we would ban all forms of corporal punishment of children in vietnam

we would ban all forms of corporal punishment of children in vietnam

first of all the proposition would like to clarify how policy would effectively uh eliminate corporal punishment specifically our education policy which you seem to have missed in combination with our financial policies served as an en levied against first-time offenders and uh corporal punishers in general access deterrence to multiple relapses and therefore avoid like after that uh deterrence for longer financial burdens
therefore these people are incentivized to exactly uh shift away from the this kind of corporal punishment and enact more progressive and more more healthy uh terms of discipline all the while still being effective enough to deter uh corporate punishment as i've mentioned second of all our policy of separation has a long-term trade-off that you seem to of using a fail to recognize here the temporary psychological damage and emotional separation uh is trivial compared to the long-term and physical detriments of being being in a projected
relationship with an abuser of being in a household that basically endorses violence and sees violence as a as the answer to everything another crucial plus of separation is that it ends the vicious cycle we have mentioned of generational violence because children won't internalize the message that violence is the answer and they won't pass that down to their generations as well we'd like to also clarify that the new family that children are reinstated into provides a healthier metric for the development of
children children the the primary stakeholder that we should be focusing on here um what is more you team your team has levied some arguments that don't hold water and you have failed to support the mechanism and impacts behind those such as the inevitable the inevitable of scenario of global punishment just proliferating you haven't provided any adequate proof of that what is more in your even in your worst case scenario of parents resorting to other draconian methods other draconian methods of discipline
such as shouting the child will at least be their child will at least be protected from the physical trauma and physical implications in the short and long run of being uh being corporately abused which is also beneficial because it protects the fundamental right of the child the fundamental right to dignity and to protection from violence uh what is more you have uh provided inadequate proof that parents won't see this as a call to action and won't be incentivized to shift their behavior and shift their tools out to
more uh progressive tools and will instead double down on corporately punishing their children we believe that um that promulgation of these new policies on the media and elsewhere will act as a call to action for parents now actions to not uh hit their children anymore but to consider and implement more more progressive policies uh what is more you seem to have focused so much on escalation and discretion that you failed to realize the weigh-ins in this discussion right here the ban not only affects the household but it also
affects schools schools where teachers are currently shaming and physically uh physically subjugating their child their students to so much physical trauma and humiliation the trade-off is definitive in that educational institutions cannot allow this type of punishment to to go on furthermore the scale of this particular facet is noticeable because all schools especially primary and secondary schools will be affected what is more parents are likely to observe a progressive change of mind and as i've said before won't double down on
their corporal punishment he also seems to to hinge upon the idea that children won't recognize a policy change has taken place even though we mentioned that the media will in fact cover this even though we mentioned that children will be somehow exposed to this particular policy and therefore children will know their rights and will stand up to fight them in conclusion our policy works because as a second speaker has said before it outlaws corporal punishment and it provides incentives for plan to shift to
more righteous and more justifiable forms of discipline more effective in fact and furthermore you your guys haven't provided any uh any type of argument against corporate punishment and against our policy in general that hold water

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

Errors and Improvements:

1. "first of all the proposition would like to clarify how policy would effectively uh eliminate corporal punishment specifically our education policy which you seem to have missed in combination with our financial policies served as an en levied against first-time offenders and uh corporal punishers in general access deterrence to multiple relapses and therefore avoid like after that uh deterrence for longer financial burdens"
   -> "Firstly, the proposition aims to elucidate how our policy effectively eradicates corporal punishment. Specifically, our education policy, which may have been overlooked, coupled with our financial policies, acts as a deterrent imposed on first-time offenders and general proponents of corporal punishment. This serves to discourage multiple relapses, thereby preventing prolonged financial burdens."
   Explanation: Restructuring the sentence with formal transitions like "Firstly" and employing clearer terminology enhances the readability and formality of the statement.

