아이엘츠 라이팅 AI 첨삭
- Opinion
The government should impose a fee on drivers who use their vehicles during rush hour to help cut down on air pollution from exhaust fumes. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
스코어팩토리 AI가 에세이를 평가하였습니다.
Evaluation
Task Response: 7
The student addresses the task well by providing clear positions throughout the response. However, there is not enough of focus on the extent of agreement or disagreement.
Coherence & Cohesion: 7
Paragraphing is well-managed and ideas are logically organized and connected. However, transitions between some ideas could be smoother.
Lexical Resource: 8
Vocabulary is varied and appropriate to the context, showing a good understanding of a range of language, including less common words and phrases. Some minor errors.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy: 7
The student uses a mix of simple and complex sentence forms and a variety of structures. However, there are grammatical errors ("busy hour", "hafmful", "intrude on").
Overall: 7.25
The student demonstrates a good understanding of the task and the ability to organize ideas in a logical manner. However, attention to grammatical and lexical accuracy will improve the score.
Task Response: 7
The student addresses the task well by providing clear positions throughout the response. However, there is not enough of focus on the extent of agreement or disagreement.
Coherence & Cohesion: 7
Paragraphing is well-managed and ideas are logically organized and connected. However, transitions between some ideas could be smoother.
Lexical Resource: 8
Vocabulary is varied and appropriate to the context, showing a good understanding of a range of language, including less common words and phrases. Some minor errors.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy: 7
The student uses a mix of simple and complex sentence forms and a variety of structures. However, there are grammatical errors ("busy hour", "hafmful", "intrude on").
Overall: 7.25
The student demonstrates a good understanding of the task and the ability to organize ideas in a logical manner. However, attention to grammatical and lexical accuracy will improve the score.
스코어팩토리 AI가 작성한 모범답안입니다.
The government should impose a fee on drivers who use their vehicles during rush hour to help cut down on air pollution from exhaust fumes.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Essay:
There is a prevalent opinion that a levy should be imposed by the authorities on drivers who choose to travel during peak hours in an attempt to curb emission of noxious exhaust fumes. While respecting the underlying environmental principle, I strongly disagree with this idea, and propose alternative measures, as this approach seems intrusive and could infringe on individual liberties.
Initially, it is crucial that individuals have the right to freedom of movement attuned with their needs, and any legislation impeding such a right could be regarded as an intrusion. Moreover, this could severely impact those required to reach their workplaces during these hours, as most consider driving their personal vehicle to be the most efficient mode of commuting. Also, this could potentially lead to over-population on public transport vehicles during rush hours, adversely impacting the commuters.
In addition, there are numerous ways to mitigate the environmental concerns arising from vehicular emissions, without necessarily curtailing individual freedoms. One such solution could be for the government to launch a campaign aimed at reducing vehicular usage voluntarily. Implementing such a campaign can help raise public awareness about the importance of eco-friendly commuting habits.
In summary, the idea of imposing a penalty on drivers during rush hour to reduce vehicular exhaust emissions seems unnecessarily invasive and detrimental, whilst there certainly are more constructive and less intrusive measures available. An educational campaign promoting voluntary decrease in personal vehicle usage seems a more viable and liberty-respecting alternative.
Word count: 260
Essay translated in Korean:
주류의 견해는 정부가 유해한 배기가스를 줄이기 위해 피크 시간에 운전하는 운전자에게 부과료를 부과해야 한다는 것입니다. 그 환경원칙을 존중하면서도, 나는 이 아이디어에 강하게 반대하고 이 접근법이 침략적이며 개인의 자유를 침해할 수 있다고 보기 때문에 대체 수단을 제안합니다.
처음에는, 개인이 자신의 필요에 맞게 움직일 자유를 가질 권리가 중요하며, 이러한 권리를 방해하는 법률은 침략으로 간주될 수 있습니다. 또한, 이것은 대부분 개인 차량을 최고 효율의 통근 방법으로 간주하는 이들이 이러한 시간에 직장에 도착해야 하는 이들에게 크게 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 이것은 또한 피크 시간 동안 대중 교통 수단에 과잉 인구가 초래되어 통근자에게 부정적인 영향을 줄 수 있습니다.
또한 개인의 자유를 필요 이상으로 제한하지 않고도 차량 배출로 인해 생기는 환경 문제를 완화하는 방법이 많습니다. 그러한 해결책 중 하나는 정부에서 자발적으로 차량 사용을 줄이는 캠페인을 실시하는 것입니다. 이런 캠페인을 실시하면 개인 차량 사용의 중요성에 대한 공중의 인식을 높일 수 있습니다.
요약하면, 피크 시간 동안 운전자에게 패널티를 부과해 차량 배출 가스를 줄이는 아이디어는 불필요하게 침략적이고 해로운 것으로 보이며, 확실히 더 건설적이고 덜 침략적인 방법이 확실히 가능합니다. 자발적인 개인 차량 사용 감소를 독려하는 교육 캠페인이 더 현실적이고 자유를 존중하는 대안인 것 같습니다.
Good expressions:
1. prevalent opinion - 주류의 견해
2. curtail individual freedoms - 개인의 자유를 제한하다.
3. intrusive - 침략적인
4. voluntary decrease - 자발적인 감소
5. liberty-respecting alternative - 자유를 존중하는 대안
There is a prevalent opinion that a levy should be imposed by the authorities on drivers who choose to travel during peak hours in an attempt to curb emission of noxious exhaust fumes. While respecting the underlying environmental principle, I strongly disagree with this idea, and propose alternative measures, as this approach seems intrusive and could infringe on individual liberties.
