Some people think that the main benefit of international cooperation is in the protection of the environment, while others believe that the main interest is in the world of business. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Many assert that cross-border partnerships predominantly benefit environmental conservation, whereas opponents believe that their main focus is on global trade. From my perspective, although both sides have their own merits, I am in favour of the latter, as governments should eliminate trade barriers and use their increased wealth to sponsor environmental protection programs.

On the one hand, cooperation between nations can be significantly beneficial to the conservation of the Earth for several reasons. Chief among these is the responsibility of binding environmental commitments. An illustrative example of this point is the Paris Accord, which mandates over 100 countries not only to increase investment in renewable energy sources but also to minimise carbon dioxide emissions to bring the world temperature closer to its pre-industrial level. In addition, the international community can provide great funding for many environmental programs. These investments allow for the establishment, execution and continuation of ambitious projects in order to address climate change. For instance, the World Bank allocates millions of dollars annually to initiatives that observe the climatic shifts, protect wildlife and avert deforestation around the globe.

On the other hand, many people believe that the prime focus of cross-border collaboration is on international commerce. The foremost explanation of this point is the facilitated flow of commodities. For example, tons of high-quality durians from Vietnam have been exported to China with the cut of export tariffs and procedures due to both countries' corporations. Additionally, international cooperation is the pillar of global logistics and supply chain management. A prime illustration of this point is the Boeing of America, much as it is assembled in the US, the majority of its components are imported from other nations. Thus, if the ties between the USA and other countries were suddenly interrupted, the manufacture of Boeing’s planes, and possibly other commodities, would be severely disrupted.

In conclusion, cross-border collaboration has tangible merits on both perspectives, yet only when countries are in positive financial health can they support environmental protection programs.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"Many assert" -> "Many argue"
Explanation: "Argue" is more precise and academically appropriate than "assert," which can imply a less nuanced or more forceful stance, fitting better in an academic context where evidence-based reasoning is emphasized.
"predominantly benefit" -> "primarily benefit"
Explanation: "Predominantly" is somewhat informal and less precise in this context. "Primarily" is more formal and suitable for academic writing, indicating the main or primary focus.
"opponents believe" -> "some argue"
Explanation: "Opponents" can imply a confrontational tone, which is less suitable for an academic essay. "Some argue" is more neutral and appropriate for presenting opposing viewpoints in an academic context.
"I am in favour of" -> "I support"
Explanation: "I am in favour of" is slightly informal and verbose. "I support" is concise and maintains the formal tone required in academic writing.
"eliminate trade barriers" -> "remove trade barriers"
Explanation: "Eliminate" can be seen as slightly informal and less precise in this context. "Remove" is a more commonly accepted term in formal academic writing, especially when discussing policy changes.
"sponsor environmental protection programs" -> "fund environmental protection initiatives"
Explanation: "Sponsor" can imply a more informal or commercial context. "Fund" is more precise and commonly used in formal discussions about government support for programs.
"Chief among these is" -> "One of the primary reasons is"
Explanation: "Chief among these" is somewhat colloquial and vague. "One of the primary reasons" is clearer and more formal, enhancing the academic tone.
"mandates over 100 countries" -> "requires over 100 countries"
Explanation: "Mandates" is correct but can be less clear in this context. "Requires" is more direct and straightforward, making the sentence more concise and clear.
"minimise carbon dioxide emissions" -> "reduce carbon dioxide emissions"
Explanation: "Minimise" is correct but less commonly used in American English; "reduce" is universally understood and preferred in formal writing.
"bring the world temperature closer to its pre-industrial level" -> "lower the global temperature to its pre-industrial level"
Explanation: "Bring closer" is less precise and slightly informal. "Lower" is more direct and appropriate for scientific and formal contexts.
"observe the climatic shifts" -> "monitor climate shifts"
Explanation: "Observe" is less specific and can imply passive observation rather than active monitoring. "Monitor" is more precise and commonly used in scientific and formal contexts.
"cut of export tariffs" -> "reduction of export tariffs"
Explanation: "Cut of" is grammatically incorrect and informal. "Reduction of" is grammatically correct and maintains a formal tone.
"facilitated flow of commodities" -> "streamlined flow of goods"
Explanation: "Facilitated" is correct but less specific. "Streamlined" is more precise and commonly used in formal discussions about trade and logistics.
"pillar of global logistics and supply chain management" -> "foundation of global logistics and supply chain management"
Explanation: "Pillar" is metaphorical and less precise. "Foundation" is a more literal and academically appropriate term, emphasizing the structural importance of international cooperation in logistics and supply chain management.
"Boeing of America" -> "Boeing, an American company"
Explanation: "Boeing of America" is awkward and informal. "Boeing, an American company" is clearer and maintains a formal tone suitable for academic writing.
"manufacture of Boeing’s planes" -> "production of Boeing aircraft"
Explanation: "Manufacture" is correct but less specific. "Production" is more commonly used in formal contexts to describe the process of creating goods, and "aircraft" is a more formal term than "planes."

