아이엘츠 라이팅 AI 첨삭
- Discussion
Some people think that the best way to reduce the time spent in traveling to work is to replace parks and gardens close to the city center with apartment buildings for commuters, but others disagree. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
스코어팩토리 AI가 에세이를 평가하였습니다.
Evaluation
Task Response: 6
The essay responds to the task effectively, providing two sides of the argument and giving the writer's opinion. However, it would have benefited from clearer explanations and the inclusion of more concrete examples.
Coherence & Cohesion: 5
The writer's main ideas are organized and developed logically. However, there's some repetition and awkward transition between ideas may confuse the reader.
Lexical Resource: 5
The vocabulary used is adequate but many words are used inappropriately, affecting overall understanding. Also, the language seems somewhat mechanical due to unnecessary repetitions.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy: 6
The essay shows an average control of grammar but there are multiple grammatical shortcomings such as incorrect verb forms, word order, articles usage which affect the clarity of the message sometimes.
Overall: 5.5
The essay responds to the task reasonably well and displays an acceptable understanding of grammar and usage. However, the essay could be improved with more precise expressions, better vocabulary use, smoother transitions, and more accurate grammar.
Task Response: 6
The essay responds to the task effectively, providing two sides of the argument and giving the writer's opinion. However, it would have benefited from clearer explanations and the inclusion of more concrete examples.
Coherence & Cohesion: 5
The writer's main ideas are organized and developed logically. However, there's some repetition and awkward transition between ideas may confuse the reader.
Lexical Resource: 5
The vocabulary used is adequate but many words are used inappropriately, affecting overall understanding. Also, the language seems somewhat mechanical due to unnecessary repetitions.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy: 6
The essay shows an average control of grammar but there are multiple grammatical shortcomings such as incorrect verb forms, word order, articles usage which affect the clarity of the message sometimes.
Overall: 5.5
The essay responds to the task reasonably well and displays an acceptable understanding of grammar and usage. However, the essay could be improved with more precise expressions, better vocabulary use, smoother transitions, and more accurate grammar.
스코어팩토리 AI가 작성한 모범답안입니다.
Some people think that the best way to reduce the time spent in traveling to work is to replace parks and gardens close to the city center with apartment buildings for commuters, but others disagree. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Essay:
The issue of whether to redevelop parks and gardens into apartment buildings to reduce commuting times is contentious. It fuels an ongoing debate between those who advocate for urban density to enhance daily life, and those who resist the environmental impacts of such changes.
Proponents of this proposition argue that modifying metropolitan layouts by integrating residential areas into city centers would greatly benefit suburban commuters. This adjustment, they contend, would reduce travel times, prompt a decrease in vehicle usage, hence easing traffic congestion and pollution. The added convenience and economic benefits could potentially increase the quality of life for people living on the city's outskirts.
However, critics of this idea raise compelling environmental and health concerns. They assert that the rampant eradication of green spaces could lead to the extinction of urban wildlife, such as birds and insects, disrupting the eco-system. Furthermore, they believe that replacing parks with buildings might negatively impact the mental and physical health of city dwellers, given the known therapeutic effects of nature.
Personally, I align with the latter view. I believe humanity's survival is intertwined with that of all life forms, and disturbing one could have widespread repercussions, akin to the butterfly effect. Moreover, cities must strive for a balance between nature and urban development to maintain the well-being of all biotic life. Although it is legitimate to explore ways to enhance commuter's lives, these should not come at the cost of our environment.
Word count: 262
Essay translated in Korean:
도시공원과 정원을 아파트 단지로 재개발하여 출퇴근 시간을 줄이는 문제는 논란의 여지가 많습니다. 도시적 밀집을 통해 일상생활을 향상시키려는 사람들과 이러한 변화의 환경적 영향에 대해 반대하는 사람들 사이에서 지속적인 논쟁이 이루어지고 있습니다.
이 주장의 찬성자들은 도시 구조를 조절하여 주거지를 도시 중심부에 통합함으로써 교외 출퇴근자에게 큰 이익을 줄 것이라고 주장합니다. 차량 사용 감소와 이로 인한 교통 혼잡과 공해 감소로 품질의 삶이 향상될 수 있다는 것입니다.
그러나, 이 아이디어의 비평가들은 설득력 있는 환경 및 건강 문제를 제기합니다. 적극적인 녹지 공간 파괴로 인해 도시 야생동물이 멸종하게 되어 생태계가 붕괴될 수 있다고 주장합니다. 또한 도시지역에서 연락을 용이히 한다면 시민들의 정신적, 신체적 건강에 부정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있다는 것입니다.
개인적으로 나는 후자의 견해에 동의합니다. 인류의 생존은 모든 생명체와 얽혀 있으며, 그 중 하나를 교란하면 넓은 범위로 퍼질 수 있는 나비 효과와 같은 결과를 초래할 수 있다고 믿습니다. 또한, 모든 생물체의 건강을 유지하기 위해 도시는 자연과 도시 개발 사이의 균형을 지향해야 합니다. 출퇴근자의 삶을 향상시키는 방법을 찾는 것이 정당하지만, 이것이 환경에 대한 비용으로 이루어져서는 안 됩니다.
Good expressions:
1. contentious - 논란의 여지가 있는
2. advocate - 지지하다
3. rampant eradication - 무분별한 제거
4. intertwined with - ~와 얽혀있다
5. widespread repercussions - 넓은 범위로 퍼져나가는 파장
6. strive for a balance - 균형을 이루려고 노력하다
7. legitimate to explore - 탐구할 만하다
8. come at the cost of - ~의 대가를 치르다
The issue of whether to redevelop parks and gardens into apartment buildings to reduce commuting times is contentious. It fuels an ongoing debate between those who advocate for urban density to enhance daily life, and those who resist the environmental impacts of such changes.
