Some people say that it is possible for a country to be both economically successful and have a clean environment. Others disagree. Discuss both views and give your opinion?

In the ongoing debate over the relationship between economic success and environmental protection, some argue that it is possible for a nation to achieve both economic prosperity and a pristine environment, while others contend that these goals are mutually exclusive. This essay will explore both perspectives and present my own view on whether it is feasible for a country to balance economic development with environmental conservation.

On the one hand, the possibility of a country to maintain both economic wealth and a clean environment is not unfounded. To commence, with the background of a strong economy, national capital can be invested in the protection and preservation of the environment. By funding research teams and national institutes, novel technological advances can play a pivotal role in ameliorating the negative impacts of economic developments on the nature. For example, a new pesticide which poses no threat to the cultivated soil was introduced by a funded national research laboratory as a effective vehicle to combat entrenched soil pollution in Japan. Moreover, a nation with well-preserved nature can capitalize on the natural resources to develop the economy. To illustrate, fossil fuels, like charcoal, and fresh water can be used to support the mass-production of goods, bringing back a considerable revenue. Therefore, this nation, with the revenue from developing various industries, can re-invest in environmental terms, promoting the protection of the environment. All considered, it is plausible to believe that a nation can reach the state of equilibirum of economic developments and the natural sustainability.

On the other hand, there are concrete reasons for the belief that a developed economy and a well-preserved environment cannot co-exist with the most noticeable one being that a high focus on protecting the environment can impede nations’ economic developments. To explain, these countries put great emphasis on the establishment of nature reserves which require a tremendous amount of money, resulting in a paucity of capital allocated to the advancements of economy. In addition, with strict policies in terms of nature, limited natural resources can be exploited and as a last resort, businesses and companies have to rely on the importation of raw materials which increases the initial cost and eventually reduces the revenue. Moreover, industrialized nations with great economies have to exploit the nature to the fullest to supply diffent industries with raw materials. To elaborate, annually, a huge number of trees is cut down to provide burning fuel for various factories with an alarming rate, which consequently culminates in deforestation and, in the worst case, desertification on a large area. Furthermore, with the rise of industry, untreated sewage is discharged from many manufacture sites to the surroundings, causing various types of contamination, namely soil and water pollution, and the death of wild species. For example, in Brazil, the Amazon rainforest has been suffered from the depredation of human activities which aim to get advantage of natural resources to develop economy. Ultimately, the acceleration of economy leads to the downfall of the nature.

In conclusion, while both sides present understandable arguments, I hold the stance that a country can only choose either economic development or environmental protection, as it is impossible to achieve success in both aims simultaneously.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"ongoing debate" -> "ongoing discussion"
Explanation: "Discussion" is a more precise term in academic contexts, emphasizing the intellectual exchange of ideas rather than the emotional connotation of "debate."
"pristine environment" -> "environmental sustainability"
Explanation: "Environmental sustainability" is a more specific and academically appropriate term that encompasses not only the state of the environment but also the long-term viability of ecological systems.
"the possibility of a country to maintain" -> "the possibility for a country to maintain"
Explanation: Correcting the grammatical structure to "the possibility for a country to maintain" improves the sentence’s grammatical accuracy and flow.
"national capital can be invested" -> "national funds can be allocated"
Explanation: "National funds" is a more precise term than "national capital," which can refer to both financial and intellectual resources. "Allocated" is also more specific than "invested," which can imply a financial investment.
"novel technological advances" -> "innovative technological advancements"
Explanation: "Innovative technological advancements" is a more formal and precise term that better suits academic writing.
"ameliorating the negative impacts" -> "mitigating the adverse effects"
Explanation: "Mitigating the adverse effects" is a more formal and precise phrase commonly used in academic discourse to describe reducing the severity of negative outcomes.
"a new pesticide which poses no threat" -> "a new pesticide that poses no threat"
Explanation: Correcting the grammatical error from "which" to "that" improves the sentence structure and clarity.
"capitalized on the natural resources" -> "leveraged natural resources"
Explanation: "Leveraged" is a more precise and formal term in economic contexts, indicating the strategic use of resources to achieve economic benefits.
"re-invest in environmental terms" -> "reinvest in environmental initiatives"
Explanation: "Reinvest in environmental initiatives" is more specific and formal, clearly indicating the type of investments being made.
"equilibirum of economic developments and the natural sustainability" -> "balance between economic development and environmental sustainability"
Explanation: "Balance between economic development and environmental sustainability" is a clearer and more academically appropriate phrase, avoiding the awkward and incorrect "equilibirum."
"a high focus on protecting the environment" -> "a strong emphasis on environmental protection"
Explanation: "A strong emphasis on environmental protection" is more formal and precise, aligning better with academic style.
"a paucity of capital allocated to the advancements of economy" -> "a scarcity of funds allocated to economic development"
Explanation: "A scarcity of funds allocated to economic development" is more specific and formal, avoiding the awkward and vague "advancements of economy."
"diffent industries" -> "different industries"
Explanation: Correcting the spelling error from "diffent" to "different" ensures grammatical accuracy.
"alarming rate" -> "rapid rate"
Explanation: "Rapid rate" is a more neutral and formal term compared to "alarming," which carries an emotional connotation.
"the depredation of human activities" -> "the degradation caused by human activities"
Explanation: "The degradation caused by human activities" is a clearer and more precise phrase, avoiding the less common and slightly awkward "depredation."
"get advantage of natural resources" -> "exploit natural resources"
Explanation: "Exploit" is a more precise and formal term in this context, indicating the misuse or overuse of resources.
"the downfall of the nature" -> "the deterioration of the environment"
Explanation: "The deterioration of the environment" is a more precise and formal term, suitable for academic writing, compared to the vague and less formal "the downfall of the nature."

