AI IELTS Writing AI Correction
- 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: 8
The essay adequately addresses the task, discussing both sides of the argument and clearly stating the writer's own opinion. The writer presents relevant points and supports them with reasons and examples.
Coherence & Cohesion: 7
The essay is logically organized with clear major points and supporting points. The writer uses cohesive devices to link ideas and paragraphs. However, sometimes these connections could be made clearer and more smoothly transitioned.
Lexical Resource: 8
The writer uses a wide range of vocabulary accurately and effectively. There is some skilful use of less common phrases and idioms such as "metropolitans", "exceeding important factor", and "hollowed residential areas".
Grammatical Range & Accuracy: 7
The essay encompasses a range of complex and simple sentence structures. Almost all sentences are error-free, but there are few mistakes such as the incorrect use of "their" in "their money" (should be "its") and some long-winded sentences can be simplified for clarity.
Overall: 7.5
The essay capably addresses the task at hand, utilizing a good range of vocabulary and sentence structures. Improvements can be made in the coherence, cohesion, and grammar for more clarity and flow. Despite some minor errors, the essay maintains a high level of communicative competence, warranting a score of band 7.5.
Task Response: 8
The essay adequately addresses the task, discussing both sides of the argument and clearly stating the writer's own opinion. The writer presents relevant points and supports them with reasons and examples.
Coherence & Cohesion: 7
The essay is logically organized with clear major points and supporting points. The writer uses cohesive devices to link ideas and paragraphs. However, sometimes these connections could be made clearer and more smoothly transitioned.
Lexical Resource: 8
The writer uses a wide range of vocabulary accurately and effectively. There is some skilful use of less common phrases and idioms such as "metropolitans", "exceeding important factor", and "hollowed residential areas".
Grammatical Range & Accuracy: 7
The essay encompasses a range of complex and simple sentence structures. Almost all sentences are error-free, but there are few mistakes such as the incorrect use of "their" in "their money" (should be "its") and some long-winded sentences can be simplified for clarity.
Overall: 7.5
The essay capably addresses the task at hand, utilizing a good range of vocabulary and sentence structures. Improvements can be made in the coherence, cohesion, and grammar for more clarity and flow. Despite some minor errors, the essay maintains a high level of communicative competence, warranting a score of band 7.5.
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:
While there is a view that converting city parks into residential establishments would curtail commuting times, I contend that such a plan could be counterproductive for a number of reasons.
Firstly, city parks play an integral role in maintaining the mental health of residents. Current research suggests that the presence of natural spaces such as parks can significantly influence the mental wellbeing of city dwellers, even resulting in lower suicide rates. Replacing these recreational areas with apartment buildings may benefit commuters by reducing travel time, but at a substantial cost to general health, which many may argue, is of far greater importance.
Secondly, the economic feasibility of transforming city parks into residential zones should also be considered. Whilst there may be an initial demand for such residences, the lack of immediate vicinity amenities such as parks can deter potential occupants. Existing urban models reflect this theory, with property prices often inflating in areas with close proximity to sizeable green spaces. In light of this, city planners must consider the adverse outcomes of an inadequate demand for new housing - notably, deserted residentials which could foster higher crime rates.
In conclusion, replacing city parks with residence for commuters is a short-sighted solution and would detract from the overall wellbeing of citizens and potentially provoke economic vulnerabilities.
Word count: 260
Essay translated in Korean:
도시 공원을 주거 시설로 변환하면 통근 시간이 단축될 것이라는 견해가 있지만, 이러한 계획이 여러 가지 이유로 역효과를 낼 수 있다는 점에 대해 주장하고 싶습니다.
첫째로, 도시 공원은 주민들의 정신 건강을 유지하는데 중요한 역할을 합니다. 최근의 연구에 따르면, 공원과 같은 자연 공간의 존재는 도시 거주민들의 정신건강에 상당한 영향을 미치며, 심지어 자살율을 낮추는 결과를 가져옵니다. 이런 휴식 공간을 아파트로 바꾸면 통근 시간이 단축되어 통근자들이 이익을 보지만, 대다수 사람들이 더 중요하다고 주장하는 일반적인 건강에 큰 비용을 지불하게 될 것입니다.
둘째로, 도시 공원을 주거지로 전환하는 것은 경제적 타당성도 고려해야 합니다. 처음에는 이런 주거지에 대한 수요가 있을 수 있지만, 공원과 같은 주변 시설이 부족하면 잠재적인 주거민들을 견제할 수 있습니다. 기존 도시 모델은 이 이론을 반영하고 있으며, 다소 큰 공원에 인접한 지역의 부동산 가격이 종종 상승합니다. 이에 따라, 도시 계획자들은 새로운 주택에 대한 수요가 부족한 결과를 고려해야 합니다. 특히 범죄율이 더 높은 방치된 주거지가 생겨날 수 있습니다.
결론적으로, 도시 공원을 통근자들의 주거지로 바꾸는 것은 이기적인 해결책이며, 시민들의 전반적인 건강을 저해하고 경제적 취약성을 야기할 수 있습니다.
Good expressions:
1. curtail commuting times - 통근 시간을 줄이다
2. counterproductive - 역효과를 가져오는
3. integral role - 중요한 역할
4. mental wellbeing - 정신적 건강
5. immediate vicinity amenities - 인접한 편의 시설
6. provoke economic vulnerabilities - 경제적 취약성을 야기하다
While there is a view that converting city parks into residential establishments would curtail commuting times, I contend that such a plan could be counterproductive for a number of reasons.
