The world should have only one government rather than a national government for each country. Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?
The world should have only one government rather than a national government for each country.
Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?
It is argued that the world should have only one government for all countries than a national government for each country. From my perspective, the negative aspects of having a shared authority are more impactful than the positive
We cannot rule out certain benefits if all countries have the same government. What people refer to the most is that it could prevent misunderstandings and conflicts between differences laws and regulations of each county. It is a well-known fact that each national government has their own laws and plans to own their country, some rules might be contrast which leads to conflicts between countries. However, the idea of one – shared government also means the world will be controlled by only one system of regulations which is easier to control, allowing to create a new undivided world. In addition, a capacity of greater globlisation and connected world could be one of its merits. Due to having the same government, individuals could coorperate with other countries easily without legistation barriers or politic blocks. Consequently, it could enhance the relationship between nations, allowing for the development of globalisation.
However, the associated drawbacks make this idea worth worrying. A key argument for this view is related to the risk of losing control. While one country includes a range of aspects and issues that need the government solve, it is easy to image a large number of works that a worldwide authority has to do. Therefore, it could be a risk of losing control as well as a highly increase in capacity of thriefs. Nonetheless, what really forms my pessimism is the dependece of a country to global government. National government could be more responsible such as focus highly on a country’s issues and take measures to address it immediately than international government which may overlook some areas and create an imbalance of careness between countries. Furthermore, a country might lose its indepence and find it difficult to conserve their culture when all individuals are controlled by a shared authority with other nations.
In conclusion, despite opportunities to eliminate conflicts and enhance the globalisations, I still assert that the drawbacks of having one international government are more significant. The risk of uncontrolled world is a concern but most worrying has to be involved with the loss of indepence and culture that each country might deal with.
Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng
Errors and Improvements:
-
"than a national government for each country" -> "than having a separate national government for each country"
Explanation: The original phrase lacks clarity and precision. Replacing it with "than having a separate national government for each country" enhances the formal tone and specifies the comparison more clearly. -
"What people refer to the most" -> "What is often cited"
Explanation: "What people refer to the most" is overly informal. "What is often cited" maintains formality while expressing the same idea more precisely. -
"between differences laws and regulations of each county" -> "between the varying laws and regulations of each country"
Explanation: "Differences laws" is grammatically incorrect. Replacing it with "the varying laws and regulations of each country" maintains formality and clarity. -
"some rules might be contrast" -> "some rules might be in contrast"
Explanation: "Contrast" should be used as a verb here. Changing it to "some rules might be in contrast" corrects the grammar while retaining the intended meaning. -
"a new undivided world" -> "a unified global community"
Explanation: "Undivided world" is somewhat awkward and lacks precision. "A unified global community" is a more sophisticated and precise alternative. -
"In addition, a capacity of greater globlisation" -> "Furthermore, it would facilitate greater globalization"
Explanation: "A capacity of greater globalization" is awkward and lacks clarity. "Furthermore, it would facilitate greater globalization" expresses the idea more clearly and formally. -
"individuals could coorperate with other countries easily" -> "individuals could cooperate more easily with other countries"
Explanation: "Coorperate" is misspelled. Replacing it with "cooperate" and restructuring the sentence slightly improves clarity and formality. -
"legistation barriers or politic blocks" -> "legislative barriers or political barriers"
Explanation: "Legistation" and "politic" are incorrect and informal. Replacing them with "legislative" and "political" improves accuracy and formality. -
"allowing for the development of globalisation" -> "facilitating the advancement of globalization"
Explanation: "Allowing for the development of globalization" is somewhat redundant. "Facilitating the advancement of globalization" conveys the same idea more concisely and formally. -
"the associated drawbacks make this idea worth worrying" -> "the associated drawbacks raise concerns"
Explanation: "Make this idea worth worrying" is overly casual. "Raise concerns" maintains formality while expressing the same idea more effectively. -
"While one country includes a range of aspects and issues" -> "While managing the multifaceted aspects and issues of a single country"
Explanation: The original phrase lacks clarity and precision. Restructuring it to "While managing the multifaceted aspects and issues of a single country" enhances clarity and formality. -
"it is easy to image" -> "it is easy to imagine"
Explanation: "Image" should be "imagine" for correct grammar. -
"a highly increase in capacity of thriefs" -> "a significant increase in the capacity for mismanagement"
Explanation: "Highly increase" is incorrect and lacks precision. "A significant increase in the capacity for mismanagement" is a more formal and precise alternative. -
"what really forms my pessimism" -> "what truly fuels my pessimism"
Explanation: "Forms my pessimism" is somewhat informal. "What truly fuels my pessimism" maintains formality while expressing the same idea more effectively. -
"dependece of a country to global government" -> "dependence of a country on a global government"
Explanation: "Dependence of a country to global government" is grammatically incorrect. "Dependence of a country on a global government" corrects the grammar and maintains formality. -
"careness between countries" -> "concern for all countries"
Explanation: "Careness" is not the appropriate term here. "Concern for all countries" is a more formal and accurate alternative. -
"each country might deal with" -> "each country may face"
Explanation: "Might deal with" is somewhat informal. "Each country may face" maintains formality while expressing the same idea more effectively. -
"most worrying has to be involved with" -> "most concerning is"
Explanation: "Most worrying has to be involved with" is awkward and lacks precision. "Most concerning is" is a more concise and formal alternative. -
"The risk of uncontrolled world is a concern" -> "The risk of an uncontrolled world is alarming"
Explanation: "A concern" is somewhat understated for the severity of the issue. "Alarming" conveys a stronger sense of the potential consequences. -
"but most worrying has to be involved with" -> "but what is most concerning"
Explanation: "Most worrying has to be involved with" is awkward and unclear. "But what is most concerning" provides a clearer and more formal expression of the idea.
