아이엘츠 라이팅 AI 첨삭
- Opinion
Some people think the government should focus on reducing environmental pollution and housing problems to help prevent illness and disease. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
스코어팩토리 AI가 에세이를 평가하였습니다.
Evaluation
Task Response: 7
The student clearly presents their point of view and gives arguments supporting and opposing the issue raised in the task. The student's opinion is evident throughout the essay, and both sides of the argument are discussed, satisfying the task's requirements. Some points could do with a bit more depth and development, and the conclusion could provide a stronger, summative statement.
Coherence & Cohesion: 7
The writer demonstrates clear organization in their essay, moving logically from point to point with clear transition phrases. However, there is some repetitiveness in points made and certain ideas could be linked or developed more cohesively.
Lexical Resource: 8
The writer uses a broad range of vocabulary to discuss the topic, with precise word choice bringing clarity to their position. There are some instances of an impressive use of language, highlighting a good control of vocabulary.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy: 7
The writer incorporates a variety of grammatical structures. However, they have made several minor grammatical mistakes, and there are a few awkward sentences that disrupt the natural flow of the essay. Nonetheless, the overall communication is not hampered by these errors.
Overall: 7.25
The essay should get a band score of 7.25 overall. The writer effectively addressed the topic, but further attention should be devoted to enhancing grammatical accuracy and coherence in their arguments. Their vocabulary is the standout feature of their essay, reflecting a broad range and control of language usage. With minor improvements, the writer has the potential to achieve a higher band score.
Task Response: 7
The student clearly presents their point of view and gives arguments supporting and opposing the issue raised in the task. The student's opinion is evident throughout the essay, and both sides of the argument are discussed, satisfying the task's requirements. Some points could do with a bit more depth and development, and the conclusion could provide a stronger, summative statement.
Coherence & Cohesion: 7
The writer demonstrates clear organization in their essay, moving logically from point to point with clear transition phrases. However, there is some repetitiveness in points made and certain ideas could be linked or developed more cohesively.
Lexical Resource: 8
The writer uses a broad range of vocabulary to discuss the topic, with precise word choice bringing clarity to their position. There are some instances of an impressive use of language, highlighting a good control of vocabulary.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy: 7
The writer incorporates a variety of grammatical structures. However, they have made several minor grammatical mistakes, and there are a few awkward sentences that disrupt the natural flow of the essay. Nonetheless, the overall communication is not hampered by these errors.
Overall: 7.25
The essay should get a band score of 7.25 overall. The writer effectively addressed the topic, but further attention should be devoted to enhancing grammatical accuracy and coherence in their arguments. Their vocabulary is the standout feature of their essay, reflecting a broad range and control of language usage. With minor improvements, the writer has the potential to achieve a higher band score.
스코어팩토리 AI가 작성한 모범답안입니다.
Some people think the government should focus on reducing environmental pollution and housing problems to help prevent illness and disease. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Essay:
It is often advocated that governmental measures should be directed toward mitigating environmental pollution and housing issues to ameliorate public health. Although I acknowledge the significance of a clean environment and safe housing, I am of the opinion that concentrating efforts on the improvement of the healthcare sector is a more strategic and practical approach to disease control and prevention.
While curbing environmental pollution and rectifying improper housing is certainly linked to the reduction of health problems, the effectiveness may not be immediate or sweeping. Environmental pollution, predominantly stemming from industrial activities, is a persistent contributor to respiratory ailments such as rhinitis. Unwholesome living conditions, plagued by fungi or harmful chemicals from old paint, are another source of illnesses. Addressing these issues would undeniably cut down on health risks, but the results might not be comprehensive or immediate.
However, I believe that intensifying investment in the healthcare sector is a more potent and far-reaching approach to combating ill health. The healthcare sector serves as the frontline in diagnosing, treating and preventing diseases through scientific methodologies. Nevertheless, the costliness often discourages people from availing themselves of such essential services. With increased government backing, the prices could be reduced, thereby enabling the public to obtain medical care without the worry of financial strain. This approach is, in my opinion, more targeted and immediate in restricting the spread of diseases.
To conclude, while it is important to resolve environmental and housing related issues, they may not be the most efficient strategies. I advocate that the government should primarily focus on fortifying the healthcare sector as I believe this will enable faster and more effective disease intervention and prevention.
