Explanation: "Proven to be effective" is grammatically correct and more formal than "proved efficiency," which is awkward and incorrect.
"Thanks to this development, some remote parts of the world are saved" -> "This development has saved lives in remote parts of the world"
Explanation: "Has saved lives" is more direct and clear, avoiding the vague and passive "are saved."
"there is undoubted that" -> "there is no doubt that"
Explanation: "No doubt that" is the correct idiomatic expression, correcting the grammatical error and enhancing the formal tone.

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 sides of the argument regarding the necessity of animal testing for medicines. The writer presents the perspective against animal testing, highlighting concerns about animal welfare and economic implications. Conversely, the essay also articulates the necessity of animal testing for human safety and medical advancements. The inclusion of specific statistics, such as the number of animals used annually, strengthens the argument against animal testing. However, the discussion could benefit from a more balanced exploration of both views, as the latter part of the essay leans more heavily towards supporting animal testing.
- How to improve: To enhance the balance, the writer could include more counterarguments to the position supporting animal testing. For instance, discussing alternative methods to animal testing or providing examples of successful non-animal testing methods could create a more comprehensive discussion.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear position that supports animal testing, as stated in the introduction and reiterated in the conclusion. The writer’s stance is evident, and they provide reasoning for their belief that the benefits of animal testing outweigh the negatives. However, the transition between discussing the opposing view and the supporting view could be smoother to reinforce the overall position.
- How to improve: To improve clarity, the writer could use transitional phrases that explicitly connect the opposing view to their own position. For example, after discussing the drawbacks of animal testing, the writer could state, "Despite these valid concerns, it is essential to recognize the critical role animal testing plays in ensuring human safety."
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents several ideas supporting both views, with a good level of detail. The argument against animal testing is supported by emotional appeals and statistics, while the argument for animal testing is backed by claims of its necessity for human safety. However, some points, such as the economic argument against animal testing, could be further developed with more specific examples or data.
- How to improve: To strengthen the support for ideas, the writer should consider adding more detailed examples or case studies that illustrate the success of animal testing in developing specific medicines. Additionally, addressing potential counterarguments to the points made could provide a more nuanced view.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, focusing on the debate surrounding animal testing. However, some sentences, particularly in the section discussing the economic implications, could be perceived as slightly tangential. For instance, while the economic argument is relevant, it could be more closely tied to the overall discussion of animal testing’s necessity.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer should ensure that every point made directly relates to the central question of whether animal testing is necessary. They could refine the economic argument to explicitly connect it back to the implications of animal testing on human health and safety, thereby reinforcing the essay’s main theme.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong understanding of the topic and presents a well-structured argument. With some adjustments to balance the discussion and enhance the support for ideas, it could achieve an even higher score.

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 distinct sections for both views on animal testing and the author’s opinion. The introduction effectively sets the stage for the discussion, and the body paragraphs are organized to present opposing viewpoints. However, the logical flow could be improved; for instance, the transition between the opposing views and the author’s stance could be more seamless. The use of phrases like "On the one hand" and "On the other hand" helps to delineate the arguments, but the connection between the ideas could be strengthened to enhance overall coherence.
- How to improve: To enhance logical organization, consider using more transitional phrases that explicitly link ideas between paragraphs. For example, after discussing the negative aspects of animal testing, a sentence that summarizes these points before introducing the counterargument could help create a smoother transition. Additionally, ensuring that each paragraph flows into the next with clear connections will improve the overall coherence of the essay.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively uses paragraphs to separate different ideas, with a clear introduction, body paragraphs for each viewpoint, and a conclusion. Each paragraph has a main idea, which is supported by relevant details. However, some paragraphs could benefit from clearer topic sentences that encapsulate the main idea of the paragraph. For example, the second body paragraph could start with a more definitive statement about the necessity of animal testing, rather than beginning with a concession.
- How to improve: To improve paragraph structure, ensure that each paragraph begins with a strong topic sentence that clearly states the main idea. This will help guide the reader and provide a clearer focus for the paragraph. Additionally, consider adding a concluding sentence at the end of each paragraph to summarize the key points made, reinforcing the argument before moving on to the next idea.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay employs a range of cohesive devices, such as "Firstly," "Secondly," and "In summary," which help to organize the information and guide the reader through the argument. However, the use of cohesive devices is somewhat repetitive, particularly in the listing of reasons. The essay could benefit from a wider variety of linking words and phrases to enhance the flow of ideas and avoid redundancy.
- How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, consider incorporating synonyms or alternative phrases for "Firstly" and "Secondly," such as "To begin with," "In addition," or "Moreover." Additionally, using phrases that indicate contrast or concession, such as "However," "On the contrary," or "Despite this," can help to create a more nuanced discussion. This variety will not only improve cohesion but also make the writing more engaging.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of the topic and presents arguments clearly, focusing on enhancing logical flow, refining paragraph structure, and diversifying cohesive devices will contribute to achieving a higher band score in Coherence and Cohesion.