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 relationship between economic success and environmental protection. The first part discusses the viewpoint that these two goals can coexist, providing examples such as investment in technology and the sustainable use of natural resources. The second part presents the opposing view, highlighting the challenges and trade-offs involved, such as the financial burden of environmental protection and the exploitation of resources for economic gain. However, while both perspectives are explored, the conclusion could have been more explicitly tied back to the prompt by summarizing the key points made in support of the opinion.
- How to improve: To enhance the response, ensure that each viewpoint is not only discussed but also clearly linked back to the overall question. A brief summary of the main arguments for each side in the conclusion would reinforce the essay’s comprehensive nature.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear position that a country must choose between economic development and environmental protection. This stance is articulated in the introduction and reiterated in the conclusion. However, the essay could benefit from a more nuanced discussion of the potential for balance, as this would demonstrate a deeper engagement with the complexities of the issue.
- How to improve: To strengthen the clarity of the position, consider acknowledging the possibility of a middle ground or compromise in the discussion, even if the final stance remains that they cannot coexist. This would show critical thinking and a comprehensive understanding of the topic.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a variety of ideas and supports them with relevant examples, such as the introduction of a new pesticide in Japan and the situation in Brazil regarding the Amazon rainforest. The use of specific examples adds credibility to the arguments. However, some points could be elaborated further to enhance the depth of analysis. For instance, the mention of technological advancements could include specific types of technologies that have proven effective in balancing economic and environmental goals.
- How to improve: To improve the development of ideas, consider providing more detailed examples and explanations. This could involve discussing specific technologies or policies that have successfully integrated economic and environmental objectives, thus enriching the argument.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay remains largely focused on the topic throughout, addressing the prompt directly and discussing both views. However, there are moments where the discussion strays slightly into generalizations about environmental degradation without directly linking back to the economic implications. For example, while the mention of deforestation is relevant, it could be more explicitly tied to how it affects economic development.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, ensure that every point made directly relates back to the central question of whether economic success and environmental protection can coexist. Avoid overly broad statements that do not connect back to the economic context, and instead, frame all examples within the dual lens of economic and environmental impact.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong understanding of the topic and presents a well-structured argument. By addressing the suggestions for improvement, the writer can further enhance the clarity, depth, and relevance of their response.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 7

Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a clear structure with an introduction, two body paragraphs discussing opposing views, and a conclusion. Each paragraph presents a distinct viewpoint, which helps in organizing the information logically. For instance, the first body paragraph outlines the argument for the possibility of balancing economic success with environmental protection, while the second body paragraph counters this with arguments against it. However, the transitions between ideas within paragraphs could be smoother, as some points feel somewhat disjointed.
- How to improve: To enhance logical flow, consider using clearer topic sentences that encapsulate the main idea of each paragraph. Additionally, employing transitional phrases such as "Furthermore," "In contrast," or "Conversely" at the beginning of sentences can help guide the reader through the argument more effectively.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively uses paragraphs to separate different ideas, which is essential for clarity. Each paragraph is focused on a single aspect of the argument, making it easier for the reader to follow. However, the paragraphs could benefit from more uniformity in length and depth. For example, the first body paragraph is relatively long and packed with information, while the second paragraph, although rich in detail, could be more concise.
- How to improve: Aim for a more balanced approach in paragraph length. Ensure that each paragraph contains a similar amount of detail and complexity. Additionally, consider breaking down longer paragraphs into smaller ones if they cover multiple points, which can help maintain reader engagement and clarity.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay employs some cohesive devices, such as "On the one hand" and "On the other hand," which effectively signal the transition between contrasting views. However, the range of cohesive devices is somewhat limited, and there are instances where the connections between sentences and ideas could be more explicit. For example, phrases like "Moreover" and "To illustrate" are used, but there is a lack of variety in the types of cohesive devices employed throughout the essay.
- How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, incorporate a wider range of linking words and phrases. For example, use "Additionally," "Consequently," "In addition," and "As a result" to connect ideas more fluidly. Furthermore, consider using pronouns and synonyms to avoid repetition and enhance cohesion between sentences. This will create a more seamless reading experience and improve overall coherence.

By addressing these areas for improvement, the essay can achieve a higher level of coherence and cohesion, potentially increasing the band score in this criterion.

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, with terms such as "pristine environment," "ameliorating," "paucity," and "depredation" showcasing a strong lexical resource. The use of phrases like "economic prosperity" and "natural sustainability" further illustrates the writer’s ability to employ varied vocabulary relevant to the topic. However, there are instances where the vocabulary could be more diverse. For example, the phrase "economic developments" is repeated multiple times, which could be substituted with synonyms or rephrased to enhance variety.
- How to improve: To improve, the writer should aim to incorporate synonyms or related terms to avoid repetition. For instance, instead of repeatedly using "economic developments," alternatives like "economic growth," "financial progress," or "industrial advancements" could be utilized. Additionally, exploring more nuanced vocabulary related to environmental issues, such as "biodiversity" or "ecosystem balance," could enrich the essay further.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally employs vocabulary accurately, but there are moments of imprecision. For instance, the phrase "a new pesticide which poses no threat to the cultivated soil" could be misleading, as it implies that all pesticides are inherently harmful, which is not universally true. Additionally, the term "equilibirum" is a misspelling of "equilibrium," which detracts from the precision of the vocabulary used.
- How to improve: To enhance precision, the writer should ensure that the vocabulary used accurately reflects the intended meaning. In the case of the pesticide example, it would be more precise to say, "a new pesticide designed to minimize harm to cultivated soil." Furthermore, careful proofreading is essential to catch spelling errors like "equilibirum," which should be corrected to "equilibrium." Utilizing tools such as spell checkers or seeking peer feedback can help identify and rectify such issues.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains a few spelling errors, notably "equilibirum" instead of "equilibrium" and "diffent" instead of "different." These errors can undermine the overall professionalism of the writing and distract the reader from the content.
- How to improve: To improve spelling accuracy, the writer should adopt a systematic approach to proofreading. This could involve reading the essay aloud, which often helps in catching errors that might be overlooked when reading silently. Additionally, maintaining a personal list of commonly misspelled words and practicing them can be beneficial. Engaging in regular writing exercises and utilizing spelling and grammar checking tools can also aid in enhancing spelling proficiency.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a solid command of vocabulary, there are areas for improvement in terms of variety, precision, and spelling accuracy. By addressing these aspects, the writer can enhance their lexical resource and potentially achieve a higher band score in future essays.