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 all parts of the question. It discusses both the advantages and disadvantages of having only one government for the world instead of individual national governments. It acknowledges potential benefits such as preventing conflicts due to differing laws and facilitating global cooperation. Additionally, it presents concerns about loss of control, dependence on a global authority, and the erosion of national identity and culture.
- How to improve: While the essay covers both sides of the argument, there is room for improvement in the depth of analysis. Providing more specific examples or hypothetical scenarios could enrich the discussion and demonstrate a deeper understanding of the implications of a single global government.
-
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear position throughout, arguing that the disadvantages of a single global government outweigh the advantages. This stance is evident from the introduction to the conclusion, where the writer expresses pessimism towards the idea of a unified world government.
- How to improve: To enhance clarity, the writer could strengthen their thesis statement in the introduction, explicitly stating their position and outlining the main points that support their argument. Additionally, reinforcing the position with more robust reasoning and evidence would further solidify the clarity of the essay’s stance.
-
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents ideas with some development and support. It discusses potential benefits such as conflict prevention and enhanced globalization, while also exploring concerns about loss of control and cultural erosion. However, the elaboration on these points could be more detailed, with additional examples or evidence to bolster the arguments.
- How to improve: To improve the presentation of ideas, the writer should aim for greater depth in their analysis. Providing specific examples, statistics, or real-world case studies could strengthen the arguments and provide a more persuasive rationale for the stated position. Additionally, ensuring a logical flow between ideas would enhance the coherence and cohesion of the essay.
-
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, addressing the advantages and disadvantages of having a single global government as compared to individual national governments. However, there are instances where the discussion slightly deviates, such as when mentioning the ease of cooperation without legislative barriers. While relevant to the broader discussion of globalization, it could be more directly tied back to the central question of one government versus multiple.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer should ensure that every point made directly contributes to the central argument. When discussing globalization, for example, explicitly connect it back to the implications for governance structures and the trade-offs involved in a single global authority. This will help to strengthen the relevance and coherence of the essay’s content.
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 organization, with an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. However, there are some instances of disjointed ideas and a lack of clear progression within paragraphs. For example, the transition between discussing the benefits and drawbacks of a single global government could be smoother to enhance coherence.
- How to improve: To enhance logical organization, ensure that each paragraph follows a clear structure: introduce the main idea, provide supporting details or examples, and conclude with a transition to the next point. Use transitional phrases to link ideas between paragraphs and maintain a cohesive flow of thought throughout the essay.
- Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay attempts to use paragraphs to organize ideas, but there are areas where the structure could be improved for better clarity and coherence. Some paragraphs contain multiple ideas without clear delineation, leading to confusion for the reader.
- How to improve: Focus on developing each paragraph around a single main idea or argument. Begin each paragraph with a topic sentence that introduces the central theme, followed by supporting evidence or examples. Ensure that there is a clear transition between paragraphs to maintain the logical progression of ideas.
- Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay incorporates a variety of cohesive devices, such as transitional words and phrases (e.g., "however," "in addition," "despite"), pronouns for reference (e.g., "it," "this"), and parallel structure. However, there is room for improvement in the strategic use of these devices to enhance coherence and cohesion.
- How to improve: Consider using a wider range of cohesive devices, including synonyms and antonyms, to add variety and sophistication to the essay’s structure. Ensure that cohesive devices are used consistently and appropriately throughout the essay to clarify relationships between ideas and improve overall coherence.
Overall, while the essay demonstrates an understanding of coherence and cohesion, there are opportunities for improvement in organizing information more logically, refining paragraph structure, and utilizing a wider range of cohesive devices effectively. By implementing these suggestions, the essay could achieve a higher level of coherence and cohesion, leading to a stronger overall argument and presentation of ideas.
