Traffic and housing problems could be solved by moving large companies, factories and their employees to the countryside. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Increased traffic and lack of housing supply are major concerns in many places. By relocating large businesses, including their factories and employees to rural areas, these issues can be properly addressed. However, I completely disagree with this opinion.
To begin with, moving companies and factories to rural areas can have some negative consequences on the environment and infractures. Firstly, the relocation of big companies to rural areas may destroy the natural surroundings. Constructing new housing and infrastructure in the countryside often requires clearing land, which can be the home to various animal species and green trees. This loss of habitat can have detrimental effects on local wildlife, leading to biodiversity loss and ecosystem disruption. In addition, moving industries to the countryside might result in longer commute times and increased traffic on rural roads. With more employees commuting to work from the countryside, there is a higher likelihood of increased traffic on rural roads although these roads are often not designed to handle heavy traffic volumes, leading to congestion, slower travel times and potential safety concerns.
The opponents might argue that moving large businesses, including their factories and employees, to the countryside can have negative impacts on the environment and traffic infrastructures. However, the relocation of companies and factories to rural areas is likely instrumental in addressing unresolved issues of big cities. This is mainly because many people no longer flock into urban areas to find jobs, avoiding overpopulation; thereby, reducing housing cost, living cost, traffic congestion and potential diminish unemployment rate. This could help to reduce crime rates and other social issues in inner cities.
In conclusion, I would like to reaffirm that the relocation of large businesses, including their factories and employees to rural areas can have some negative consequences on the environment and traffic infrastructure.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"major concerns" -> "significant concerns"
Explanation: "Significant" is a more precise and formal term than "major," which is somewhat vague and less commonly used in academic writing.
"properly addressed" -> "effectively addressed"
Explanation: "Effectively" is more specific and academically appropriate than "properly," which can imply a sense of correctness rather than efficiency.
"I completely disagree" -> "I strongly disagree"
Explanation: "Strongly" is a more formal and precise term than "completely," which can sound overly emphatic and informal for academic writing.
"infractures" -> "infrastructure"
Explanation: This is a typographical error. "Infrastructure" is the correct term, referring to the basic structures and facilities needed for the operation of a society or organization.
"the natural surroundings" -> "the natural environment"
Explanation: "Environment" is a more precise and commonly used term in academic contexts to refer to the natural world, making it more suitable than "surroundings."
"green trees" -> "vegetation"
Explanation: "Vegetation" is a more formal and scientifically accurate term than "green trees," which is too specific and informal for academic writing.
"often not designed to handle" -> "frequently not designed to accommodate"
Explanation: "Accommodate" is more precise in this context, as it specifically refers to the ability of infrastructure to support increased traffic, whereas "handle" is more general.
"higher likelihood of increased traffic" -> "greater likelihood of increased traffic"
Explanation: "Greater" is a more formal synonym for "higher," which is more commonly used in academic writing.
"although these roads are often not designed to handle" -> "although these roads are frequently not designed to accommodate"
Explanation: This revision maintains consistency with the previous suggestion, using "accommodate" for precision and formality.
"unresolved issues of big cities" -> "persistent issues in urban areas"
Explanation: "Persistent issues in urban areas" is more specific and formal, avoiding the colloquialism "big cities."
"many people no longer flock into urban areas" -> "many individuals no longer migrate to urban centers"
Explanation: "Migrate" is a more precise and formal term than "flock," which is informal and imprecise. "Urban centers" is also more formal than "urban areas."
"avoiding overpopulation" -> "to mitigate overpopulation"
Explanation: "To mitigate" is a more formal and precise verb than "avoiding," which is somewhat informal and vague in this context.
"reducing housing cost, living cost, traffic congestion and potential diminish unemployment rate" -> "reducing housing costs, living costs, traffic congestion, and potentially decreasing the unemployment rate"
Explanation: This revision corrects grammatical errors and uses "potentially decreasing" to specify the potential effect on unemployment rates, enhancing clarity and formality.
"reaffirm" -> "reiterate"
Explanation: "Reiterate" is more appropriate in academic writing to emphasize the repetition of an opinion or statement, whereas "reaffirm" can imply a confirmation of something previously stated.

These changes enhance the precision, formality, and clarity of the essay, aligning it more closely with academic writing standards.