Word count: 275
Essay translated in Korean:
환경오염과 주택문제를 줄이는 데 정부 조치를 방향을 밀어 붙여야하는 것을 주장하는 것이 흔하다. 깨끗한 환경과 안전한 주택의 중요성은 인정하지만, 질병 통제와 예방에 한해서 건강 관리 분야 개선에 노력을 집중하는 것이 더 전략적이고 실제적인 접근법이라고 믿습니다.
환경 오염을 줄이고 부적절한 주택을 교정하는 것은 건강 문제를 줄이는 데 분명히 연결되어 있지만, 효과는 즉각적이거나 전체적이지 않을 수 있습니다. 산업 활동에서 주로 기인하는 환경 오염은 비염과 같은 호흡기 질환의 지속적인 원인이다. 곰팡이나 오래된 페인트에서 나오는 유해 화학 물질로 시달리는 불결한 생활 조건은 또 다른 질병의 원인입니다. 이러한 문제를 해결하면 건강 위험을 줄일 수 있지만 결과물이 필요 이상으로 포괄적이거나 즉각적이지 않을 수 있습니다.
그러나 나는 건강 관리 분야에 투자를 강화하는 것이 건강 문제와 싸우는데 더 강력하고 넓은 접근법이라고 믿습니다. 건강 관리 부문은 질병을 진단하고, 치료하고, 예방하는 과학적 방법론을 타고 앞다퉈 출동하는 곳입니다. 그러나 비용이 높아서, 사람들은 종종 이러한 필수 서비스를 이용하는데 망설임을 느낀다. 정부 지원이 늘어나면 가격을 낮출 수 있게 되어 대중이 금전적인 부담 없이 의료 관리를 받을 수 있게 됩니다. 이 접근법은, 저의 의견으로는, 병의 확산을 제한하는데 더 목표 지향적이고 즉각적입니다.
결론적으로, 환경과 주택 관련 문제를 해결하는 것이 중요하지만, 가장 효율적인 전략은 아닐 수 있다. 저는 정부가 건강 관리 부문을 강화하는데 주로 초점을 맞춰야 한다고 주장하며, 이를 통해 더 빠르고 효과적인 질병 중재와 예방이 가능하다고 믿습니다.
Good expressions:
1. mitigating environmental pollution - 환경 오염을 완화하는
2. ameliorate public health - 공공 건강을 개선하는
3. fortifying the healthcare sector - 건강 관리 부문을 강화하는
4. more strategic and practical approach - 더 전략적이고 실제적인 접근법
5. intensifying investment - 투자를 강화하는
It is often advocated that governmental measures should be directed toward mitigating environmental pollution and housing issues to ameliorate public health. Although I acknowledge the significance of a clean environment and safe housing, I am of the opinion that concentrating efforts on the improvement of the healthcare sector is a more strategic and practical approach to disease control and prevention.
While curbing environmental pollution and rectifying improper housing is certainly linked to the reduction of health problems, the effectiveness may not be immediate or sweeping. Environmental pollution, predominantly stemming from industrial activities, is a persistent contributor to respiratory ailments such as rhinitis. Unwholesome living conditions, plagued by fungi or harmful chemicals from old paint, are another source of illnesses. Addressing these issues would undeniably cut down on health risks, but the results might not be comprehensive or immediate.
However, I believe that intensifying investment in the healthcare sector is a more potent and far-reaching approach to combating ill health. The healthcare sector serves as the frontline in diagnosing, treating and preventing diseases through scientific methodologies. Nevertheless, the costliness often discourages people from availing themselves of such essential services. With increased government backing, the prices could be reduced, thereby enabling the public to obtain medical care without the worry of financial strain. This approach is, in my opinion, more targeted and immediate in restricting the spread of diseases.
To conclude, while it is important to resolve environmental and housing related issues, they may not be the most efficient strategies. I advocate that the government should primarily focus on fortifying the healthcare sector as I believe this will enable faster and more effective disease intervention and prevention.
Word count: 275
Essay translated in Korean:
환경오염과 주택문제를 줄이는 데 정부 조치를 방향을 밀어 붙여야하는 것을 주장하는 것이 흔하다. 깨끗한 환경과 안전한 주택의 중요성은 인정하지만, 질병 통제와 예방에 한해서 건강 관리 분야 개선에 노력을 집중하는 것이 더 전략적이고 실제적인 접근법이라고 믿습니다.