2. "therefore these people are incentivized to exactly uh shift away from the this kind of corporal punishment and enact more progressive and more more healthy uh terms of discipline all the while still being effective enough to deter uh corporate punishment as i’ve mentioned"
   -> "Hence, individuals are motivated to precisely transition away from this form of corporal punishment and adopt more progressive and healthier disciplinary measures, all the while ensuring effectiveness in deterring corporal punishment, as previously discussed."
   Explanation: The revised sentence eliminates redundancy, uses precise language, and maintains a formal tone, contributing to a more polished expression of ideas.

3. "second of all our policy of separation has a long-term trade-off that you seem to of using a fail to recognize here the temporary psychological damage and emotional separation uh is trivial compared to the long-term and physical detriments of being being in a projected relationship with an abuser of being in a household that basically endorses violence and sees violence as a as the answer to everything"
   -> "Secondly, our policy of separation entails a long-term trade-off that you appear to have overlooked. The temporary psychological damage and emotional separation are relatively inconsequential when contrasted with the enduring physical detriments of residing in a projected relationship with an abuser or within a household that fundamentally endorses violence as a solution to all issues."
   Explanation: The suggested changes enhance clarity and formality by removing colloquial expressions and improving the structure of the sentence.

4. "another crucial plus of separation is that it ends the vicious cycle we have mentioned of generational violence because children won’t internalize the message that violence is the answer and they won’t pass that down to their generations as well"
   -> "Another crucial benefit of separation is its capacity to break the vicious cycle of generational violence, preventing children from internalizing the message that violence is the solution and averting the transmission of such beliefs to subsequent generations."
   Explanation: The revised version employs more formal language and provides a clearer expression of the idea, eliminating unnecessary repetition.

5. "we’d like to also clarify that the new family that children are reinstated into provides a healthier metric for the development of children children the the primary stakeholder that we should be focusing on here um"
   -> "We would also like to emphasize that the new family into which children are reinstated offers a healthier framework for their development. Children, being the primary stakeholders in this context, deserve our focused attention."
   Explanation: The suggested changes eliminate redundancies and improve precision, contributing to a more formal and concise expression.

These improvements aim to enhance the essay’s formality, precision, and clarity without introducing overly complex vocabulary.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Task Response: 6

• Answer All Parts of the Question:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay attempts to address various aspects of the proposed ban on corporal punishment, discussing the policy’s effectiveness, long-term impact, separation policy, and counterarguments. However, the response lacks clarity in some sections, making it challenging to discern the complete coverage of the prompt.
  • How to improve: Begin each paragraph with a clear topic sentence that directly connects to the prompt. Clearly outline how the policy would eliminate corporal punishment and ensure that each part of the question is explicitly addressed.

• Present a Clear Position Throughout:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a generally clear position in favor of banning corporal punishment. However, there are instances of unclear phrasing and convoluted sentences that could be interpreted differently. Some sentences may leave the reader questioning the author’s stance.
  • How to improve: Use concise and unambiguous language to express the essay’s position. Avoid overly complex sentences and ensure that each sentence contributes to the overall clarity of the argument.

• Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay presents ideas regarding the effectiveness of the policy, the long-term benefits of separation, and refutations of counterarguments. However, the development of these ideas is hindered by unclear expression, making it challenging for the reader to follow the argument coherently.
  • How to improve: Structure paragraphs logically with a clear introduction, supporting details, and a conclusion. Elaborate on each point with concrete examples, statistics, or relevant evidence to strengthen the overall argument.

• Stay on Topic:

  • Detailed explanation: While the essay addresses the topic of banning corporal punishment, some sections are less focused and contain vague statements. There is room for improvement in maintaining a more consistent connection to the prompt.
  • How to improve: Stay focused on the main topic throughout the essay. Avoid unnecessary details or deviations from the central argument. Each paragraph should contribute directly to the overall discussion of the proposed ban on corporal punishment.