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 views presented in the prompt. The first part discusses the benefits of international cooperation for environmental protection, citing the Paris Accord and the role of the World Bank in funding environmental initiatives. The second part presents the argument for business interests, using examples such as the export of durians from Vietnam to China and the global supply chain of Boeing. Both perspectives are explored adequately, demonstrating a balanced approach to the discussion.
- How to improve: To enhance the response, the writer could provide a more explicit comparison between the two views, perhaps by highlighting the interdependence of environmental and business interests. Additionally, a more thorough exploration of the implications of each viewpoint could strengthen the argument.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear position, favoring the business perspective while acknowledging the merits of environmental cooperation. The writer states their opinion early on and reinforces it in the conclusion. However, the transition from discussing environmental benefits to business interests could be smoother to maintain clarity.
- How to improve: To improve clarity, the writer could use transitional phrases that explicitly connect the two viewpoints and reiterate their position throughout the essay. For example, after discussing environmental benefits, a phrase like "While these environmental efforts are crucial, they are often supported by the economic gains from international trade" could help bridge the ideas more effectively.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents and supports ideas well, with specific examples that illustrate the points made. The use of the Paris Accord and the World Bank effectively supports the argument for environmental cooperation, while the examples of durians and Boeing illustrate the business perspective. However, some points could be further developed to provide deeper insight.
- How to improve: To enhance the depth of the argument, the writer could include more detailed explanations of how international cooperation directly impacts environmental efforts and business practices. For instance, discussing the long-term benefits of sustainable business practices on the environment could provide a more nuanced view.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay remains focused on the topic throughout, with each paragraph addressing the prompt’s requirements. There are no significant deviations from the main topic, and the writer successfully integrates their opinion into the discussion.
- How to improve: To ensure continued focus, the writer should regularly refer back to the prompt in each paragraph, reinforcing how each point relates to the central question of international cooperation’s benefits. This could be achieved by summarizing the relevance of each example to the overall discussion at the end of each paragraph.

In summary, the essay demonstrates a strong understanding of the task requirements, effectively addressing both sides of the argument while maintaining a clear personal stance. With slight improvements in transitions, depth of analysis, and explicit connections to the prompt, the essay could achieve an even higher 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 and logical structure, beginning with an introduction that outlines the two perspectives on international cooperation. Each viewpoint is addressed in separate paragraphs, with the first discussing environmental benefits and the second focusing on business interests. The conclusion effectively summarizes the discussion while reiterating the author’s stance. However, while the main ideas are well organized, the transition between the two viewpoints could be smoother to enhance overall coherence.
- How to improve: To improve logical organization, consider adding transitional phrases at the beginning of the second body paragraph to signal a shift in focus. For example, phrases like "Conversely," or "On the other hand," can help guide the reader more clearly from one argument to the next. Additionally, ensuring that each paragraph begins with a clear topic sentence can further enhance the logical flow.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively uses paragraphs to separate different ideas, which aids readability and comprehension. Each paragraph is focused on a specific aspect of the discussion, with clear topic sentences that introduce the main idea. However, the paragraphs could benefit from more varied lengths and structures to maintain reader interest and emphasize key points.
- How to improve: To enhance paragraphing, consider varying the length of sentences and incorporating a mix of short and long sentences within paragraphs. This variation can create a more engaging rhythm. Additionally, integrating a concluding sentence in each paragraph that summarizes the main point can reinforce the argument and provide a stronger transition to the next paragraph.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a good use of cohesive devices, such as "for example," "additionally," and "thus," which help to connect ideas within and between sentences. However, the range of cohesive devices could be expanded to include more complex structures and synonyms to avoid repetition and enhance the sophistication of the writing.
- How to improve: To diversify cohesive devices, consider using a wider variety of linking words and phrases. For instance, instead of repeatedly using "additionally," alternatives like "furthermore," "moreover," or "in addition" can be employed. Additionally, using pronouns or synonyms to refer back to previously mentioned ideas can help maintain cohesion without redundancy. For instance, instead of repeating "international cooperation," you could use "this collaboration" or "such partnerships" in subsequent mentions.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong command of coherence and cohesion, achieving a high band score. By focusing on transitions, varying paragraph structures, and expanding the range of cohesive devices, the writer can further enhance the clarity and sophistication of their writing.