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 terms like "animal testing," "medicines," "integral," and "efficiency" appearing throughout. However, the vocabulary is somewhat repetitive, particularly with phrases like "animal testing" and "medicines," which could be varied to enhance the essay’s lexical richness. For instance, instead of repeating "animal testing," synonyms such as "animal experimentation" or "vivisection" could be employed.
- How to improve: To improve lexical variety, the writer should aim to incorporate synonyms and related terms. For example, when discussing the negative aspects of animal testing, phrases like "animal welfare concerns" or "ethical implications" could replace more straightforward terms. Additionally, using phrases that convey nuance, such as "the ethical dilemma" instead of "the idea," would enrich the vocabulary.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains instances of imprecise vocabulary usage. For example, the phrase "the positive of this development" is vague; it would be more precise to specify what the "positive" entails, such as "the benefits of medical advancements." Additionally, the term "projected" in "Many animals are being projected with unknown substances" is incorrect; the intended word is likely "subjected."
- How to improve: To enhance precision, the writer should focus on using vocabulary that accurately conveys their intended meaning. It is crucial to avoid vague terms and instead opt for specific descriptors. For instance, instead of saying "this new development," the writer could specify "the practice of animal testing." Furthermore, proofreading for word choice and context can help eliminate errors like "projected."
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a generally good level of spelling, but there are notable errors that detract from the overall quality. For instance, "animal’s lives" should be "animals’ lives" to indicate plural possession. Additionally, "the positive of this development" could be misleading if not clarified, but it does not contain a spelling error.
- How to improve: To improve spelling accuracy, the writer should engage in regular proofreading practices. Reading the essay aloud can help catch errors that might be overlooked when reading silently. Utilizing spell-check tools and maintaining a list of commonly misspelled words can also aid in reducing spelling mistakes.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a satisfactory command of vocabulary, there is room for improvement in terms of variety, precision, and spelling accuracy. By diversifying vocabulary, ensuring precise word choice, and implementing effective proofreading strategies, the writer can enhance their Lexical Resource score in future essays.

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 good variety of sentence structures, including simple, compound, and complex sentences. For example, the use of complex sentences like "This can be exemplified by the fact that about 110 million animals are being used in laboratory testing each year" showcases the writer’s ability to convey detailed information effectively. Additionally, the essay employs a mix of active and passive voice, which adds to the overall complexity. However, there are instances of repetitive sentence beginnings and similar structures, such as "Firstly" and "Secondly," which can detract from the overall variety.
- How to improve: To enhance the diversity of sentence structures, the writer could incorporate more varied transitional phrases and avoid starting multiple sentences with "Firstly" and "Secondly." Instead, consider using alternatives like "To begin with," "In addition," or "Moreover." Additionally, integrating more relative clauses or participial phrases could enrich the complexity of the sentences.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally maintains a good level of grammatical accuracy, with only a few noticeable errors. For instance, the phrase "animal’s lives" should be "animals’ lives" to indicate the plural possessive form. Additionally, the sentence "Many animals are being projected with unknown substances year-round" contains a misuse of "projected," which should be replaced with "subjected." Punctuation is mostly accurate, but there are instances where commas could enhance clarity, such as before "and" in compound sentences or after introductory phrases.
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, the writer should focus on proofreading for common errors, particularly with possessive forms and word choice. It may be beneficial to review the rules for plural possessives and ensure that verbs accurately reflect the intended meaning. For punctuation, practicing the use of commas in complex sentences and ensuring they are placed correctly can enhance the readability of the essay. Reading the essay aloud may also help identify areas where punctuation could improve clarity.

Bài sửa mẫu

**Improved Essay:**

Currently, there is a trend that animal testing is conducted to evaluate medicines intended for human use. Some people oppose this practice and believe that it is unnecessary. From my perspective, I strongly believe that the benefits of this development outweigh the negatives, as animal testing plays an integral role in the advancement of medicine.

On the one hand, there are several reasons why individuals oppose the idea of using animals to test medicines. First, this practice does not value animal lives at all. Many animals are subjected to unknown substances year-round, experiencing physical pain, dehydration, starvation, or even death. Therefore, people consider this development to be cruel and inhumane. This can be exemplified by the fact that approximately 110 million animals are used in laboratory testing each year. Secondly, excessive spending on animal testing could undermine a country’s economy. To be more specific, laboratories, equipment, materials, and animals cost billions of dollars, which might divert resources from a country’s development in other fields.

On the other hand, despite the cruelty and inhumanity of this practice, I strongly argue that animal testing is necessary for human safety. Firstly, testing on animals has proven to be effective in developing new medicines. With animal experiments, a wide range of medicines are tested to demonstrate their effectiveness and safety for humans. Thanks to this development, lives have been saved in remote parts of the world. Secondly, animals are the only specimens that can effectively substitute for humans in testing. This might sound egotistical, but directly injecting unknown substances into humans is too risky and could easily lead to chaos in the public; therefore, there is no other choice but to perform experiments on animals.

In summary, although there is no doubt that animal testing is cruel, inhumane, and potentially costly, it is still necessary to carry out this practice in order to advance medicine worldwide.