Some people think that people should be given the right use of fresh water as they like. Others believe governments should tightly control the use of freshwater. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Some people think that people should be given the right use of fresh water as they like. Others believe governments should tightly control the use of freshwater. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Water scarcity has become a major issue in the modern age, which poses the question of whether people should be able to use fresh water without the restriction of the government or the state should regulate the amount of freshwater citizens can use. This essay will discuss both of these arguments and explain my thoughts on why the government should tightly control the use of freshwater.
On the one hand, residents have the freedom to use fresh water because it is a basic human necessity. Along with food, fresh water plays an important role in human life as 70% of body weight is water. What is more, fresh water is indispensable for daily tasks such as bathing, cleaning and washing clothes. Therefore, people need to have an adequate amount of water to sustain their daily life.
On the other hand, proponents of the idea that there should be restrictions on water use often state several reasons. Firstly, water scarcity is the main culprit of expediting political instability and inhibiting economic growth. Therefore, without government intervention, resident households will squander valuable freshwater, accelerate water shortage and eventually jeopardize people’s lives. Secondly, there is no denying that water is a scarce resource, in addition, the global supply of freshwater is dwindling with each passing decade, if this circumstance persists, not only one but many countries will reside in water-stressed regions; therefore, guaranteeing the supply of water in the long-term, the government should have the right to control the water use.
In conclusion, I believe that both views of this argument have their advantages. On balance, however, I am more inclined to the restriction of the state on water use.
Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng
-
"major issue" -> "significant issue"
Explanation: "Major" can be somewhat vague and informal in this context. "Significant" is more precise and academically appropriate, emphasizing the importance of the issue without the colloquial tone of "major." -
"people should be able to use" -> "individuals should be permitted to utilize"
Explanation: "Permitted to utilize" is more formal and precise than "be able to use," which is somewhat casual and vague. "Individuals" is also a more formal term than "people." -
"the restriction of the government" -> "governmental restrictions"
Explanation: "Governmental restrictions" is a more concise and formal way to refer to restrictions imposed by the government, enhancing the academic tone of the sentence. -
"tightly control" -> "stringently regulate"
Explanation: "Stringently regulate" is a more precise and formal term than "tightly control," which is somewhat colloquial and vague. -
"residents have the freedom to use" -> "citizens are entitled to utilize"
Explanation: "Are entitled to utilize" is more formal and precise than "have the freedom to use," which is somewhat informal and vague. -
"basic human necessity" -> "fundamental human requirement"
Explanation: "Fundamental human requirement" is a more formal and precise term than "basic human necessity," aligning better with academic style. -
"What is more" -> "Furthermore"
Explanation: "Furthermore" is a more formal transitional phrase suitable for academic writing, replacing the colloquial "What is more." -
"people need to have an adequate amount of water" -> "individuals require sufficient water"
Explanation: "Require sufficient water" is more formal and precise than "need to have an adequate amount of water," which is somewhat redundant and informal. -
"resident households will squander" -> "residential households will waste"
Explanation: "Waste" is a more precise term than "squander" in this context, and "residential households" is more formal than "resident households." -
"accelerate water shortage" -> "exacerbate water scarcity"
Explanation: "Exacerbate" is more specific and academically appropriate than "accelerate" in this context, referring to the worsening of a situation. -
"jeopardize people’s lives" -> "compromise public health"
Explanation: "Compromise public health" is a more specific and formal way to express the potential harm to people’s lives, fitting better in an academic context. -
"in addition, the global supply of freshwater is dwindling" -> "furthermore, the global supply of freshwater is decreasing"
Explanation: "Furthermore" is a more formal transitional phrase than "in addition," and "decreasing" is a more precise term than "dwindling" in this context. -
"not only one but many countries will reside in water-stressed regions" -> "not only one but numerous countries will face water scarcity"
Explanation: "Face water scarcity" is a more precise and formal way to describe the situation, replacing the awkward and informal "reside in water-stressed regions." -
"guaranteeing the supply of water" -> "ensuring a reliable water supply"
Explanation: "Ensuring a reliable water supply" is more formal and precise than "guaranteeing the supply of water," which is somewhat redundant and informal.
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 use of freshwater. The first paragraph presents the perspective that individuals should have the freedom to use water as they wish, emphasizing the necessity of water in daily life. The second paragraph articulates the opposing view, highlighting the potential consequences of unrestricted water use, such as political instability and economic decline. However, while both views are discussed, the essay could benefit from a more explicit comparison of the two perspectives.