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 the potential consequences of relocating large companies and factories to rural areas. It acknowledges the negative impacts on the environment and infrastructure, which is a relevant aspect of the question. However, it fails to fully explore the potential benefits of such a relocation, which is a critical part of the prompt asking for the extent of agreement or disagreement. The essay primarily focuses on the negative aspects, leading to an unbalanced response.
- How to improve: To enhance the response, the writer should consider discussing both the advantages and disadvantages of relocating businesses. This could involve exploring how such moves might alleviate urban issues like housing shortages and traffic congestion, thereby providing a more nuanced view of the topic.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay states a clear position of disagreement with the relocation of companies to rural areas. However, the clarity of this position is somewhat undermined by the introduction of counterarguments that are not fully addressed. The phrase "the opponents might argue" introduces a conflicting viewpoint without adequately refuting it, which can confuse the reader about the author’s stance.
- How to improve: To maintain a clear position, the writer should explicitly state their viewpoint in the introduction and consistently reinforce it throughout the essay. When presenting counterarguments, it’s essential to provide a strong rebuttal that clearly aligns with the main argument, ensuring that the reader understands the author’s perspective.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents several ideas regarding the negative impacts of relocating companies, such as environmental degradation and increased traffic. However, these ideas are not sufficiently extended or supported with specific examples or data. For instance, while the essay mentions the destruction of habitats, it does not provide concrete examples or statistics to illustrate the extent of this issue.
- How to improve: To strengthen the essay, the writer should aim to elaborate on key points with specific examples, case studies, or statistical evidence. This would not only support the claims made but also demonstrate a deeper understanding of the topic. Additionally, including more varied examples could enhance the overall persuasiveness of the argument.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, discussing the implications of relocating businesses to rural areas. However, there are moments where the focus shifts, particularly when discussing the potential benefits of urban relocation without adequately linking them back to the main argument against such a move. This can lead to a lack of coherence in the overall argument.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer should ensure that every point made directly relates back to the central thesis. It would be beneficial to use topic sentences that clearly indicate how each paragraph contributes to the overall argument. Additionally, summarizing how each point ties back to the main argument in the conclusion would reinforce the essay’s coherence.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of the topic and presents a clear position, it can be improved by providing a more balanced view, extending and supporting ideas with specific evidence, and maintaining a consistent focus throughout.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 7

Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear structure, starting with an introduction that outlines the main argument against relocating businesses to rural areas. The body paragraphs follow a logical sequence, discussing the negative environmental impacts and the potential for increased traffic. However, the transition between the first and second body paragraphs could be smoother. For instance, the shift from discussing environmental concerns to the counterargument feels abrupt and lacks a clear linking statement that would guide the reader through the argument.
- How to improve: To enhance logical flow, consider using transitional phrases that connect ideas more explicitly. For example, after discussing environmental issues, a sentence like "While these environmental concerns are significant, it is also important to consider the broader implications on urban living" could serve as a bridge to the next point. Additionally, ensuring that each paragraph begins with a clear topic sentence can help reinforce the main idea being discussed.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay utilizes paragraphs effectively, with each paragraph focusing on a specific aspect of the argument. The first paragraph addresses the introduction and the stance taken, while the subsequent paragraphs delve into specific points. However, the second body paragraph could benefit from clearer separation of ideas, as it combines the counterargument with supporting points without distinct paragraph breaks.
- How to improve: To improve paragraphing, ensure that each paragraph contains a single main idea supported by relevant examples. Consider splitting the second body paragraph into two: one focusing on the counterargument and the other discussing the benefits of relocating businesses. This separation will clarify the argument and make it easier for the reader to follow the discussion.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a reasonable use of cohesive devices, such as "Firstly," "In addition," and "However," to guide the reader through the argument. However, the range of cohesive devices is somewhat limited, and some phrases are repeated, which can detract from the overall fluency of the writing. For instance, the phrase "moving companies and factories to rural areas" appears multiple times, which can make the text feel redundant.
- How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, consider incorporating a wider variety of linking words and phrases. For example, instead of repeatedly using "moving," synonyms like "relocating" or "transferring" could be employed. Additionally, using phrases like "On the other hand" or "Conversely" can help to introduce contrasting ideas more effectively. Practicing the use of different cohesive devices in writing exercises can also enhance fluency and coherence.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of coherence and cohesion, implementing the suggested improvements can elevate the writing to a higher level of clarity and effectiveness.

