Test 2: It is a natural process that animal species such as dinosaurs become extinct. There is no reason for people to prevent this from happening. Do you agree or disagree?

It is universally believed that the extinction of wildlife species like dinosaurs is a natural progress in the history and there is no need the preservation by the human to this event. In my opinion, I firmly concur with this viewpoint due to several reasons.
To begin with, a number of proponents contend that protecting the biodiversity is to enhance the quality of our society. For instance, in the coastlines, the primary incomes for residents usually arise from catching seafood in the sea. This profession had been introduced for many generations and became the most crucial aspect of their lives. Therefore, if some seafood were on the verge of extinct, this would undoubtedly pose negative impacts to this inhabitant.
Conversely, while I acknowledge the advantage of biodiversity, it is also vital to consider another aspect of this practice. Given that because there are various animals outside the natural environment, and with inadequate societal resources nowadays, I believe protecting all wildlife is impossible and impractical. Thus, I propose alternative solution by which we should classify what kinds of species is beneficial to the human, in order to reduce the substantial expense on the preservation.
In addition, another compelling explanation is to allocate our finances for other existing issues including urbanization, traffic congestion, or improving the quality of education and healthcare system. From my perspective, all these problems are posing more threats to the societal well-being, and human must fully concentrate to address these issues in an efficient approach. After that, we can spend our attention to environment and protecting wildlife.
In conclusion, there are still ongoing disputes about this question. However, according to all these presented reasons, I support the idea that the extinction of animal species is a natural process and we no need to stop this from happening.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"It is universally believed" -> "It is widely accepted"
Explanation: "Universally" may imply a global consensus that is not always accurate. "Widely accepted" is a more precise term that acknowledges a general agreement without overstating the extent of the belief.
"natural progress in the history" -> "natural process throughout history"
Explanation: "Natural progress" is vague and can be misinterpreted. "Natural process" is more specific and academically appropriate, and "throughout history" clarifies the scope of the process.
"there is no need the preservation by the human to this event" -> "there is no need for human intervention in this process"
Explanation: The original phrase is grammatically incorrect and awkward. The suggested revision corrects the grammar and clarifies the meaning, making it more formal and precise.
"I firmly concur with this viewpoint" -> "I strongly support this perspective"
Explanation: "Concur" is less common in academic writing and can sound overly formal or archaic. "Support" is more straightforward and commonly used in academic discourse.
"a number of proponents contend" -> "many proponents argue"
Explanation: "A number of" is vague and can be replaced with "many" for a more direct and clear expression. "Argue" is also more commonly used in academic writing than "contend."
"enhance the quality of our society" -> "improve societal quality"
Explanation: "Enhance the quality of our society" is verbose and slightly awkward. "Improve societal quality" is more concise and maintains the formal tone.
"the primary incomes for residents usually arise from catching seafood" -> "the primary source of income for residents typically comes from fishing"
Explanation: "Arise from catching seafood" is awkward and informal. "Fishing" is a more precise term, and "comes from" is more natural in this context than "arise from."
"This profession had been introduced" -> "This profession has been introduced"
Explanation: "Had been" is incorrect in this context as it implies a past perfect tense that is not necessary. "Has been" correctly indicates the ongoing nature of the profession.
"pose negative impacts to this inhabitant" -> "pose negative impacts on this community"
Explanation: "Inhabitant" is not the correct term here; "community" is more appropriate and clear. "On" is also the correct preposition for the impact.
"Given that because there are" -> "Given that there are"
Explanation: "Given that because" is redundant and awkward. Simplifying it to "Given that" improves clarity and flow.
"impractical" -> "unfeasible"
Explanation: "Impractical" can imply a lack of practicality but not necessarily impossibility. "Unfeasible" more accurately conveys the idea that something cannot be done due to lack of resources or feasibility.
"what kinds of species is beneficial to the human" -> "which species are beneficial to humans"
Explanation: "What kinds of species" is grammatically incorrect and awkward. "Which species" is grammatically correct, and "humans" is the correct plural form.
"substantial expense on the preservation" -> "substantial expenditure on preservation"
Explanation: "Expense" is not typically used as a noun in this context; "expenditure" is the correct term for the money spent.
"human must fully concentrate to address these issues" -> "humans must fully concentrate on addressing these issues"
Explanation: "Human" should be plural to match the subject, and "on addressing" is grammatically correct.
"we no need to stop this from happening" -> "we do not need to prevent this from occurring"
Explanation: "We no need" is grammatically incorrect and informal. "Do not need" is grammatically correct, and "prevent" is more precise than "stop" in this context, and "occurring" is more formal than "happening."

