Some people think that the world should have one government rather than national governments. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

It is considered that there should be only a world government instead of domestic governments. I believe that the advantages would be defeated by the disadvantages by virtue of difficulties in getting consensus and the risk of losing sovereignty and identities.

Firstly, it is not easy to get the consensus between countries to appoint the world government because they are worried that their interests can be negatively impacted. Particularly, members of the nation that governs the world will misapproximate their power to serve their own interest rather than those of the entire world. The existence of one world government may let their sovereignty and identity be at stake as they cannot independently make any decision to protect their country or once their language is homogenized, they would lose one of their identity as well.

When the world has just one government, it may facilitate cross-national traveling because in that case, we will have no strict boundaries and sophisticated travel documents between states. However, it is not ensured that this journey will be safe all the time. On the one hand, it is said that the world government will also keep the world in peace. On the other hand, there are still some potential wars in some isolated areas since the world government simply cannot contain the whole different substantial territories on this planet.

In summary, when it comes to one world government, there may be less merits than its disadvantages which are the trouble in getting the consensus and the danger in losing sovereignty and identity.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"It is considered that" -> "It is widely believed that"
Explanation: "It is considered that" is somewhat vague and informal. "It is widely believed that" provides a clearer and more formal expression of a general opinion or belief.
"instead of domestic governments" -> "in place of national governments"
Explanation: "Domestic governments" is less precise and can be ambiguous. "National governments" is more specific and appropriate in this context, referring to governments of individual countries.
"the advantages would be defeated by the disadvantages" -> "the advantages would be outweighed by the disadvantages"
Explanation: "Defeated" is an overly strong and incorrect metaphor in this context. "Outweighed" is the correct term for comparing the relative importance or impact of two opposing factors.
"by virtue of difficulties in getting consensus" -> "due to the challenges of achieving consensus"
Explanation: "By virtue of" is somewhat formal but can be improved for clarity and precision. "Due to the challenges of achieving" is more direct and clear.
"the risk of losing sovereignty and identities" -> "the risk of losing sovereignty and national identities"
Explanation: Adding "national" clarifies that the identities referred to are those of nations, enhancing specificity and precision.
"it is not easy to get the consensus" -> "it is challenging to achieve consensus"
Explanation: "Get the consensus" is informal and imprecise. "Achieve consensus" is more formal and appropriate for academic writing.
"they are worried that their interests can be negatively impacted" -> "they fear that their interests may be negatively affected"
Explanation: "Worried" is less formal and slightly vague; "fear" is more precise and formal. "May be negatively affected" is a more academic way of expressing potential impact.
"members of the nation that governs the world" -> "the governing body of a unified world government"
Explanation: "Members of the nation that governs the world" is awkward and unclear. "The governing body of a unified world government" is more precise and formal.
"misapproximate their power" -> "abuse their power"
Explanation: "Misapproximate" is not commonly used in this context and can be confusing. "Abuse" is the correct term for the misuse of power.
"let their sovereignty and identity be at stake" -> "put their sovereignty and identity at risk"
Explanation: "Let" is less formal and less direct than "put," which is more appropriate for academic writing.
"we will have no strict boundaries and sophisticated travel documents" -> "there will be no strict borders and advanced travel documentation"
Explanation: "We will have" is too conversational for formal writing. "There will be" is more appropriate, and "advanced travel documentation" is more precise than "sophisticated travel documents."
"it is said that the world government will also keep the world in peace" -> "it is argued that a world government would also maintain global peace"
Explanation: "It is said" is informal and vague; "it is argued" is more formal and suitable for academic discourse. "Maintain global peace" is more precise than "keep the world in peace."
"there are still some potential wars" -> "there may still be potential conflicts"
Explanation: "Wars" is too specific and implies a high level of intensity. "Conflicts" is more general and appropriate for discussing potential disputes.
"the world government simply cannot contain the whole different substantial territories on this planet" -> "a world government would struggle to manage the diverse geographical territories"
Explanation: "Cannot contain" is too absolute and informal. "Would struggle to manage" is more realistic and formal, and "diverse geographical territories" is more precise than "whole different substantial territories."
"there may be less merits than its disadvantages" -> "the disadvantages may outweigh the advantages"
Explanation: "Less merits" is incorrect and unclear. "The disadvantages may outweigh the advantages" is grammatically correct and clearer.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Task Response: 7

Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay addresses the prompt by discussing both the advantages and disadvantages of having a world government. However, the focus is predominantly on the disadvantages, which may not fully satisfy the requirement to weigh both sides equally. The mention of advantages is limited and lacks depth, particularly in exploring how a world government could potentially benefit global governance or cooperation.
- How to improve: To enhance the response, the writer should aim to provide a more balanced discussion. This could involve dedicating a paragraph to elaborating on the potential advantages of a world government, such as improved global cooperation, reduced conflict, and streamlined international policies. By presenting a more comprehensive view, the essay would better address all parts of the question.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear position against the establishment of a world government, stating that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. This stance is consistent throughout the essay, particularly in the introduction and conclusion. However, the argument could benefit from clearer transitions and stronger topic sentences to reinforce the position.
- How to improve: To improve clarity, the writer should use explicit topic sentences at the beginning of each paragraph that directly relate back to the thesis statement. This will help guide the reader through the argument and reinforce the position taken. Additionally, incorporating linking phrases can enhance the flow of the argument.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents several ideas regarding the disadvantages of a world government, such as the difficulty of achieving consensus and the risk of losing sovereignty. However, these ideas are not fully developed or supported with specific examples or evidence. For instance, the claim about the loss of identity could be strengthened by discussing historical or contemporary examples of cultural homogenization.
- How to improve: To effectively present and support ideas, the writer should aim to provide more detailed explanations and examples for each point made. This could involve discussing specific scenarios where national identities have been threatened or where global governance has succeeded or failed. Additionally, using data or references to scholarly work could lend credibility to the arguments.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, focusing on the implications of a world government. However, there are moments where the discussion becomes slightly vague, particularly in the second paragraph, where the mention of "potential wars" lacks a clear connection to the main argument about governance.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer should ensure that every point made directly supports the central argument regarding the advantages and disadvantages of a world government. Avoiding tangential discussions and ensuring that each example is relevant to the thesis will help keep the essay on topic. Additionally, the writer could benefit from outlining the main points before writing to ensure coherence and relevance throughout the essay.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 7

Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear argument against the establishment of a world government, outlining both the difficulties in achieving consensus and the risks to sovereignty and identity. The introduction effectively sets the stage for the argument, and the points are generally well-structured. However, the logical flow could be improved; for instance, the transition from discussing the challenges of consensus to the benefits of a world government is somewhat abrupt. The second paragraph introduces a counterpoint about the advantages of a world government, but it does not clearly connect back to the main argument, which can confuse the reader.
- How to improve: To enhance logical organization, consider using clearer topic sentences that directly relate back to the thesis statement. Additionally, employing transitional phrases (e.g., "On the contrary," "In addition to this") can help guide the reader through the argument more smoothly. Structuring the essay to first present a point, followed by a counterpoint, and then a rebuttal can also improve clarity.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay uses paragraphs effectively to separate ideas, with each paragraph focusing on a specific aspect of the argument. However, the second paragraph could be split into two distinct paragraphs: one focusing on the challenges of achieving consensus and the other discussing the risks to sovereignty and identity. This would allow for a more in-depth exploration of each point and improve readability.
- How to improve: To improve paragraphing, ensure that each paragraph contains a single main idea supported by relevant examples or explanations. Consider starting a new paragraph when introducing a new point or when shifting from one aspect of the argument to another. This will help maintain clarity and allow the reader to follow the argument more easily.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay employs some cohesive devices, such as "Firstly," "On the one hand," and "On the other hand," which help to structure the argument. However, the range of cohesive devices is somewhat limited, and there are instances where the connections between sentences and ideas could be strengthened. For example, the phrase "However, it is not ensured that this journey will be safe all the time" could be better linked to the previous sentence to clarify the relationship between the ideas.
- How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, consider incorporating a wider variety of linking words and phrases, such as "Furthermore," "Moreover," "Consequently," and "In contrast." Additionally, using pronouns and synonyms to refer back to previously mentioned ideas can help create smoother transitions between sentences and paragraphs. Practicing the use of these devices in different contexts can also enhance overall cohesion in writing.

