Some people think that technology has made our lives more complex and the solution is to lead a simpler life without technology. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The debate over whether to remove technology from humans' lives to live more easily and comfortably has sparked controversy. While technology may have drawbacks in terms of well-being and privacy, I firmly believe that humans's lives may be more struggling and backward without technology.

Without the help of technology, people may have to address their daily operations on their own, which is unfamiliar in today's lifestyle. This unfamiliarity leads to frequent mistakes, more time and effort required, and poor performance, affecting the overall quality. For example, the lack of a calculator may put a strain on professions like cashier, secretary, or statistician, resorting them to using individual knowledge, capability, and precious time to fulfill their work. People may be more scratchy, clumsy, and ineffective if not assisted by technology, which has become a pivotal part of humans's lives.

Additionally, life may be backward without technology, as all fields associated with technology are the backbone for humans's development of life quality. For instance, without the help of genetic modification technology, we cannot have artificial edible meat and may opt for slaughtering animals for food, which may have moral and environmental implications. Another example is that numerous people may have died from COVID-19 or rabies if vaccine generation technology had not been used.
Without technology means no development, which gradually reforms humans to their primal verson

In conclusion, the solution to leading a simpler life without technology is insensible because people rely mostly on technology for simplicity. The lack of technological assistance may result in many consequences, including life quality, and people quality.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

Errors and Improvements:

"humans’s lives" -> "human lives"
Explanation: "Humans’s lives" is grammatically incorrect; "human lives" is the appropriate possessive form.
"more struggling and backward" -> "more challenging and regressive"
Explanation: "Struggling" can be replaced with "challenging" for a more formal tone, and "backward" can be substituted with "regressive" for clarity and precision.
"address their daily operations" -> "manage their daily tasks"
Explanation: "Address" in this context is somewhat informal; "manage" is a more precise and formal alternative.
"scratchy, clumsy, and ineffective" -> "inefficient, inept, and ineffective"
Explanation: "Scratchy" is informal and vague; replacing it with "inefficient" enhances clarity. "Clumsy" can be replaced with "inept" for a more formal tone, and "ineffective" remains appropriate but could be strengthened by replacing "scratchy."
"pivotal part of humans’s lives" -> "integral aspect of human existence"
Explanation: "Pivotal part of humans’s lives" is awkward; "integral aspect of human existence" is more concise and formal.
"backward without technology" -> "retrograde in the absence of technology"
Explanation: "Backward without technology" is somewhat colloquial; "retrograde in the absence of technology" is more precise and formal.
"genetic modification technology" -> "genetic engineering technology"
Explanation: "Genetic modification technology" can be replaced with "genetic engineering technology" for clarity and precision.
"primal verson" -> "primal version"
Explanation: "Verson" is a misspelling of "version."
"solution to leading a simpler life without technology is insensible" -> "proposal of leading a simpler life without technology is impractical"
Explanation: "Solution to leading" is awkward; "proposal of leading" is more appropriate. "Insensible" can be replaced with "impractical" for a more formal tone.
"people rely mostly on technology for simplicity" -> "people primarily rely on technology for convenience"
Explanation: "For simplicity" can be replaced with "for convenience" for clarity and formality.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 8

Band Score for Task Response: 8

Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay adequately addresses all parts of the question by presenting arguments both for and against the idea of leading a simpler life without technology. It acknowledges the perspective that technology complicates life but firmly disagrees with the notion of completely eliminating technology.
- How to improve: While the essay covers both sides of the argument, a more balanced approach could strengthen the analysis. Providing a deeper exploration of the potential benefits of leading a simpler life without technology, even if ultimately refuted, would demonstrate a more nuanced understanding of the issue.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear and consistent stance throughout, arguing against the proposal of living without technology. The thesis statement clearly articulates this position, and each paragraph supports this stance with relevant examples and reasoning.
- How to improve: To further enhance clarity, ensure that transitions between paragraphs effectively reinforce the central argument. Additionally, preemptively addressing potential counterarguments can fortify the coherence of the essay.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively presents ideas and supports them with relevant examples and reasoning. Each paragraph offers specific instances to illustrate the potential drawbacks of eliminating technology, such as increased manual labor and the inability to access life-saving medical advancements.
- How to improve: To extend ideas further, consider providing additional depth in the analysis of each example. Expanding on the implications of relying solely on manual processes or exploring alternative approaches to addressing societal challenges without technology could enrich the argumentation.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic by addressing the complexities of life with and without technology. However, there are instances where the discussion veers slightly off course, such as when mentioning genetic modification technology and vaccine generation technology without directly tying them back to the broader theme of leading a simpler life.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, ensure that every example or argument directly relates to the central question posed in the prompt. If introducing tangential topics, establish clear connections to the overarching theme to avoid distracting the reader.

Overall, while the essay effectively argues against the idea of leading a simpler life without technology, there is room for improvement in terms of balance, clarity, depth of analysis, and maintaining focus on the central topic throughout. By refining these aspects, the essay could further enhance its coherence and persuasiveness.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 7

Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a generally logical organization of information, with a clear introduction, body paragraphs presenting arguments, and a conclusion summarizing the main points. However, there are instances of repetition and redundant phrases that slightly disrupt the flow. For instance, in the second paragraph, the phrase "lack of a calculator may put a strain" could be streamlined for better clarity and coherence.
- How to improve: To enhance logical organization, focus on eliminating redundancy and ensuring each paragraph contributes distinct ideas. Consider revising sentences to express ideas concisely without repetition. Additionally, use transition words and phrases to smoothly connect ideas between paragraphs and maintain coherence throughout the essay.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively employs paragraphs to organize ideas, with clear topic sentences introducing each paragraph’s main point. However, some paragraphs could be further developed or divided to enhance clarity and coherence. For instance, the third paragraph discusses various examples of technological advancements, but it might benefit from breaking down these examples into separate paragraphs for better organization.
- How to improve: Consider breaking down longer paragraphs into shorter, focused ones to improve readability and coherence. Each paragraph should contain a single main idea supported by relevant examples or explanations. Ensure that transitions between paragraphs are smooth to maintain coherence and guide the reader through the essay’s structure.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay employs a variety of cohesive devices, such as pronouns ("this unfamiliarity"), conjunctions ("Additionally"), and transitional phrases ("In conclusion"). These devices help connect ideas within and between sentences and paragraphs. However, there is room for improvement in diversifying the types of cohesive devices used and their placement within the essay.
- How to improve: Continue using cohesive devices effectively to maintain coherence and cohesion. Consider incorporating a wider range of devices, such as synonyms, parallel structures, and discourse markers, to add variety and sophistication to your writing. Additionally, pay attention to the placement of cohesive devices to ensure they facilitate the smooth progression of ideas and reinforce logical connections 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, encompassing terms such as "drawbacks," "well-being," "privacy," "struggling," "backward," "unfamiliarity," "pivotal," "slaughtering," "implications," "generation," and "reforms." These words are contextually appropriate and contribute to the depth of discussion.
- How to improve: To further enhance lexical resource, consider integrating more sophisticated synonyms or idiomatic expressions where possible. For instance, instead of "struggling," using "encumbered" or "hampered" could elevate the language. Additionally, ensure precise usage of domain-specific terms like "genetic modification" and "vaccine generation" to avoid potential ambiguity.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally uses vocabulary with precision, effectively conveying the intended meanings. Examples include "backbone for humans’s development," "artificial edible meat," and "COVID-19 vaccine generation technology." However, there are instances where word choice could be more precise, such as "scratchy" and "clumsy" instead of possibly more precise terms like "inefficient" or "ineffective."
- How to improve: Aim for consistent precision by selecting words that exactly fit the intended meaning and context. Utilize a thesaurus to explore alternatives that might provide more nuance or specificity, particularly in expressing nuanced ideas about technology and its societal impacts.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay displays mostly accurate spelling throughout. However, there are noticeable errors such as "verson" instead of "version," and some minor issues like "resorting" instead of "resulting." These errors do not significantly detract from overall comprehension but suggest areas for improvement.
- How to improve: Focus on proofreading to catch these minor errors, ensuring consistency in spelling accuracy. Utilizing spell-check tools and dedicating time specifically for proofreading can help in identifying and correcting such mistakes.

In conclusion, while the essay demonstrates a solid grasp of vocabulary with effective use and mostly accurate spelling, there are opportunities to refine lexical precision and enhance spelling consistency. By incorporating more nuanced vocabulary choices and diligently proofreading for accuracy, the essay could potentially elevate its lexical resource score further.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 6

Use a Wide Range of Structures:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a moderate variety of sentence structures, including simple, compound, and complex sentences. However, there is room for improvement in diversifying the range further. Many sentences follow a subject-verb-object pattern, which, while grammatically correct, can make the writing feel repetitive and lack dynamism. For instance, "Without the help of technology, people may have to address their daily operations on their own, which is unfamiliar in today’s lifestyle." This sentence structure is prevalent throughout the essay.
- How to improve: To enhance the essay’s effectiveness, consider incorporating a wider array of sentence structures, such as inversion, parallelism, and conditional sentences. Varying the sentence length and complexity can add depth and engagement to the writing. For example, instead of solely relying on simple subject-verb-object structures, try incorporating complex sentences with dependent clauses to provide more nuanced explanations and arguments.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally demonstrates a good level of grammatical accuracy, with few errors impacting overall comprehension. However, there are instances of grammatical mistakes and punctuation errors that slightly detract from the clarity and coherence of the writing. For instance, "people’s lives may be more struggling" should be revised to "people’s lives may be more challenging," and "humans’s development" should be corrected to "human development."
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, it is essential to pay close attention to subject-verb agreement, verb tense consistency, and proper punctuation usage. Proofreading the essay thoroughly after writing can help identify and correct any grammatical errors. Additionally, seeking feedback from peers or utilizing grammar-checking tools can aid in improving grammatical accuracy. Specifically, focusing on areas of weakness, such as verb conjugation and article usage, can lead to noticeable improvements in the overall quality of the writing.

Bài sửa mẫu

The debate surrounding whether we should remove technology from human lives to simplify them has sparked controversy. While technology may have drawbacks in terms of well-being and privacy, I firmly believe that human lives may become more challenging and regress without it.

Without technology, people may have to handle their daily tasks manually, which is unfamiliar in today’s lifestyle. This unfamiliarity can lead to frequent mistakes, requiring more time and effort, and resulting in poorer performance, thus affecting overall quality. For example, the absence of a calculator may strain professions like cashier, secretary, or statistician, forcing them to rely solely on individual knowledge and skills, consuming precious time. Without technological assistance, people may become more prone to errors and inefficiencies, as technology has become an integral part of human lives.

Furthermore, life may regress without technology, as technological advancements are crucial for the development of human life quality. For instance, without genetic modification technology, we wouldn’t have artificial edible meat, potentially leading to increased animal slaughtering for food, with moral and environmental implications. Another example is the prevention of deaths from diseases like COVID-19 or rabies through vaccine generation technology. Without technology, there would be no progress, leading to a regression to a more primitive state.

In conclusion, the notion of leading a simpler life without technology is impractical because people heavily rely on technology for simplicity. The absence of technological assistance may lead to various consequences, including a decline in life quality and human efficiency.