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 presenting a clear stance that agrees with the notion that the extinction of species is a natural process and that humans should not intervene. The introduction effectively sets up the argument, and the body paragraphs provide supporting points. However, the essay could have more explicitly acknowledged the opposing viewpoint in a more structured way, particularly in the first body paragraph, which discusses the benefits of biodiversity without clearly linking it back to the argument against intervention.
- How to improve: To enhance the response, the writer should ensure that each part of the question is explicitly addressed. This could involve clearly stating the counterarguments in a dedicated paragraph and then systematically refuting them, thereby demonstrating a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear position that supports the idea of non-intervention in the extinction process. However, there are moments where the argument could be more cohesive. For instance, the transition between discussing biodiversity and the impracticality of protecting all species could be smoother to reinforce the main argument.
- How to improve: To maintain a clearer position, the writer should use transitional phrases that explicitly connect ideas back to the main argument. Additionally, reiterating the main thesis at the beginning of each body paragraph can help reinforce the stance throughout the essay.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents several ideas, such as the impracticality of protecting all species and the need to allocate resources to pressing societal issues. However, some ideas are not fully developed. For example, the mention of urbanization and traffic congestion as issues that require funding could benefit from specific examples or statistics to strengthen the argument.
- How to improve: The writer should aim to elaborate on each point with more detailed explanations and examples. This could involve providing specific instances of how resource allocation has positively impacted other societal issues or discussing the consequences of failing to address these issues.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, focusing on the extinction of species and the argument against human intervention. However, there are moments where the discussion of biodiversity and societal issues feels slightly tangential, particularly when the focus shifts to urbanization and healthcare without a direct link back to the main argument.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer should ensure that all points made directly relate back to the central thesis. This can be achieved by explicitly linking each point back to the argument against intervention, ensuring that every paragraph contributes to the overall position.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of the task and presents a clear argument, improvements can be made in the areas of addressing all parts of the question, maintaining a cohesive position, elaborating on ideas, and ensuring relevance to the topic. By focusing on these areas, the writer can enhance the overall effectiveness of their argument and potentially achieve a higher band score.

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 in favor of the notion that extinction is a natural process. However, the organization of ideas could be improved. The introduction effectively states the writer’s position, but the body paragraphs lack a clear, logical progression. For instance, the first body paragraph discusses the importance of biodiversity but does not seamlessly connect to the writer’s main argument against preservation. The transition from discussing the benefits of biodiversity to the impracticality of preserving all species could be more fluid.
- How to improve: To enhance logical flow, the writer should ensure that each paragraph builds on the previous one. A clearer outline could help, where the first body paragraph introduces the counterargument and the second paragraph presents the writer’s main argument against preservation. Using transitional phrases like "On the other hand" or "In contrast" can help signal shifts in perspective more effectively.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay uses paragraphs, but the structure within them is inconsistent. The first body paragraph introduces an argument but lacks a clear topic sentence that summarizes the main point. Additionally, the second body paragraph introduces a new idea about resource allocation but does not clearly relate it back to the main argument about extinction.
- How to improve: Each paragraph should start with a clear topic sentence that indicates the main idea. For example, the first body paragraph could begin with a statement about the importance of biodiversity, followed by supporting details. The second paragraph should clearly state that it will discuss the impracticality of preserving all species, ensuring that the reader understands the connection to the overall argument.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay employs some cohesive devices, such as "for instance" and "in addition," but the range is limited. The use of cohesive devices feels somewhat mechanical and does not always enhance the flow of ideas. For example, the phrase "Given that because" is redundant and could confuse readers.
- How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, the writer should incorporate a variety of linking words and phrases, such as "furthermore," "however," "consequently," and "therefore." Additionally, the writer should avoid redundancy in phrases and ensure that each cohesive device used adds clarity to the argument. This can be achieved by practicing the use of different connectors in writing exercises.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a good understanding of the topic and presents a clear opinion, improvements in logical organization, paragraph structure, and the use of cohesive devices will enhance coherence and cohesion, potentially raising the 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 an adequate range of vocabulary, but it lacks variety in word choice. For instance, terms like "extinction," "wildlife species," and "biodiversity" are repeated without synonyms or alternative expressions, which could enhance the richness of the text. Phrases such as "negative impacts" and "substantial expense" are somewhat generic and could be replaced with more specific terms to convey deeper meaning.
- How to improve: To improve lexical variety, the writer should incorporate synonyms and related terms. For example, instead of repeatedly using "extinction," alternatives like "die-off," "disappearance," or "vanishing" could be utilized. Additionally, varying phrases like "negative impacts" with "adverse effects" or "detrimental consequences" would enhance the essay’s lexical range.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: There are instances of imprecise vocabulary usage that can lead to confusion. For example, the phrase "the preservation by the human to this event" is awkward and unclear. A more precise formulation could be "human intervention to prevent this event." Furthermore, the phrase "the primary incomes for residents usually arise from catching seafood in the sea" could be simplified to "the primary income for residents typically comes from fishing."
- How to improve: To enhance precision, the writer should focus on clarity and conciseness. It is advisable to revise sentences for clarity, ensuring that the intended meaning is conveyed without ambiguity. Using tools like a thesaurus can help find more accurate words that fit the context better.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains several spelling errors, such as "progress" instead of "process," and "is to enhance" instead of "is enhancing." These errors detract from the overall professionalism of the writing and can confuse readers.
- How to improve: To improve spelling accuracy, the writer should proofread the essay carefully before submission. Utilizing spell-check tools and reading the essay aloud can help catch errors. Additionally, practicing spelling common academic vocabulary can enhance overall spelling proficiency.