In summary, the essay demonstrates a basic understanding of the prompt and attempts to address various aspects of the proposed policy. To improve, the writer should enhance clarity, coherence, and focus by refining sentence structure, providing concrete examples, and ensuring each paragraph directly relates to the central theme.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 7

• Organize Information Logically:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a reasonable level of logical organization. It begins by addressing the proposition and outlines the policies effectively. However, the use of language is somewhat convoluted, making it challenging to follow the argument seamlessly. The essay tends to jump between ideas without clear transitions.
  • How to improve: To enhance logical flow, the writer should focus on presenting ideas in a more organized and sequential manner. Use clear topic sentences and transitions between paragraphs to guide the reader through the argument. Additionally, simplifying the language and sentence structure can contribute to better coherence.

• Use Paragraphs:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay utilizes paragraphs, but their structure could be improved for more effectiveness. Some paragraphs are lengthy, leading to a lack of clarity and making it difficult for the reader to identify key points. Additionally, there is a need for stronger topic sentences to introduce each paragraph’s main idea.
  • How to improve: Consider breaking down longer paragraphs into smaller, more focused ones. Each paragraph should have a clear central theme, introduced by a concise topic sentence. This not only aids comprehension but also enhances the overall structure of the essay.

• Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay incorporates cohesive devices to connect ideas, but the variety and effectiveness could be improved. There is a reliance on repetitive phrases and filler words, impacting the essay’s coherence. Additionally, some sentences lack explicit connections to previous points.
  • How to improve: Diversify the use of cohesive devices such as conjunctions, transitions, and pronouns to create a smoother flow between sentences and paragraphs. Eliminate unnecessary repetition and focus on creating a more cohesive narrative. Ensure that each sentence contributes directly to the development of the overall argument.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a reasonable level of coherence and cohesion, there is room for improvement in organizing ideas logically, structuring paragraphs effectively, and enhancing the use of cohesive devices. Simplifying language, providing clear transitions, and eliminating unnecessary repetition will contribute to a more polished and cohesive essay.

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 moderate range of vocabulary. While there are instances of adequate word choices, the overall use of vocabulary lacks diversity and sophistication. For instance, there is a reliance on certain phrases such as "corporal punishment," "progressive," and "effective" throughout the essay. Greater variety in terminology would enhance the depth of expression.
  • How to improve: To elevate the lexical resource, introduce a wider array of synonyms and specialized terms related to the topic. For example, instead of repeatedly using "corporal punishment," consider alternatives like "physical discipline" or "violent retribution" where appropriate. This not only enriches the language but also showcases a more nuanced understanding of the subject matter.

• Use Vocabulary Precisely:

  • Detailed explanation: The precision of vocabulary usage is inconsistent. Some expressions effectively convey the intended meaning, but there are instances of unclear or awkward phrasing that may confuse the reader. For instance, the phrase "en levied against first-time offenders" is unclear, and the term "corporate punishment" appears to be a typographical error.
  • How to improve: Pay close attention to the choice of words and ensure they accurately convey your intended message. Proofread the essay to catch and correct typographical errors. In cases where a term might be confusing or imprecise, consider rephrasing for clarity. For example, you could replace "en levied" with "imposed" for a clearer expression.

• Use Correct Spelling:

  • Detailed explanation: Spelling accuracy is generally acceptable, with minimal spelling errors observed. However, there are instances of typographical errors and missing words that slightly impact the overall coherence.
  • How to improve: Prioritize thorough proofreading to catch and rectify any typographical errors or missing words. Consider reading the essay aloud or asking someone else to review it to identify any overlooked mistakes. Consistent attention to spelling accuracy will enhance the professionalism of the essay.

In conclusion, while the essay exhibits competence in vocabulary usage, there is room for improvement in terms of diversification, precision, and meticulous proofreading. Implementing these suggestions will contribute to a more refined and effective expression of ideas.