Firstly, city parks play an integral role in maintaining the mental health of residents. Current research suggests that the presence of natural spaces such as parks can significantly influence the mental wellbeing of city dwellers, even resulting in lower suicide rates. Replacing these recreational areas with apartment buildings may benefit commuters by reducing travel time, but at a substantial cost to general health, which many may argue, is of far greater importance.
Secondly, the economic feasibility of transforming city parks into residential zones should also be considered. Whilst there may be an initial demand for such residences, the lack of immediate vicinity amenities such as parks can deter potential occupants. Existing urban models reflect this theory, with property prices often inflating in areas with close proximity to sizeable green spaces. In light of this, city planners must consider the adverse outcomes of an inadequate demand for new housing - notably, deserted residentials which could foster higher crime rates.
In conclusion, replacing city parks with residence for commuters is a short-sighted solution and would detract from the overall wellbeing of citizens and potentially provoke economic vulnerabilities.
Word count: 260
Essay translated in Korean:
도시 공원을 주거 시설로 변환하면 통근 시간이 단축될 것이라는 견해가 있지만, 이러한 계획이 여러 가지 이유로 역효과를 낼 수 있다는 점에 대해 주장하고 싶습니다.
첫째로, 도시 공원은 주민들의 정신 건강을 유지하는데 중요한 역할을 합니다. 최근의 연구에 따르면, 공원과 같은 자연 공간의 존재는 도시 거주민들의 정신건강에 상당한 영향을 미치며, 심지어 자살율을 낮추는 결과를 가져옵니다. 이런 휴식 공간을 아파트로 바꾸면 통근 시간이 단축되어 통근자들이 이익을 보지만, 대다수 사람들이 더 중요하다고 주장하는 일반적인 건강에 큰 비용을 지불하게 될 것입니다.
둘째로, 도시 공원을 주거지로 전환하는 것은 경제적 타당성도 고려해야 합니다. 처음에는 이런 주거지에 대한 수요가 있을 수 있지만, 공원과 같은 주변 시설이 부족하면 잠재적인 주거민들을 견제할 수 있습니다. 기존 도시 모델은 이 이론을 반영하고 있으며, 다소 큰 공원에 인접한 지역의 부동산 가격이 종종 상승합니다. 이에 따라, 도시 계획자들은 새로운 주택에 대한 수요가 부족한 결과를 고려해야 합니다. 특히 범죄율이 더 높은 방치된 주거지가 생겨날 수 있습니다.
결론적으로, 도시 공원을 통근자들의 주거지로 바꾸는 것은 이기적인 해결책이며, 시민들의 전반적인 건강을 저해하고 경제적 취약성을 야기할 수 있습니다.
Good expressions:
1. curtail commuting times - 통근 시간을 줄이다
2. counterproductive - 역효과를 가져오는
3. integral role - 중요한 역할
4. mental wellbeing - 정신적 건강
5. immediate vicinity amenities - 인접한 편의 시설
6. provoke economic vulnerabilities - 경제적 취약성을 야기하다
제출한 라이팅
Recently, some individuals argue that places where people are able to enjoy nature like city parks should be replaced with homes for commuters. However, in my perspective, this idea is not realistic and practical for following reasons.
Initially, it is essential for residents to have enough areas for parks even in the middle of metropolitans. Based on recent studies, existence of natural places like parks and gardens has a huge effect on people’s mental health. In fact, it is said that the suicide rate is extremely high in a city where people do not have enough parks and places for citizens to enjoy nature. Reconstructions for residential places instead of parks could make commuters be able to save more time. However, for most of them, health issues would be more serious than that.
Furthermore, governments can waste a huge amount of their money if there are enough residents who want to live there. There are a large number of reasons for individuals to get a new home and move. Most people have a tendency to consider environments about their potential neighborhood. The existence of natural areas like parks is a exceeding important factor for new homes. In reality, housing prices around huge decent parks are comparatively high. Thus, in this case, people in charge of this city plans should take in account the situations that the number of applicants for the new residential areas are not enough. In this scenario, the hollowed residential areas could be dangerous, which mean the places where the crime rate is super high. People can see this so easily in reality.
In summation, from my perspective, the replacement of resting area like parks and gardens is not an exemplary idea. The reasoning underpinning this is that the quality of life there goes down by replacing them with new homes and the government can waste money and resources because there are low possibilities of that the enough number of people will want to live there.
Initially, it is essential for residents to have enough areas for parks even in the middle of metropolitans. Based on recent studies, existence of natural places like parks and gardens has a huge effect on people’s mental health. In fact, it is said that the suicide rate is extremely high in a city where people do not have enough parks and places for citizens to enjoy nature. Reconstructions for residential places instead of parks could make commuters be able to save more time. However, for most of them, health issues would be more serious than that.
Furthermore, governments can waste a huge amount of their money if there are enough residents who want to live there. There are a large number of reasons for individuals to get a new home and move. Most people have a tendency to consider environments about their potential neighborhood. The existence of natural areas like parks is a exceeding important factor for new homes. In reality, housing prices around huge decent parks are comparatively high. Thus, in this case, people in charge of this city plans should take in account the situations that the number of applicants for the new residential areas are not enough. In this scenario, the hollowed residential areas could be dangerous, which mean the places where the crime rate is super high. People can see this so easily in reality.
In summation, from my perspective, the replacement of resting area like parks and gardens is not an exemplary idea. The reasoning underpinning this is that the quality of life there goes down by replacing them with new homes and the government can waste money and resources because there are low possibilities of that the enough number of people will want to live there.
공유
リストに戻る 😎