Overall, while the essay meets the basic requirements for lexical resource, it would benefit from a broader range of vocabulary, more precise word choices, and improved spelling accuracy. By focusing on these areas, the writer can enhance the quality and clarity of their writing, potentially raising their band score in this criterion.

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, including simple, compound, and complex sentences. For example, the use of complex sentences in phrases like "Given that because there are various animals outside the natural environment" shows an attempt to convey nuanced ideas. However, the sentence structure occasionally lacks clarity, as seen in "this would undoubtedly pose negative impacts to this inhabitant," where the plural "impacts" conflicts with the singular "inhabitant." This inconsistency can confuse the reader and detract from the overall effectiveness of the argument.
- How to improve: To diversify sentence structures further, the writer could incorporate more varied introductory phrases and clauses. For instance, instead of starting sentences with "In addition" or "To begin with," the writer could use phrases like "Moreover," "Furthermore," or "In contrast." Additionally, ensuring that subjects and verbs agree in number will enhance clarity and grammatical accuracy.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay displays a reasonable level of grammatical accuracy, but there are notable errors that affect the overall score. For instance, phrases like "there is no need the preservation by the human to this event" should be corrected to "there is no need for human preservation of this event." This error in preposition usage detracts from the clarity of the argument. Furthermore, punctuation errors, such as the lack of commas in complex sentences, can lead to run-on sentences, making it difficult for the reader to follow the writer’s line of thought.
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, the writer should focus on common grammatical structures and their correct usage, particularly prepositions and subject-verb agreement. Regular practice with grammar exercises and seeking feedback on specific sentences can help identify recurring mistakes. Additionally, reviewing punctuation rules, especially regarding the use of commas in complex sentences, will enhance the readability of the essay.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a commendable range of grammatical structures and a solid grasp of grammatical concepts, attention to detail in grammar and punctuation, as well as further diversification of sentence structures, will be crucial for achieving a higher band score.

Bài sửa mẫu

It is widely accepted that the extinction of wildlife species, such as dinosaurs, is a natural process throughout history, and there is no need for human intervention in this event. In my opinion, I strongly support this perspective for several reasons.

To begin with, many proponents argue that protecting biodiversity is essential to improve societal quality. For instance, along the coastlines, the primary source of income for residents typically comes from fishing. This profession has been introduced for many generations and has become a crucial aspect of their lives. Therefore, if certain seafood species were on the verge of extinction, this would undoubtedly pose negative impacts on this community.

Conversely, while I acknowledge the importance of biodiversity, it is also vital to consider another aspect of this issue. Given that there are various animals outside their natural environment, and with inadequate societal resources nowadays, I believe that protecting all wildlife is unfeasible and impractical. Thus, I propose an alternative solution: we should classify which species are beneficial to humans in order to reduce the substantial expenditure on preservation.

In addition, another compelling reason is to allocate our finances to other pressing issues, including urbanization, traffic congestion, and improving the quality of education and healthcare systems. From my perspective, all these problems pose more significant threats to societal well-being, and humans must fully concentrate on addressing these issues in an efficient manner. After that, we can direct our attention to environmental concerns and wildlife protection.

In conclusion, there are still ongoing debates regarding this question. However, based on the reasons presented, I support the idea that the extinction of animal species is a natural process, and we do not need to prevent this from occurring.