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. There is an attempt to employ varied vocabulary throughout the essay, with the use of words such as "authority," "conflicts," "globalisation," "dependence," "imbalance," and "independence." However, some phrases like "thriefs" (presumably intended to be "thefts") may hinder clarity and should be corrected for precision.
- How to improve: To further enhance lexical resource, aim for more sophisticated synonyms and avoid errors like the one mentioned above. Additionally, integrate specific terminology related to governance and international relations to enrich the vocabulary further. For instance, instead of "worldwide authority," consider using terms like "global governance" or "international oversight."
-
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally employs vocabulary with reasonable precision. For instance, terms like "globalisation," "dependence," and "culture" are used appropriately in the context. However, there are instances of imprecise usage, such as "thriefs" instead of "thefts," which could confuse the reader. Furthermore, some expressions could be more refined for clarity and accuracy.
- How to improve: Aim for absolute precision in word choice to ensure clarity and coherence. Review the essay carefully to identify and correct any imprecise language, ensuring that each term is used accurately within the context. Additionally, expand your vocabulary by incorporating synonyms and refining expressions to convey your ideas with greater precision.
-
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a satisfactory level of spelling accuracy overall. However, there are a few notable spelling errors, such as "thriefs" instead of "thefts." While these errors do not significantly impede comprehension, they detract from the overall professionalism and clarity of the essay.
- How to improve: To improve spelling accuracy, consider employing proofreading techniques such as reading the essay aloud or using spell-check tools. Additionally, develop a habit of reviewing your writing meticulously to identify and correct any spelling errors before submission. By consistently practicing spelling, you can enhance the overall quality of your written work and ensure greater clarity and professionalism.
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 range of sentence structures, including simple, compound, and complex sentences. However, there is room for improvement in terms of variety and complexity. For instance, there’s a tendency to rely on basic sentence structures, which can hinder the sophistication of the writing. Additionally, some sentences could be more effectively structured for clarity and coherence.
- How to improve: To enhance the variety and effectiveness of sentence structures, consider incorporating more complex sentence patterns such as subordination and coordination. This can be achieved by using phrases like subordinate clauses, relative clauses, and participial phrases to provide more depth and detail to your ideas. Also, strive for clarity by ensuring that each sentence conveys a single idea and avoids unnecessary complexity.
-
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay displays a generally accurate use of grammar and punctuation, with occasional errors that do not significantly impede comprehension. However, there are instances of grammatical errors such as subject-verb agreement issues ("a range of aspects and issues that need the government solve") and incorrect word choices ("thriefs" instead of "thefts"). Punctuation errors, such as missing commas in compound sentences, are also present ("The risk of uncontrolled world is a concern but most worrying has to be involved with the loss of indepence and culture").
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, pay close attention to subject-verb agreement and verb tense consistency. Proofreading carefully can help catch errors and ensure that sentences are grammatically correct. Additionally, familiarize yourself with common punctuation rules, particularly regarding the use of commas in compound sentences and the placement of punctuation marks within quotation marks. Practicing writing and seeking feedback can also aid in refining grammar and punctuation skills.
Bài sửa mẫu
It is often cited that the world should have only one government rather than a separate national government for each country. From my perspective, the negative aspects of having a shared authority are more impactful than the positive.
We cannot rule out certain benefits if all countries have the same government. What is often cited is that it could prevent misunderstandings and conflicts between the varying laws and regulations of each country. It is a well-known fact that each national government has its own laws and plans for its own country; some rules might be in contrast, which leads to conflicts between countries. However, the idea of a unified global community also means the world will be controlled by only one system of regulations, which is easier to control, allowing for the creation of a new undivided world. Furthermore, it would facilitate greater globalization and a connected world. Due to having the same government, individuals could cooperate more easily with other countries without legislative barriers or political blocks. Consequently, it could enhance the relationship between nations, facilitating the advancement of globalization.
However, the associated drawbacks raise concerns about this idea. A key argument for this view is related to the risk of losing control. While managing the multifaceted aspects and issues of a single country includes a range of tasks that the government needs to solve, it is easy to imagine a significant increase in the capacity for mismanagement by a worldwide authority. Therefore, there could be a risk of losing control as well as a highly increased capacity for inefficiencies. Nonetheless, what truly fuels my pessimism is the dependence of a country on a global government. National governments could be more responsible, focusing highly on a country’s issues and taking measures to address them immediately, unlike an international government, which may overlook some areas and create an imbalance of care between countries. Furthermore, a country might lose its independence and find it difficult to conserve its culture when all individuals are controlled by a shared authority with other nations.
In conclusion, despite opportunities to eliminate conflicts and enhance globalization, I still assert that the drawbacks of having one international government are more significant. The risk of an uncontrolled world is alarming, but what is most concerning is the loss of independence and culture that each country may face.
Phản hồi