Some people think that the government should ban dangerous sports, while others think that people should have the freedom to do any sports or activity. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

The risky sports that some individuals would like to play is a perennial debate, with these kinds of sports often causing a huge mortality rate. While some advocate for the embargo of dangerous sports, others argue that people should be allowed to engage in any sports. This essay will explore both sides of this argument, ultimately contending that there should be limitations for risky sports.

On the one hand, proponents of freedom of sports selection believe that instead of banning activities, efforts should focus on safety standards, training, and equipment to minimize risks. By improving the safety standards and focusing on techniques that help people reduce the risks of injury, individuals will have more opportunities to play any sports, including dangerous activities. For example, individuals who love to do a parachute jump are often trained to jump from a certain high level and trained to use special equipment. Although this may be true for other dangerous sports, I still do not agree with allowing people to engage in harmful sports.

On the other hand, advocates for banning perilous activities argue that participants in such sports might result in death and long-term injuries that are difficult to recover from. Moreover, these health issues require expensive healthcare equipment to recover from serious wounds, and not all people can afford those treatments. These injuries from sports like motocross or high altitude might result in paralysis and life-long medical care. For example, the cost of spinal cord injury rehabilitation can range in millions of dollars over a lifetime, including physical and occupational therapy, medications, and special equipment. Therefore, the government should restrict the opportunities to participate in dangerous sports.

To conclude, while engaging in such harmful activities nowadays have protective equipment, and it is a personal choice. I still opine that the authorities should ban these sports due to people's health threats and detrimental effects on the healthcare system.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"The risky sports that some individuals would like to play is" -> "The risky sports that some individuals wish to engage in"
Explanation: The original phrase is grammatically incorrect. The corrected version corrects the subject-verb agreement and uses a more formal verb "engage in" appropriate for academic writing.
"a huge mortality rate" -> "a significant mortality rate"
Explanation: "Huge" is somewhat informal and vague; "significant" is more precise and academically appropriate, indicating a notable impact without emotional connotation.
"embargo of dangerous sports" -> "prohibition of dangerous sports"
Explanation: "Embargo" typically refers to a trade restriction, not a prohibition. "Prohibition" is the correct term for restricting activities or actions.
"people should be allowed to engage in any sports" -> "individuals should be permitted to participate in any sports"
Explanation: "Engage in" is somewhat informal and vague; "participate in" is more specific and formal. Also, "individuals" is preferred over "people" for a more formal tone.
"there should be limitations for risky sports" -> "there should be restrictions on risky sports"
Explanation: "Limitations" is less specific than "restrictions," which directly implies a formal, regulatory context.
"proponents of freedom of sports selection" -> "advocates for the freedom to choose sports"
Explanation: "Freedom of sports selection" is awkward and unclear; "the freedom to choose sports" is more natural and precise.
"instead of banning activities, efforts should focus on safety standards, training, and equipment" -> "rather than banning activities, efforts should concentrate on enhancing safety standards, training, and equipment"
Explanation: "Concentrate on" is more formal than "focus on," and "enhancing" is more specific than "improving," which is more vague.
"individuals will have more opportunities to play any sports" -> "individuals will have greater opportunities to participate in any sports"
Explanation: "Participate in" is more formal and specific than "play," and "greater" is more precise than "more."
"do a parachute jump" -> "engage in parachute jumping"
Explanation: "Do a parachute jump" is informal and imprecise; "engage in parachute jumping" is more formal and appropriate for academic writing.
"trained to jump from a certain high level" -> "trained to jump from a specific height"
Explanation: "A certain high level" is vague and informal; "a specific height" is precise and formal.
"trained to use special equipment" -> "trained to utilize specialized equipment"
Explanation: "Utilize" is more formal than "use," and "specialized" is more precise than "special."
"I still do not agree with allowing people to engage in harmful sports" -> "I still do not concur with permitting individuals to participate in harmful sports"
Explanation: "Concur" is more formal than "agree," and "permitting" is more precise than "allowing."
"might result in death and long-term injuries" -> "may lead to death and long-term injuries"
Explanation: "May lead to" is a more formal expression than "might result in," and it is more suitable for academic writing.
"expensive healthcare equipment to recover from serious wounds" -> "costly medical equipment to treat severe injuries"
Explanation: "Costly medical equipment" is more specific and formal than "expensive healthcare equipment," and "treat" is more precise than "recover from."
"not all people can afford those treatments" -> "not all individuals can afford these treatments"
Explanation: "Individuals" is more formal than "people," and "these" is more appropriate than "those" in this context.
"engaging in such harmful activities nowadays have protective equipment" -> "engaging in such harmful activities today has protective equipment"
Explanation: "Has" is the correct subject-verb agreement for the singular "activities," and "today" is more formal than "nowadays."
"I still opine that the authorities should ban these sports" -> "I still maintain that the authorities should prohibit these sports"
Explanation: "Maintain" is a more formal synonym for "opine," and "prohibit" is more specific than "ban" in this context.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Task Response: 6

Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay adequately addresses both sides of the argument regarding whether dangerous sports should be banned or freely chosen by individuals. It discusses the perspectives supporting freedom of choice in sports and those advocating for bans, while also expressing a clear personal opinion.
- How to improve: To improve, ensure that each viewpoint is explored in more depth with specific examples and counterarguments. For instance, elaborating on the societal benefits and drawbacks of each approach would strengthen the argumentation.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a consistent position that dangerous sports should be banned due to their potential health risks and burdens on healthcare systems. This stance is evident from the introduction through to the conclusion.
- How to improve: To enhance clarity, reinforce the position with additional supporting evidence or contrasting viewpoints. This could involve exploring alternative perspectives on how regulation rather than outright bans might achieve similar safety goals.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents ideas clearly, such as safety measures in dangerous sports and healthcare costs associated with injuries. Examples like parachute jumping and motocross effectively illustrate these points.
- How to improve: To extend ideas, delve deeper into the economic impacts of injuries from dangerous sports or societal implications beyond healthcare, such as the role of personal responsibility versus government intervention.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays focused on the topic of whether dangerous sports should be banned or not. However, there are moments where the discussion slightly deviates, such as briefly touching on safety measures in dangerous sports.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, avoid tangential discussions and ensure all examples and arguments directly relate to the central theme of the debate on banning dangerous sports.

Overall, this essay effectively addresses the task but would benefit from deeper analysis and more nuanced exploration of each perspective. By enhancing the depth of argumentation and maintaining strict relevance to the topic throughout, the essay could achieve a higher band score.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 6

Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a clear attempt at organizing information logically by presenting both sides of the argument in separate paragraphs. It starts with an introduction that outlines the debate, followed by two body paragraphs discussing each viewpoint, and ends with a concluding statement. This structure helps the reader follow the discussion, understanding the author’s stance by the end.
- How to improve: To enhance logical organization, ensure each paragraph focuses on a single main idea related to the topic sentence. The third paragraph could be better integrated into the overall argument, possibly by connecting the health risks mentioned earlier with the need for a ban. This would strengthen the coherence and flow of ideas throughout the essay.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively uses paragraphs to separate different aspects of the argument. Each paragraph starts with a clear topic sentence that introduces the main idea (freedom to engage vs. risks of danger), followed by supporting details and examples.
- How to improve: Consider refining paragraph transitions to improve coherence. For instance, connecting the safety measures discussed in the first body paragraph with the healthcare cost implications in the second body paragraph would strengthen the logical progression of ideas.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay utilizes cohesive devices such as ‘on the one hand’, ‘on the other hand’, ‘for example’, and ‘to conclude’. These help signal shifts between different arguments and examples, enhancing the overall coherence.
- How to improve: To further diversify cohesive devices, consider incorporating more advanced connectors like ‘furthermore’, ‘in addition’, ‘however’, etc. These can strengthen the connections between ideas and provide a more sophisticated flow to the essay.

Overall, while the essay effectively presents arguments for and against the banning of dangerous sports, there are opportunities to strengthen coherence and cohesion further by refining paragraph transitions and integrating the central argument more consistently throughout the essay. These adjustments can elevate the clarity and coherence of the essay, potentially leading to a higher band score.