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 international cooperation, environmental conservation, and global trade. Phrases such as "cross-border partnerships," "binding environmental commitments," and "facilitated flow of commodities" show an ability to use varied vocabulary effectively. However, there are instances where vocabulary could be more diverse. For example, the term "international cooperation" is repeated multiple times, which could be substituted with synonyms or paraphrased expressions to enhance lexical variety.
- How to improve: To improve, the writer should aim to incorporate synonyms or related phrases for commonly used terms. For instance, instead of repeating "international cooperation," alternatives like "global collaboration," "transnational partnerships," or "cross-national alliances" could be used. This would not only enhance the richness of the vocabulary but also demonstrate a broader lexical range.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally uses vocabulary accurately, with terms like "environmental conservation," "renewable energy sources," and "global logistics" being appropriately applied in context. However, there are moments of imprecision, such as the phrase "the majority of its components are imported from other nations," which could be clearer if specified that these components are sourced from various countries rather than implying a vague "other nations."
- How to improve: To enhance precision, the writer should focus on using more specific language. For example, instead of "other nations," the writer could specify "countries such as Canada, Japan, and Germany." This would provide clarity and strengthen the argument by giving concrete examples. Additionally, ensuring that terms like "climatic shifts" are consistently used in a scientifically accurate context can help maintain precision.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The spelling in the essay is generally accurate, with no significant errors that detract from the overall quality of the writing. Words like "environment," "conservation," and "collaboration" are spelled correctly, which reflects a good command of spelling conventions.
- How to improve: To further enhance spelling accuracy, the writer should engage in regular proofreading practices, such as reading the essay aloud or using spelling check tools. Additionally, maintaining a personal list of commonly misspelled words and practicing them can help reinforce correct spelling habits. While the current essay does not exhibit spelling errors, vigilance in this area is always beneficial for future writing tasks.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a solid command of lexical resource, achieving a band score of 7. By focusing on expanding vocabulary range, enhancing precision in word choice, and maintaining spelling accuracy, the writer can work towards achieving a higher 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 example, the use of complex sentences such as "From my perspective, although both sides have their own merits, I am in favour of the latter…" effectively conveys nuanced opinions. Additionally, the writer employs a mix of simple and compound sentences, which helps maintain clarity and engagement. The use of phrases like "Chief among these is the responsibility of binding environmental commitments" showcases an advanced level of grammatical sophistication. However, there are instances where sentence structures could be further diversified, particularly in the use of passive voice and conditional sentences, which could enhance the depth of analysis.
- How to improve: To diversify sentence structures, consider incorporating more passive constructions (e.g., "The Paris Accord was signed by over 100 countries…") and conditional clauses (e.g., "If nations prioritize environmental cooperation, they could significantly reduce global warming"). This will not only enhance the variety but also allow for more complex ideas to be expressed.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay displays a high level of grammatical accuracy, with only minor errors present. For instance, the phrase "the majority of its components are imported from other nations" is grammatically correct and well-structured. However, there are a few punctuation issues, such as the lack of a comma before "as" in "I am in favour of the latter, as governments should eliminate trade barriers…" which could lead to slight confusion. Additionally, the phrase "the manufacture of Boeing’s planes, and possibly other commodities, would be severely disrupted" contains an unnecessary comma after "planes," which disrupts the flow of the sentence.
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy and punctuation, it is advisable to review the rules regarding comma usage, particularly in complex sentences. Practicing the placement of commas in clauses and lists can help avoid unnecessary pauses. Furthermore, proofreading for minor grammatical errors and ensuring that all clauses are clearly connected will enhance overall clarity and coherence.

By focusing on these areas for improvement, the writer can aim for an even higher band score in future essays.

Bài sửa mẫu

Many assert that cross-border partnerships predominantly benefit environmental conservation, whereas opponents believe that their main focus is on global trade. From my perspective, although both sides have their own merits, I support the latter, as governments should remove trade barriers and use their increased wealth to fund environmental protection initiatives.

On the one hand, cooperation between nations can be significantly beneficial to the conservation of the Earth for several reasons. One of the primary reasons is the responsibility of binding environmental commitments. An illustrative example of this point is the Paris Accord, which requires over 100 countries not only to increase investment in renewable energy sources but also to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to bring the world temperature closer to its pre-industrial level. In addition, the international community can provide great funding for many environmental programs. These investments allow for the establishment, execution, and continuation of ambitious projects in order to address climate change. For instance, the World Bank allocates millions of dollars annually to initiatives that monitor climate shifts, protect wildlife, and avert deforestation around the globe.

On the other hand, many people believe that the prime focus of cross-border collaboration is on international commerce. The foremost explanation of this point is the streamlined flow of goods. For example, tons of high-quality durians from Vietnam have been exported to China with the reduction of export tariffs and procedures due to both countries’ corporations. Additionally, international cooperation is the foundation of global logistics and supply chain management. A prime illustration of this point is Boeing, an American company; although it is assembled in the US, the majority of its components are imported from other nations. Thus, if the ties between the USA and other countries were suddenly interrupted, the production of Boeing aircraft, and possibly other commodities, would be severely disrupted.

In conclusion, cross-border collaboration has tangible merits from both perspectives, yet only when countries are in positive financial health can they support environmental protection programs.