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, the use of complex sentences is prevalent, such as in the opening statement: "In the ongoing debate over the relationship between economic success and environmental protection, some argue that it is possible for a nation to achieve both economic prosperity and a pristine environment." This sentence effectively combines multiple clauses, showcasing the writer’s ability to convey nuanced ideas. Additionally, the essay employs a mix of simple, compound, and complex sentences, enhancing the overall readability and engagement. However, there are instances of repetitive structures, particularly in the use of "To explain" and "To illustrate," which could be varied further.
- How to improve: To diversify sentence structures, consider incorporating more varied transitional phrases and clauses. For example, instead of repeatedly using "To explain" or "To illustrate," you might use phrases like "For instance," "This is evident in," or "A case in point is." Additionally, experimenting with different sentence openings (e.g., starting with adverbial clauses or participial phrases) can enhance the complexity and interest of the writing.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally maintains a high level of grammatical accuracy, with few errors that do not significantly impede understanding. However, there are notable issues, such as in the phrase "as a effective vehicle," where "a" should be replaced with "an" to match the vowel sound that follows. Additionally, the phrase "the state of equilibirum" contains a spelling error ("equilibirum" should be "equilibrium"). There are also punctuation issues, such as the lack of commas in some compound sentences, which could improve clarity. For instance, in the sentence "Moreover, industrialized nations with great economies have to exploit the nature to the fullest to supply diffent industries with raw materials," a comma after "fullest" would enhance readability.
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, a thorough proofreading process is essential. Focus on common errors, such as articles and spelling mistakes, and consider reading the essay aloud to catch awkward phrasing or punctuation errors. Additionally, reviewing grammar rules related to articles, conjunctions, and punctuation can help solidify understanding and application in future writing. Engaging in exercises that focus on these areas can also be beneficial.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong command of grammatical range and accuracy, but attention to detail in sentence variety and grammatical precision will further enhance the quality of writing.

Bài sửa mẫu

In the ongoing discussion regarding the relationship between economic success and environmental protection, some argue that it is indeed possible for a nation to achieve both economic prosperity and a clean environment, while others contend that these goals are mutually exclusive. This essay will explore both perspectives and present my own view on whether it is feasible for a country to balance economic development with environmental sustainability.

On the one hand, the possibility for a country to maintain both economic wealth and a clean environment is not unfounded. To begin with, a strong economy allows national funds to be allocated towards the protection and preservation of the environment. By investing in research teams and national institutes, innovative technological advancements can play a pivotal role in mitigating the adverse effects of economic developments on nature. For example, a new pesticide that poses no threat to cultivated soil was introduced by a funded national research laboratory as an effective means to combat entrenched soil pollution in Japan. Moreover, a nation with well-preserved natural resources can leverage these assets to develop its economy. To illustrate, fossil fuels, such as charcoal, and fresh water can be utilized to support the mass production of goods, generating considerable revenue. Therefore, this nation, with the income from developing different industries, can reinvest in environmental initiatives, promoting the protection of the environment. All things considered, it is plausible to believe that a nation can achieve a balance between economic development and environmental sustainability.

On the other hand, there are compelling reasons to believe that a developed economy and a well-preserved environment cannot coexist, with the most noticeable being that a strong emphasis on environmental protection can impede a nation’s economic development. To explain, these countries often prioritize the establishment of nature reserves, which require a tremendous amount of funding, resulting in a scarcity of funds allocated to economic advancements. In addition, strict environmental policies can limit the exploitation of natural resources, forcing businesses to rely on the importation of raw materials, which increases initial costs and ultimately reduces revenue. Furthermore, industrialized nations with robust economies often exploit natural resources to the fullest to supply different industries with raw materials. For instance, annually, a significant number of trees are cut down to provide fuel for various factories at an alarming rate, which consequently leads to deforestation and, in the worst case, large-scale desertification. Moreover, with the rise of industry, untreated sewage is frequently discharged from many manufacturing sites into the environment, causing various types of contamination, including soil and water pollution, and threatening the survival of wildlife. For example, in Brazil, the Amazon rainforest has suffered from the degradation caused by human activities aimed at exploiting natural resources for economic development. Ultimately, the acceleration of the economy often leads to the deterioration of the environment.

In conclusion, while both sides present valid arguments, I maintain the position that a country can only choose either economic development or environmental protection, as it is challenging to achieve success in both areas simultaneously.