- How to improve: To enhance the response, the writer could include a more direct comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of each viewpoint. This could involve summarizing the key points of each side in a more structured manner, perhaps by using transitional phrases that clearly delineate the contrasting arguments.
-
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear position that supports government control over freshwater use, particularly in the conclusion. The writer states their opinion explicitly, which is a strength. However, the transition from discussing both sides to presenting their own opinion could be more pronounced to reinforce their stance.
- How to improve: To improve clarity of position, the writer could use a more definitive statement in the introduction that outlines their stance from the beginning. Additionally, reiterating their opinion more explicitly in the body paragraphs would help maintain focus on their viewpoint throughout the essay.
-
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents several ideas, particularly in the second paragraph, where the consequences of unrestricted water use are discussed. The points made about political instability and economic growth are relevant and well-supported. However, the first paragraph could benefit from deeper exploration of why individuals might argue for unrestricted use, as it currently lacks sufficient elaboration.
- How to improve: To strengthen the support for ideas, the writer should aim to provide more examples or data to back up their claims, especially in the first paragraph. For instance, citing specific instances of water scarcity or referencing studies on the impact of water use could provide a stronger foundation for their arguments.
-
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay remains largely focused on the topic of freshwater use and the debate surrounding it. However, there are moments where the discussion could be more tightly aligned with the prompt. For example, the mention of daily tasks in the first paragraph, while relevant, could be more succinctly tied back to the argument for unrestricted use.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer should ensure that every point made directly relates to the central question of whether individuals should have the right to use freshwater freely or if it should be controlled by the government. This can be achieved by consistently linking back to the prompt in each paragraph and avoiding tangential points that do not directly support the argument.
Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong understanding of the topic and effectively communicates the writer’s opinion. With some adjustments to enhance clarity, depth of argumentation, and focus, it could achieve an even higher band score.
Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 8
Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 8
-
Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear structure, beginning with an introduction that outlines the topic and states the writer’s opinion. Each paragraph addresses a distinct viewpoint, with the first paragraph discussing the freedom of individuals to use fresh water and the second paragraph presenting the arguments for government control. The logical progression from one idea to the next is generally smooth, allowing the reader to follow the argument easily. However, the transition between the discussion of individual rights and the need for government intervention could be more explicit to enhance clarity.
- How to improve: To improve logical organization, the writer could include clearer topic sentences at the beginning of each paragraph that explicitly state the main idea. Additionally, using transitional phrases such as "Conversely," or "In contrast," at the beginning of the second viewpoint could help clarify the shift in perspective.
-
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 introduction sets the stage, while the body paragraphs delve into the arguments for both sides. However, the conclusion feels a bit rushed and could benefit from a more developed summary of the key points discussed in the body paragraphs.
- How to improve: To enhance paragraphing, the writer should ensure that the conclusion not only summarizes their opinion but also briefly reiterates the main arguments presented in the body. This could provide a more cohesive wrap-up and reinforce the essay’s overall message.
-
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a good use of cohesive devices, such as "On the one hand," "What is more," and "On the other hand," which help to connect ideas within and between paragraphs. However, the essay could benefit from a wider variety of cohesive devices to enhance the flow and coherence further. For instance, the use of more complex linking words or phrases could improve the sophistication of the writing.
- How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, the writer could incorporate phrases such as "Furthermore," "Moreover," or "In addition," to add depth to their arguments. Additionally, using reference words (e.g., "this," "these") to refer back to previously mentioned ideas can help maintain coherence and avoid repetition.
Overall, while the essay demonstrates a strong command of coherence and cohesion, implementing these suggestions could further enhance its clarity and effectiveness.
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 relevant to the topic of water usage and scarcity. Terms such as "water scarcity," "political instability," "economic growth," and "indispensable" are well-chosen and appropriate for the context. The use of phrases like "basic human necessity" and "accelerate water shortage" indicates an ability to express complex ideas effectively.
- How to improve: To enhance the range of vocabulary further, the writer could incorporate more varied synonyms and expressions. For instance, instead of repeating "fresh water," alternatives such as "potable water," "drinking water," or "clean water" could be used. Additionally, employing more sophisticated vocabulary related to governance and environmental issues, such as "regulatory measures," "sustainable management," or "resource allocation," would elevate the essay’s lexical sophistication.