Proponents of this proposition argue that modifying metropolitan layouts by integrating residential areas into city centers would greatly benefit suburban commuters. This adjustment, they contend, would reduce travel times, prompt a decrease in vehicle usage, hence easing traffic congestion and pollution. The added convenience and economic benefits could potentially increase the quality of life for people living on the city's outskirts.
However, critics of this idea raise compelling environmental and health concerns. They assert that the rampant eradication of green spaces could lead to the extinction of urban wildlife, such as birds and insects, disrupting the eco-system. Furthermore, they believe that replacing parks with buildings might negatively impact the mental and physical health of city dwellers, given the known therapeutic effects of nature.
Personally, I align with the latter view. I believe humanity's survival is intertwined with that of all life forms, and disturbing one could have widespread repercussions, akin to the butterfly effect. Moreover, cities must strive for a balance between nature and urban development to maintain the well-being of all biotic life. Although it is legitimate to explore ways to enhance commuter's lives, these should not come at the cost of our environment.
Word count: 262
Essay translated in Korean:
도시공원과 정원을 아파트 단지로 재개발하여 출퇴근 시간을 줄이는 문제는 논란의 여지가 많습니다. 도시적 밀집을 통해 일상생활을 향상시키려는 사람들과 이러한 변화의 환경적 영향에 대해 반대하는 사람들 사이에서 지속적인 논쟁이 이루어지고 있습니다.
이 주장의 찬성자들은 도시 구조를 조절하여 주거지를 도시 중심부에 통합함으로써 교외 출퇴근자에게 큰 이익을 줄 것이라고 주장합니다. 차량 사용 감소와 이로 인한 교통 혼잡과 공해 감소로 품질의 삶이 향상될 수 있다는 것입니다.
그러나, 이 아이디어의 비평가들은 설득력 있는 환경 및 건강 문제를 제기합니다. 적극적인 녹지 공간 파괴로 인해 도시 야생동물이 멸종하게 되어 생태계가 붕괴될 수 있다고 주장합니다. 또한 도시지역에서 연락을 용이히 한다면 시민들의 정신적, 신체적 건강에 부정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있다는 것입니다.
개인적으로 나는 후자의 견해에 동의합니다. 인류의 생존은 모든 생명체와 얽혀 있으며, 그 중 하나를 교란하면 넓은 범위로 퍼질 수 있는 나비 효과와 같은 결과를 초래할 수 있다고 믿습니다. 또한, 모든 생물체의 건강을 유지하기 위해 도시는 자연과 도시 개발 사이의 균형을 지향해야 합니다. 출퇴근자의 삶을 향상시키는 방법을 찾는 것이 정당하지만, 이것이 환경에 대한 비용으로 이루어져서는 안 됩니다.
Good expressions:
1. contentious - 논란의 여지가 있는
2. advocate - 지지하다
3. rampant eradication - 무분별한 제거
4. intertwined with - ~와 얽혀있다
5. widespread repercussions - 넓은 범위로 퍼져나가는 파장
6. strive for a balance - 균형을 이루려고 노력하다
7. legitimate to explore - 탐구할 만하다
8. come at the cost of - ~의 대가를 치르다
제출한 라이팅
The discussion replacing parks with residence for people who travel from home to city to work everyday is hot potato. One side emphasise it has something to do with the quality of daily life, and others claim destruction of urban nature is going to affect negative health problems conclusionally. In my opinion, both of side is valid and the prior task is finding where they can compromise.
The first supporter say that changing the urban structure is efficient for resident who based on surburb, it helps to descend their stress by reducing their travel time, in addition proportion of using vehicles for commuters may be affact to urban economy and more free from pollution.
On the other side, they assert the more remove ecosystem in the city, it could lead the extinction of inhabitants which dwelled in nature like birds, insects, and plants. Furthermore it occurs threathen of our health mentally and physically. It could not only occur decrease emission, but also collapse balance of nature.
In my opinion, the latter side is where i am. Human can't survive by themeselves. All of creature link with each other for flourishing together. If we disturb to thrive one of them, it might be effect like butterfly effect. And based on my experiences, I felt so much pressure and stress when i was in Seoul, as there are not much nature like parks. However being with nature was very impressive when i was in Sydney, even though there are lots of buildings in the city. Number of parks are scattered everywhere in ther city and lots of preservating spicies of birds and insects, it helps to release stress in the middle of daily life. Neverthless we can't neglect the first side's opinion, so both sides need to make decision for the balance for the health of all of biotic existence
The first supporter say that changing the urban structure is efficient for resident who based on surburb, it helps to descend their stress by reducing their travel time, in addition proportion of using vehicles for commuters may be affact to urban economy and more free from pollution.
On the other side, they assert the more remove ecosystem in the city, it could lead the extinction of inhabitants which dwelled in nature like birds, insects, and plants. Furthermore it occurs threathen of our health mentally and physically. It could not only occur decrease emission, but also collapse balance of nature.
In my opinion, the latter side is where i am. Human can't survive by themeselves. All of creature link with each other for flourishing together. If we disturb to thrive one of them, it might be effect like butterfly effect. And based on my experiences, I felt so much pressure and stress when i was in Seoul, as there are not much nature like parks. However being with nature was very impressive when i was in Sydney, even though there are lots of buildings in the city. Number of parks are scattered everywhere in ther city and lots of preservating spicies of birds and insects, it helps to release stress in the middle of daily life. Neverthless we can't neglect the first side's opinion, so both sides need to make decision for the balance for the health of all of biotic existence
공유
목록으로 돌아가기 😎