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 moderate range of vocabulary. It includes terms like "perennial debate," "embargo," "advocate," "perilous," "paralysis," and "rehabilitation," showing an attempt to use varied vocabulary. However, some phrases lack complexity and could benefit from more sophisticated language choices.
- How to improve: To enhance your lexical resource score, aim for more nuanced and contextually appropriate vocabulary. For instance, instead of "perennial debate," consider alternatives like "enduring discourse" or "persistent controversy." Expand your use of academic and specialized vocabulary where relevant, particularly in discussing complex topics like healthcare implications or societal impact.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The precision of vocabulary usage varies. For example, terms like "paralysis" and "rehabilitation" are used accurately in the context of sports injuries. However, phrases such as "risky sports" and "dangerous activities" could be more precisely defined or substituted with more specific terms (e.g., extreme sports, hazardous pursuits).
- How to improve: Focus on using terminology that precisely conveys your intended meaning. Replace general terms with more specific ones that accurately describe the nature or consequences of the activities discussed. For instance, instead of "dangerous sports," consider "high-risk recreational pursuits" or "adrenaline-inducing activities." This specificity can enhance clarity and demonstrate a deeper understanding of the topic.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: Spelling accuracy is generally sound throughout the essay, with no major errors observed. Common words like "mortality," "embargo," "paralysis," and "rehabilitation" are correctly spelled.
- How to improve: Maintain this level of spelling accuracy by continuing to review and practice spelling, especially for less common or more technical terms. Consider using spell-check tools and proofreading thoroughly before submission to catch any minor errors that may detract from the overall polish of your writing.

Overall, the essay effectively uses vocabulary to convey ideas but would benefit from a more extensive and precise range of terms to enhance depth and sophistication. Continuing to refine spelling accuracy and precision in word choice will further strengthen your writing in future assessments.

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. There is a mix of simple, compound, and complex sentences. For instance, simple sentences like "This essay will explore both sides of this argument" coexist with more complex ones such as "These injuries from sports like motocross or high altitude might result in paralysis and life-long medical care."
- How to improve: To enhance the variety and effectiveness of sentence structures, consider incorporating more complex sentence structures consistently throughout the essay. This could involve using subordinate clauses, conditional sentences, and varying sentence lengths to improve flow and coherence.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: Overall, the essay demonstrates a reasonable level of grammatical accuracy. There are some minor errors such as: "is a perennial debate" could be corrected to "has been a perennial debate"; "efforts should focus on safety standards" might benefit from rephrasing to "efforts should focus on improving safety standards"; "and trained to use special equipment" could be improved with "and are trained to use special equipment."
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, it would be beneficial to pay closer attention to subject-verb agreement, article usage (such as using "a" or "an" correctly), and ensuring proper punctuation (e.g., commas for clarity in complex sentences). Proofreading for these specific aspects before submission can help in refining the overall grammatical precision of the essay.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates competence in grammatical range and accuracy, there is room for improvement in diversifying sentence structures more consistently and refining grammatical precision to enhance clarity and coherence.

Bài sửa mẫu

The debate over participation in risky sports remains contentious, with concerns often raised about their high mortality rates. While some argue for prohibiting dangerous sports, others advocate for unrestricted freedom in sports engagement. This essay will discuss both perspectives and argue that limitations should be imposed on risky sports.

On one hand, proponents of unrestricted sports choice argue that instead of outright bans, efforts should concentrate on enhancing safety standards, training, and equipment to mitigate risks. By improving safety protocols and providing adequate training, individuals can safely participate in a variety of sports, including those deemed risky. For instance, enthusiasts of activities like parachute jumping undergo rigorous training and use specialized gear, minimizing potential hazards. Despite these safety measures, I remain unconvinced about permitting participation in inherently dangerous sports.

On the other hand, advocates for banning perilous activities assert that such sports pose significant risks of fatalities and severe injuries that can lead to lifelong health issues. Additionally, treating injuries from activities such as motocross or high-altitude sports requires costly medical interventions, which not everyone can afford. For example, spinal cord injuries necessitate extensive rehabilitation and specialized medical equipment, placing a substantial financial burden on individuals and healthcare systems alike. Therefore, proponents argue for governmental restrictions on dangerous sports to safeguard public health and mitigate healthcare costs.

In conclusion, while modern safety measures have made participation in risky sports safer and emphasize personal choice, I maintain that authorities should enforce bans on these activities. The potential risks to health and the strain on healthcare resources outweigh arguments for unrestricted freedom in sports engagement.