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 exhibits a moderate range of sentence structures, including both simple and complex constructions. There is an attempt at variety, but some sentences lack clarity and coherence, making the essay’s overall structure somewhat uneven. For instance, the use of phrases like "uh" and repetitions affect the fluency.
  • How to improve: To enhance grammatical range and coherence, consider incorporating a more diverse set of sentence structures. Replace filler words like "uh" with pauses or transitional phrases for smoother transitions. Aim for a more consistent flow to improve overall readability.

• Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates generally accurate grammar and punctuation. However, there are instances of grammatical errors, such as subject-verb agreement issues ("seem to of using" should be "seem to have used"). Additionally, there are punctuation inconsistencies, including missing commas and awkward sentence breaks that hinder the essay’s overall clarity.
  • How to improve: Pay close attention to grammatical details, particularly subject-verb agreement. Proofread the essay for punctuation errors and ensure consistent punctuation throughout. Consider using more complex punctuation structures (e.g., colons, semicolons) to enhance sentence variety and clarity. Revise awkward sentence breaks for smoother transitions.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a commendable command of grammar and punctuation, there is room for improvement in sentence structure variety and clarity. Focus on refining these aspects to elevate the essay’s overall coherence and readability.

Bài sửa mẫu

Firstly, the proposal aims to clarify how our policy would effectively eliminate corporal punishment. Specifically, our education policy, often overlooked, in combination with our financial policies, acts as a deterrent imposed on first-time offenders and general proponents of corporal punishment. This serves to discourage multiple relapses, thereby preventing prolonged financial burdens. Hence, individuals are motivated to precisely transition away from this form of corporal punishment and adopt more progressive and healthier disciplinary measures, all the while ensuring effectiveness in deterring corporal punishment, as previously discussed.

Secondly, our policy of separation entails a long-term trade-off that you appear to have overlooked. The temporary psychological damage and emotional separation are relatively inconsequential when contrasted with the enduring physical detriments of residing in a projected relationship with an abuser or within a household that fundamentally endorses violence as a solution to all issues. Another crucial benefit of separation is its capacity to break the vicious cycle of generational violence, preventing children from internalizing the message that violence is the solution and averting the transmission of such beliefs to subsequent generations. We would also like to emphasize that the new family into which children are reinstated offers a healthier framework for their development. Children, being the primary stakeholders in this context, deserve our focused attention.

Furthermore, your team has raised arguments that don’t hold water, and you have failed to support the mechanisms and impacts behind those, such as the inevitable scenario of global punishment proliferating. You haven’t provided adequate proof of that. In your worst-case scenario of parents resorting to other draconian methods of discipline, such as shouting, the child will at least be protected from the physical trauma and implications in the short and long run of being corporally abused. This is beneficial as it protects the fundamental right of the child to dignity and protection from violence. Moreover, you have provided inadequate proof that parents won’t see this as a call to action and won’t be incentivized to shift their behavior and tools to more progressive methods, instead of doubling down on corporally punishing their children.

We believe that the promulgation of these new policies in the media and elsewhere will act as a call to action for parents, urging them not to hit their children anymore but to consider and implement more progressive policies. Furthermore, you seem to have focused so much on escalation and discretion that you failed to realize the weigh-ins in this discussion. The ban not only affects the household but also schools, where teachers are currently shaming and physically subjugating their students to physical trauma and humiliation. The trade-off is definitive in that educational institutions cannot allow this type of punishment to go on. Furthermore, the scale of this particular facet is noticeable because all schools, especially primary and secondary schools, will be affected. What is more, parents are likely to observe a progressive change of mind and, as mentioned before, won’t double down on their corporal punishment.

It also seems to hinge upon the idea that children won’t recognize a policy change has taken place, even though we mentioned that the media will cover this, and children will be somehow exposed to this particular policy. Therefore, children will know their rights and stand up to fight them. In conclusion, our policy works because, as the second speaker has said before, it outlaws corporal punishment and provides incentives for parents to shift to more righteous and justifiable forms of discipline, which are more effective, in fact. Furthermore, your team hasn’t provided any arguments against corporal punishment and our policy in general that hold water.