-
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: Generally, the vocabulary is used accurately, but there are instances where the precision could be improved. For example, the phrase "the state should regulate the amount of freshwater citizens can use" could be more effectively expressed as "the state should impose regulations on freshwater consumption." This change clarifies the action being taken and enhances the formal tone of the essay.
- How to improve: To improve precision, the writer should focus on context-specific vocabulary. For example, rather than saying "squander valuable freshwater," a more precise term like "mismanage" or "waste" could be used. Additionally, ensuring that phrases are not overly general will help convey the intended meaning more clearly. Practicing the use of collocations and idiomatic expressions relevant to environmental policy could also aid in achieving greater precision.
-
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The spelling throughout the essay is generally accurate, with no significant errors that detract from the overall clarity. Words like "indispensable," "necessity," and "scarcity" are spelled correctly, which contributes positively to the essay’s readability.
- How to improve: To maintain and improve spelling accuracy, the writer should regularly engage in spelling exercises and familiarize themselves with commonly misspelled words, especially those related to environmental and governmental topics. Additionally, proofreading the essay for any typographical errors before submission can help catch any inadvertent mistakes.
In summary, while the essay demonstrates a solid command of vocabulary appropriate for the topic, there is room for improvement in terms of expanding the range of vocabulary, enhancing precision, and maintaining spelling accuracy. By incorporating more varied and context-specific language, the writer can elevate 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. For instance, complex sentences such as "water scarcity is the main culprit of expediting political instability and inhibiting economic growth" effectively convey nuanced ideas. Additionally, the use of transitional phrases like "On the one hand" and "On the other hand" helps to structure the argument clearly. However, there are instances of repetitive sentence beginnings and a reliance on similar structures, such as starting multiple sentences with "therefore" or "firstly." This can detract from the overall variety.
- How to improve: To enhance the range of structures, the writer could incorporate more varied sentence openings and use a mix of simple, compound, and complex sentences. For example, instead of starting sentences with "therefore," consider using phrases like "As a result," or "Consequently," to introduce ideas. Additionally, varying the length of sentences can create a more engaging rhythm in the writing.
-
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally maintains a good level of grammatical accuracy, with few noticeable errors. However, there are some issues with punctuation and sentence clarity. For instance, the sentence "in addition, the global supply of freshwater is dwindling with each passing decade, if this circumstance persists, not only one but many countries will reside in water-stressed regions" is a run-on sentence that lacks proper punctuation to separate independent clauses. This can lead to confusion for the reader. Additionally, the phrase "the state should regulate the amount of freshwater citizens can use" could be more clearly stated as "the state should regulate citizens’ use of freshwater."
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy and punctuation, the writer should focus on breaking down complex sentences into shorter, clearer ones. Using semicolons or conjunctions can help separate independent clauses effectively. Furthermore, reviewing the rules of punctuation, especially regarding commas and conjunctions, can enhance clarity. Practicing sentence restructuring and seeking feedback on complex sentences can also be beneficial.
Overall, while the essay demonstrates a solid command of grammatical range and accuracy, focusing on diversifying sentence structures and refining punctuation will help elevate the writing to a higher level.
Bài sửa mẫu
Water scarcity has become a significant issue in the modern age, which poses the question of whether individuals should be permitted to utilize fresh water without governmental restrictions or if the state should regulate the amount of freshwater citizens can use. This essay will discuss both of these arguments and explain my thoughts on why the government should stringently regulate the use of freshwater.
On the one hand, residents have the freedom to use fresh water because it is a fundamental human requirement. Along with food, fresh water plays an important role in human life, as 70% of body weight is water. Furthermore, fresh water is indispensable for daily tasks such as bathing, cleaning, and washing clothes. Therefore, people require sufficient water to sustain their daily lives.
On the other hand, proponents of the idea that there should be restrictions on water use often state several reasons. Firstly, water scarcity is the main culprit in expediting political instability and inhibiting economic growth. Therefore, without government intervention, residential households will waste valuable freshwater, exacerbate water scarcity, and eventually compromise public health. Secondly, there is no denying that water is a scarce resource. Furthermore, the global supply of freshwater is decreasing with each passing decade. If this circumstance persists, not only one but numerous countries will face water scarcity; therefore, in ensuring a reliable water supply in the long term, the government should have the right to control water use.
In conclusion, I believe that both views of this argument have their advantages. On balance, however, I am more inclined to support the restriction of the state on water use.