아이엘츠 라이팅 AI 첨삭
- Opinion
Some people say that animals should not be exploited for the benefit of human beings unless there is evidence that the animals do not suffer in any way. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
스코어팩토리 AI가 에세이를 평가하였습니다.
Evaluation
Task Response: 7
The essay addressed the task with a clear opinion and relevant ideas. The writer successfully included both views in the discussion. However, the essay could be improved by exploring the topic more in-depth and providing stronger evidence to support the writer’s viewpoint.
Coherence & Cohesion: 8
The essay is well organized with a logical progression of ideas. Clear topic sentences and cohesive devices were used effectively, which helped in maintaining the coherence across the essay.
Lexical Resource: 7
The writer used a good range of vocabulary and demonstrated awareness of collocations. However, there were several instances where the vocabulary was not fully exploited, and words were repeated.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy: 7
The writer used a variety of structures and demonstrated a good control of grammar. However, there were a few minor errors (e.g. "knowledgement" which is not a correct English term, should be "knowledge") that impacted the accuracy of language use.
Overall: 7.25
The essay was well written, but there was room for improvement in terms of task response and lexical resource. Minor grammatical errors were also found, which affected the overall score. The overall band score is an average of the four criteria scores.
Task Response: 7
The essay addressed the task with a clear opinion and relevant ideas. The writer successfully included both views in the discussion. However, the essay could be improved by exploring the topic more in-depth and providing stronger evidence to support the writer’s viewpoint.
Coherence & Cohesion: 8
The essay is well organized with a logical progression of ideas. Clear topic sentences and cohesive devices were used effectively, which helped in maintaining the coherence across the essay.
Lexical Resource: 7
The writer used a good range of vocabulary and demonstrated awareness of collocations. However, there were several instances where the vocabulary was not fully exploited, and words were repeated.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy: 7
The writer used a variety of structures and demonstrated a good control of grammar. However, there were a few minor errors (e.g. "knowledgement" which is not a correct English term, should be "knowledge") that impacted the accuracy of language use.
Overall: 7.25
The essay was well written, but there was room for improvement in terms of task response and lexical resource. Minor grammatical errors were also found, which affected the overall score. The overall band score is an average of the four criteria scores.
스코어팩토리 AI가 작성한 모범답안입니다.
Some people say that animals should not be exploited for the benefit of human beings unless there is evidence that the animals do not suffer in any way. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Essay:
Limiting the exploitation of animals for human benefits is a contentious issue that often provokes diverging opinions. While some argue that any usage causing potential animal suffering is wrong, others incline towards their usage, emphasizing the importance of human well-being.
On one side of the argument is the belief that inflicting suffering on animals through experiments, particularly cosmetic testing, is utterly inhumane. There are inflexibly stern animal rights activists who staunchly denounce all forms of animal utilization, citing instances such as stringent bans on animal testing in the EU and the UK cannot be overlooked.
Contrastingly, there are those who advocate the selective and regulated use of animal testing, particularly when it pertains to the betterment of human and animal health alike. Considering that such experiments are instrumental in advancing medical knowledge, their outright dismissal seems unwise. For instance, countless vital breakthroughs in medication have been made possible thanks to animal testing. It's important to note that minimizing animal suffering during such tests is a strong objective of conscientious researchers.
In conclusion, while it's crucial to mitigate unwarranted animal suffering, the categorical rejection of animal testing seems impractical given its considerable contribution towards medical advancements.
Word count: 195
Essay translated in Korean:
동물을 인간의 이익을 위해 이용하는 것에 제한을 두는 것은 논란의 여지가 있는 문제로 종종 이견을 촉발한다. 일부는 가능한 동물 고통을 일으키는 어떠한 사용도 잘못되었다고 주장하면서, 다른 사람들은 인간의 복지의 중요성을 강조하면서 그들의 사용에 기울어진다.
논쟁의 한 쪽에는 동물실험을 통해 동물에 고통을 가하기는 것, 특히 화장품 테스트는 전적으로 비인간적이라는 믿음이 있다. EU와 UK에서 동물 테스트에 대한 엄격한 금지를 인용하여 모든 형태의 동물 이용을 끝까지 비난하는 매우 엄격한 동물권 이용주의자들이 있다.
반대로, 일부 사람들은 인간과 동물의 건강 향상에 관련한 경우에 한해서 동물 테스트의 선택적이고 규제된 사용을 주장한다. 이러한 실험이 의료 지식을 확대하는 데 중추적인 역할을 하는 것을 감안할 때 그들의 완전한 폐지는 현명해 보이지 않는다. 예를 들어, 수많은 중요한 약물에 대한 돌파구가 동물 실험 덕분에 가능하게 되었다. 이러한 테스트 동안 동물 고통을 최소화하는 것이 성실한 연구자들의 강력한 목표라는 것을 알아두는 것이 중요하다.
결론적으로, 불필요한 동물 고통을 완화하는 것이 중요하지만, 의료 발전에 대한 중요한 기여를 감안하면 동물 테스트의 카테고리적인 거부는 비현실적으로 보인다.