Initially, it is crucial that individuals have the right to freedom of movement attuned with their needs, and any legislation impeding such a right could be regarded as an intrusion. Moreover, this could severely impact those required to reach their workplaces during these hours, as most consider driving their personal vehicle to be the most efficient mode of commuting. Also, this could potentially lead to over-population on public transport vehicles during rush hours, adversely impacting the commuters.
In addition, there are numerous ways to mitigate the environmental concerns arising from vehicular emissions, without necessarily curtailing individual freedoms. One such solution could be for the government to launch a campaign aimed at reducing vehicular usage voluntarily. Implementing such a campaign can help raise public awareness about the importance of eco-friendly commuting habits.
In summary, the idea of imposing a penalty on drivers during rush hour to reduce vehicular exhaust emissions seems unnecessarily invasive and detrimental, whilst there certainly are more constructive and less intrusive measures available. An educational campaign promoting voluntary decrease in personal vehicle usage seems a more viable and liberty-respecting alternative.
Word count: 260
Essay translated in Korean:
주류의 견해는 정부가 유해한 배기가스를 줄이기 위해 피크 시간에 운전하는 운전자에게 부과료를 부과해야 한다는 것입니다. 그 환경원칙을 존중하면서도, 나는 이 아이디어에 강하게 반대하고 이 접근법이 침략적이며 개인의 자유를 침해할 수 있다고 보기 때문에 대체 수단을 제안합니다.
처음에는, 개인이 자신의 필요에 맞게 움직일 자유를 가질 권리가 중요하며, 이러한 권리를 방해하는 법률은 침략으로 간주될 수 있습니다. 또한, 이것은 대부분 개인 차량을 최고 효율의 통근 방법으로 간주하는 이들이 이러한 시간에 직장에 도착해야 하는 이들에게 크게 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 이것은 또한 피크 시간 동안 대중 교통 수단에 과잉 인구가 초래되어 통근자에게 부정적인 영향을 줄 수 있습니다.
또한 개인의 자유를 필요 이상으로 제한하지 않고도 차량 배출로 인해 생기는 환경 문제를 완화하는 방법이 많습니다. 그러한 해결책 중 하나는 정부에서 자발적으로 차량 사용을 줄이는 캠페인을 실시하는 것입니다. 이런 캠페인을 실시하면 개인 차량 사용의 중요성에 대한 공중의 인식을 높일 수 있습니다.
요약하면, 피크 시간 동안 운전자에게 패널티를 부과해 차량 배출 가스를 줄이는 아이디어는 불필요하게 침략적이고 해로운 것으로 보이며, 확실히 더 건설적이고 덜 침략적인 방법이 확실히 가능합니다. 자발적인 개인 차량 사용 감소를 독려하는 교육 캠페인이 더 현실적이고 자유를 존중하는 대안인 것 같습니다.
Good expressions:
1. prevalent opinion - 주류의 견해
2. curtail individual freedoms - 개인의 자유를 제한하다.
3. intrusive - 침략적인
4. voluntary decrease - 자발적인 감소
5. liberty-respecting alternative - 자유를 존중하는 대안
제출한 라이팅
It is a common belief that governments have to impose some fees on people who drive to work or other places during busy hour to protect the environment from hafmful gas emissions.
However, i firmly believe that it not only violates the freedom of movement, but there are also alternatives to conserving the environment.
To begin with, all people have a right to move anywhere whenever they want, the traffic regulation that drivers should pay for personal vehicles surely infringes on the freedom of the movement.
It also has a negative impact on workers who are late for workplaces because driving cars they own is the quickest way to reach a place which they want to go to.
For example, people who want to drive their vehicles during congested time should consider whether they use the cars or not, which leads to them getting inefficient when commuting from home to work.
In addition. it rather would induce people to choose to take public transportation which makes mass transport users overcrowded in subway or bus stations.
On top of that, there are some ways to reduce harmful effects on the environment.
One of those is that governments make a campaign to bring down traffic usage voluntarily.
By doing so, it can raise the awareness of trying to reduce the use of their own cars.
An eco-friendly policy implemented by a government has shown that it can exert a strong effect of improving the polluted air through stimulating people's thoughts about the environment.
Since the environmental campaign started, people voluntarily used mass transportion more often instead of their own vehicles.
To sum up, it is clear that restricting citizen's car use intentionally intrude on their freedom of movement, the method is replaced with another one such as a public eco-friendly campaign.
However, i firmly believe that it not only violates the freedom of movement, but there are also alternatives to conserving the environment.
To begin with, all people have a right to move anywhere whenever they want, the traffic regulation that drivers should pay for personal vehicles surely infringes on the freedom of the movement.
It also has a negative impact on workers who are late for workplaces because driving cars they own is the quickest way to reach a place which they want to go to.
For example, people who want to drive their vehicles during congested time should consider whether they use the cars or not, which leads to them getting inefficient when commuting from home to work.
In addition. it rather would induce people to choose to take public transportation which makes mass transport users overcrowded in subway or bus stations.
On top of that, there are some ways to reduce harmful effects on the environment.
One of those is that governments make a campaign to bring down traffic usage voluntarily.
By doing so, it can raise the awareness of trying to reduce the use of their own cars.
An eco-friendly policy implemented by a government has shown that it can exert a strong effect of improving the polluted air through stimulating people's thoughts about the environment.
Since the environmental campaign started, people voluntarily used mass transportion more often instead of their own vehicles.
To sum up, it is clear that restricting citizen's car use intentionally intrude on their freedom of movement, the method is replaced with another one such as a public eco-friendly campaign.
공유
목록으로 돌아가기 😎