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 reasonable range of vocabulary, with terms such as "relocating," "detrimental effects," and "biodiversity loss." However, the vocabulary used is somewhat repetitive, particularly with phrases like "moving companies and factories" and "rural areas," which appear multiple times. This limits the lexical variety and can detract from the overall quality of the writing.
- How to improve: To enhance lexical range, the writer should incorporate synonyms and varied expressions. For example, instead of repeatedly using "moving," alternatives like "transferring," "shifting," or "relocating" could be employed. Additionally, varying the terms for "rural areas" with phrases like "countryside," "outlying regions," or "less urbanized zones" would improve the essay’s vocabulary diversity.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay includes some precise vocabulary, such as "ecosystem disruption" and "commute times," which effectively convey the intended meaning. However, there are instances of imprecise usage, such as "infractures," which appears to be a typographical error for "infrastructure." This kind of error can lead to confusion and detracts from the clarity of the argument.
- How to improve: To improve precision, the writer should carefully proofread the essay to catch typographical errors and ensure that all terms are used correctly. Additionally, using contextually appropriate vocabulary will enhance clarity; for instance, instead of "potential diminish unemployment rate," a more precise phrase would be "potentially decrease the unemployment rate."
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains a few spelling errors, most notably "infractures" instead of "infrastructure." Such mistakes can undermine the credibility of the writing and distract the reader from the argument being presented.
- How to improve: To enhance spelling accuracy, the writer should engage in regular practice, such as writing exercises focused on commonly misspelled words. Utilizing spell-check tools and reading the essay aloud can also help identify errors. Furthermore, creating a list of commonly used terms related to the topic and practicing their spelling can be beneficial.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of the topic and presents a coherent argument, improvements in vocabulary range, precision, and spelling accuracy are necessary to achieve a higher band score in Lexical Resource.

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 instance, the use of complex sentences is evident in phrases like "Constructing new housing and infrastructure in the countryside often requires clearing land, which can be the home to various animal species and green trees." This showcases an ability to convey detailed ideas effectively. However, there are instances where sentence structures could be more varied to enhance the overall fluency and engagement of the writing. For example, the sentence "The opponents might argue that moving large businesses, including their factories and employees, to the countryside can have negative impacts on the environment and traffic infrastructures" could be restructured for better flow.
- How to improve: To diversify sentence structures, consider incorporating more varied introductory phrases, such as "While some may argue that…" or "In contrast to this viewpoint…". Additionally, using more conditional sentences (e.g., "If companies were to relocate, they might…") could add depth to the argumentation. Practicing the use of inversion and different conjunctions can also help in creating more complex and engaging sentences.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally maintains a good level of grammatical accuracy, with only a few minor errors. For example, the phrase "negative consequences on the environment and infractures" contains a spelling error ("infractures" should be "infrastructure"). Additionally, the sentence "leading to congestion, slower travel times and potential safety concerns" could benefit from a comma before "and" for clarity, as it lists multiple outcomes. Overall, the essay’s grammatical structures are mostly correct, but attention to detail is necessary to avoid such errors.
- How to improve: To enhance grammatical accuracy, it is advisable to proofread the essay for spelling and punctuation errors. Reading the essay aloud can help identify awkward phrasing or missing punctuation. Additionally, focusing on common grammatical pitfalls, such as subject-verb agreement and the correct use of articles, can further improve accuracy. Engaging in targeted grammar exercises, especially around commonly confused words and punctuation rules, will also be beneficial.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a solid command of grammatical range and accuracy, there is room for improvement in diversifying sentence structures and ensuring meticulous attention to grammatical details. Implementing the suggested strategies will help elevate the writing to a higher band score.

Bài sửa mẫu

Increased traffic and lack of housing supply are significant concerns in many places. By relocating large businesses, including their factories and employees, to rural areas, these issues can be effectively addressed. However, I strongly disagree with this opinion.

To begin with, moving companies and factories to rural areas can have negative consequences on the natural environment and infrastructure. Firstly, the relocation of big companies to rural areas may destroy the natural surroundings. Constructing new housing and infrastructure in the countryside often requires clearing land, which can be home to various animal species and vegetation. This loss of habitat can have detrimental effects on local wildlife, leading to biodiversity loss and ecosystem disruption. In addition, moving industries to the countryside might result in longer commute times and increased traffic on rural roads. With more employees commuting to work from the countryside, there is a greater likelihood of increased traffic on rural roads, although these roads are frequently not designed to accommodate heavy traffic volumes, leading to congestion, slower travel times, and potential safety concerns.

Opponents might argue that moving large businesses, including their factories and employees, to the countryside can have negative impacts on the environment and traffic infrastructure. However, the relocation of companies and factories to rural areas is likely instrumental in addressing persistent issues in urban areas. This is mainly because many individuals no longer migrate to urban centers to find jobs, which helps to mitigate overpopulation; thereby, reducing housing costs, living costs, traffic congestion, and potentially decreasing the unemployment rate. This could help to reduce crime rates and other social issues in inner cities.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that the relocation of large businesses, including their factories and employees, to rural areas can have some negative consequences on the natural environment and traffic infrastructure.