Good expressions:
1. Mitigate unwarranted animal suffering - 불필요한 동물 고통을 완화하다
2. Inflexibly stern animal rights activists - 매우 엄격한 동물권 이용주의자들
3. Betterment of human and animal health alike - 인간과 동물 모두의 건강 향상
4. Its considerable contribution towards medical advancements - 의료 발전에 대한 중요한 기여
Limiting the exploitation of animals for human benefits is a contentious issue that often provokes diverging opinions. While some argue that any usage causing potential animal suffering is wrong, others incline towards their usage, emphasizing the importance of human well-being.
On one side of the argument is the belief that inflicting suffering on animals through experiments, particularly cosmetic testing, is utterly inhumane. There are inflexibly stern animal rights activists who staunchly denounce all forms of animal utilization, citing instances such as stringent bans on animal testing in the EU and the UK cannot be overlooked.
Contrastingly, there are those who advocate the selective and regulated use of animal testing, particularly when it pertains to the betterment of human and animal health alike. Considering that such experiments are instrumental in advancing medical knowledge, their outright dismissal seems unwise. For instance, countless vital breakthroughs in medication have been made possible thanks to animal testing. It's important to note that minimizing animal suffering during such tests is a strong objective of conscientious researchers.
In conclusion, while it's crucial to mitigate unwarranted animal suffering, the categorical rejection of animal testing seems impractical given its considerable contribution towards medical advancements.
Word count: 195
Essay translated in Korean:
동물을 인간의 이익을 위해 이용하는 것에 제한을 두는 것은 논란의 여지가 있는 문제로 종종 이견을 촉발한다. 일부는 가능한 동물 고통을 일으키는 어떠한 사용도 잘못되었다고 주장하면서, 다른 사람들은 인간의 복지의 중요성을 강조하면서 그들의 사용에 기울어진다.
논쟁의 한 쪽에는 동물실험을 통해 동물에 고통을 가하기는 것, 특히 화장품 테스트는 전적으로 비인간적이라는 믿음이 있다. EU와 UK에서 동물 테스트에 대한 엄격한 금지를 인용하여 모든 형태의 동물 이용을 끝까지 비난하는 매우 엄격한 동물권 이용주의자들이 있다.
반대로, 일부 사람들은 인간과 동물의 건강 향상에 관련한 경우에 한해서 동물 테스트의 선택적이고 규제된 사용을 주장한다. 이러한 실험이 의료 지식을 확대하는 데 중추적인 역할을 하는 것을 감안할 때 그들의 완전한 폐지는 현명해 보이지 않는다. 예를 들어, 수많은 중요한 약물에 대한 돌파구가 동물 실험 덕분에 가능하게 되었다. 이러한 테스트 동안 동물 고통을 최소화하는 것이 성실한 연구자들의 강력한 목표라는 것을 알아두는 것이 중요하다.
결론적으로, 불필요한 동물 고통을 완화하는 것이 중요하지만, 의료 발전에 대한 중요한 기여를 감안하면 동물 테스트의 카테고리적인 거부는 비현실적으로 보인다.
Good expressions:
1. Mitigate unwarranted animal suffering - 불필요한 동물 고통을 완화하다
2. Inflexibly stern animal rights activists - 매우 엄격한 동물권 이용주의자들
3. Betterment of human and animal health alike - 인간과 동물 모두의 건강 향상
4. Its considerable contribution towards medical advancements - 의료 발전에 대한 중요한 기여
제출한 라이팅
In terms of making experiments with animals, there is a growing debate over whether we have a right to use animals for the benefit of people. Although some people argue that people should not exploit other species, I believe that human beings can use animals if it benefits human health.
There is an opinion that people do not have a right to use animals if animals could suffer from any reason. Animal lovers insist that we should not exploit animals for developing make-up products or ingredient tests if there is a possibility that they could suffer from the experiments. For example, the United Kingdom and all EU countries ban using animals when testing make-up products since it could lead to animal abuse.
Although animal testing has some problems, I still believe that it should be conducted to some extent for human health. Experiments with animals can help enhance medical and scientific knowledgement. In reality, animals are used in important experiments such as clinical tests for new medicine. Unlike animal lover’s belief, researchers are trying to minimize the pain that animals suffer when the tests are conducted. Success in new medicine tests can help not only improve human health but also animal health.
For the reasons mentioned above, I disagree with the opinion that animals should not be used for the advantages of human beings in any way, because there are many diseases that we have not yet conquered such as cancer and Alzheimer's disease. If animal testing is helpful in overcoming the diseases, we should not stop it.
There is an opinion that people do not have a right to use animals if animals could suffer from any reason. Animal lovers insist that we should not exploit animals for developing make-up products or ingredient tests if there is a possibility that they could suffer from the experiments. For example, the United Kingdom and all EU countries ban using animals when testing make-up products since it could lead to animal abuse.
Although animal testing has some problems, I still believe that it should be conducted to some extent for human health. Experiments with animals can help enhance medical and scientific knowledgement. In reality, animals are used in important experiments such as clinical tests for new medicine. Unlike animal lover’s belief, researchers are trying to minimize the pain that animals suffer when the tests are conducted. Success in new medicine tests can help not only improve human health but also animal health.
For the reasons mentioned above, I disagree with the opinion that animals should not be used for the advantages of human beings in any way, because there are many diseases that we have not yet conquered such as cancer and Alzheimer's disease. If animal testing is helpful in overcoming the diseases, we should not stop it.
공유
목록으로 돌아가기 😎