환경 오염을 줄이고 부적절한 주택을 교정하는 것은 건강 문제를 줄이는 데 분명히 연결되어 있지만, 효과는 즉각적이거나 전체적이지 않을 수 있습니다. 산업 활동에서 주로 기인하는 환경 오염은 비염과 같은 호흡기 질환의 지속적인 원인이다. 곰팡이나 오래된 페인트에서 나오는 유해 화학 물질로 시달리는 불결한 생활 조건은 또 다른 질병의 원인입니다. 이러한 문제를 해결하면 건강 위험을 줄일 수 있지만 결과물이 필요 이상으로 포괄적이거나 즉각적이지 않을 수 있습니다.
그러나 나는 건강 관리 분야에 투자를 강화하는 것이 건강 문제와 싸우는데 더 강력하고 넓은 접근법이라고 믿습니다. 건강 관리 부문은 질병을 진단하고, 치료하고, 예방하는 과학적 방법론을 타고 앞다퉈 출동하는 곳입니다. 그러나 비용이 높아서, 사람들은 종종 이러한 필수 서비스를 이용하는데 망설임을 느낀다. 정부 지원이 늘어나면 가격을 낮출 수 있게 되어 대중이 금전적인 부담 없이 의료 관리를 받을 수 있게 됩니다. 이 접근법은, 저의 의견으로는, 병의 확산을 제한하는데 더 목표 지향적이고 즉각적입니다.
결론적으로, 환경과 주택 관련 문제를 해결하는 것이 중요하지만, 가장 효율적인 전략은 아닐 수 있다. 저는 정부가 건강 관리 부문을 강화하는데 주로 초점을 맞춰야 한다고 주장하며, 이를 통해 더 빠르고 효과적인 질병 중재와 예방이 가능하다고 믿습니다.
Good expressions:
1. mitigating environmental pollution - 환경 오염을 완화하는
2. ameliorate public health - 공공 건강을 개선하는
3. fortifying the healthcare sector - 건강 관리 부문을 강화하는
4. more strategic and practical approach - 더 전략적이고 실제적인 접근법
5. intensifying investment - 투자를 강화하는
제출한 라이팅
There is a heated debate about government investment on resolving environmental pollution and housing problems for ensuring citizens’ health. Although some people agree with it, I am inclined to believe that government spending on healthcare sector is a better solution. This essay will explore compelling reasons and my stance on this discussion.
The given government action may seem convincing due to following reasons. Firstly, environmental pollution typically implies air quality. The industrial activities release dust into the air, which makes people to breathe in. This increases possibility of respiratory diseases, for example, rhinitis. Furthermore, poorly maintained houses may also cause illness with fungus and various chemicals from old paint. Through resolving environmental pollution and housing problems, previously mentioned diseases can be prevented to some extent.
However, it could be argued that government investment on healthcare sector can be more successful in encountering illness and disease. The healthcare sector, including national health insurance, vaccination, and regular medical check, investigates health issues and methods to cure with scientific approach. Unfortunately, they typically require high cost, which makes people unwilling to enjoy these services and ensure their health. The increase in the government spending implies cheaper price on health services, thus, allowing citizens to enjoy medical benefits without financial burden. This method will play more crucial role in preventing illness and disease than resolving environmental issues.
In conclusion, dealing with environmental and housing issues may be less successful. Instead, the government can consider about focusing on healthcare sector. The easier access to healthcare services will allow citizens to frequently checked and address illness or disease in the early stage.
The given government action may seem convincing due to following reasons. Firstly, environmental pollution typically implies air quality. The industrial activities release dust into the air, which makes people to breathe in. This increases possibility of respiratory diseases, for example, rhinitis. Furthermore, poorly maintained houses may also cause illness with fungus and various chemicals from old paint. Through resolving environmental pollution and housing problems, previously mentioned diseases can be prevented to some extent.
However, it could be argued that government investment on healthcare sector can be more successful in encountering illness and disease. The healthcare sector, including national health insurance, vaccination, and regular medical check, investigates health issues and methods to cure with scientific approach. Unfortunately, they typically require high cost, which makes people unwilling to enjoy these services and ensure their health. The increase in the government spending implies cheaper price on health services, thus, allowing citizens to enjoy medical benefits without financial burden. This method will play more crucial role in preventing illness and disease than resolving environmental issues.
In conclusion, dealing with environmental and housing issues may be less successful. Instead, the government can consider about focusing on healthcare sector. The easier access to healthcare services will allow citizens to frequently checked and address illness or disease in the early stage.
공유
목록으로 돌아가기 😎