By addressing these areas, the essay can achieve a higher level of coherence and cohesion, ultimately improving the overall clarity and effectiveness of the argument presented.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Lexical Resource: 6

Use a Wide Range of Vocabulary:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary, with terms such as "sovereignty," "consensus," and "homogenized." However, the vocabulary is somewhat limited in variety and sophistication. For instance, phrases like "world government" and "domestic governments" are repeated without variation, which detracts from the overall lexical richness. Additionally, the use of "misapproximate" is incorrect in this context; the intended meaning seems to be "misuse" or "misrepresent."
- How to improve: To enhance vocabulary range, the writer should explore synonyms and related terms. For example, instead of repeating "world government," alternatives like "global governance" or "universal administration" could be used. Furthermore, using more advanced vocabulary and idiomatic expressions would elevate the essay’s lexical quality.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: While the essay contains some precise vocabulary, there are instances of imprecise usage. The term "misapproximate" is a significant error, as it does not convey a clear meaning in this context. Additionally, phrases like "the world may let their sovereignty and identity be at stake" could be more accurately expressed as "the world government may jeopardize their sovereignty and identity."
- How to improve: To improve precision, the writer should focus on understanding the meanings of the words they choose. Utilizing a thesaurus can help find more appropriate words, but it is essential to ensure that the selected words fit the context accurately. Practicing writing with feedback can also help in refining vocabulary usage.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a good level of spelling accuracy, with no glaring spelling mistakes. However, the incorrect term "misapproximate" indicates a misunderstanding of spelling and word choice rather than a simple spelling error.
- How to improve: To enhance spelling accuracy, the writer should engage in regular reading and writing practice, which can help reinforce correct spelling patterns. Additionally, using spell-check tools and proofreading the essay before submission can help catch any errors or misused words.

In summary, while the essay achieves a Band Score of 6 for Lexical Resource, there is room for improvement in vocabulary range, precision, and spelling. By expanding vocabulary, ensuring precise word choice, and maintaining spelling accuracy, the writer can enhance the overall quality of their writing.

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 reasonable range of sentence structures, including simple, compound, and complex sentences. For instance, the use of introductory phrases such as "Firstly," and "In summary," helps to organize the argument effectively. However, the essay could benefit from more varied sentence openings and structures. For example, the sentence "Particularly, members of the nation that governs the world will misapproximate their power to serve their own interest rather than those of the entire world" is somewhat convoluted and could be simplified or restructured for clarity.
- How to improve: To enhance the variety of sentence structures, consider incorporating more complex sentences that use subordinate clauses effectively. For example, instead of saying "it is not easy to get the consensus between countries," you might say, "Although reaching a consensus between countries is challenging, it is crucial for establishing a world government." Additionally, using a mix of active and passive voice can add variety and interest to the writing.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally maintains a good level of grammatical accuracy, but there are notable errors that detract from the overall clarity. For example, the phrase "the advantages would be defeated by the disadvantages" is awkward; a more precise expression would be "the disadvantages outweigh the advantages." Furthermore, there are punctuation issues, such as the lack of commas in complex sentences, which can lead to confusion. For instance, in the sentence "the risk of losing sovereignty and identities," a comma before "and" could clarify that "sovereignty" and "identities" are two separate concerns.
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, it is essential to proofread the essay for awkward phrasing and sentence structure. Focus on ensuring that each sentence conveys its intended meaning clearly. Additionally, practicing punctuation rules, particularly with complex sentences, will enhance clarity. For instance, when using introductory clauses or phrases, a comma should typically follow them to separate them from the main clause. Regularly reviewing grammar rules and practicing with exercises can also help solidify understanding and application.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a solid grasp of grammatical range and accuracy, focusing on diversifying sentence structures and refining grammatical precision will help elevate the writing to a higher band score.

Bài sửa mẫu

It is widely believed that there should be only one world government instead of national governments. I believe that the disadvantages may outweigh the advantages due to the challenges of achieving consensus and the risk of losing sovereignty and identities.

Firstly, it is not easy to achieve consensus between countries to appoint a world government because they fear that their interests may be negatively affected. Particularly, members of the nation that governs the world may abuse their power to serve their own interests rather than those of the entire world. The existence of one world government may put their sovereignty and identity at risk, as they cannot independently make any decisions to protect their country. Once their language is homogenized, they would also lose an important part of their identity.

When the world has just one government, it may facilitate cross-national travel because, in that case, there will be no strict borders and advanced travel documentation between states. However, it is not guaranteed that this journey will be safe all the time. On the one hand, it is argued that a world government would also maintain global peace. On the other hand, there may still be potential conflicts in some isolated areas since the world government would struggle to manage the diverse geographical territories on this planet.

In summary, when it comes to one world government, there may be more disadvantages than advantages, which include the challenges of achieving consensus and the danger of losing sovereignty and identity.