AI IELTS Writing AI Correction
- Discussion
Some people think that zoos are cruel and all the zoos should be closed. However, other people think that zoos are useful to protect the rare animals. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
스코어팩토리 AI가 에세이를 평가하였습니다.
Evaluation
Task Response: 7
The writer provides a clear and relevant response to the task. The introduction sets out both sides of the argument, and a personal opinion is given. Arguments for each perspective are outlined and supported with reasons, and a conclusion effectively summarises the points made.
Coherence & Cohesion: 6
There is lack of cohesion in some places, which makes the essay a bit difficult to follow. However, the overall structure is logical and clear with an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. The transitions used between ideas could have been smoother.
Lexical Resource: 7
The essay demonstrates a solid range of vocabulary but it sometimes feels forced or not used appropriately. Words and phrases such as 'originally', 'improperly to animals', 'people’s commercial intentions' demonstrate a good understanding of language needed. However, some expressions like 'just pets in home, not animals that can be seen in natural' are not grammatically correct and interrupt the flow of the essay.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy: 6
The essay showcases a range of grammatical structures. However, there are quite a few grammatical and punctuation errors that detract from readability, e.g., the use of the word 'improperly' in 'zoos are improperly to animals' is incorrect. Despite these errors, the meaning is generally clear throughout.
Overall: 6.5
It's a competent essay that covers the task well, but with slightly improved cohesion and more accurate grammar, it could easily achieve upwards of 7.0.
Task Response: 7
The writer provides a clear and relevant response to the task. The introduction sets out both sides of the argument, and a personal opinion is given. Arguments for each perspective are outlined and supported with reasons, and a conclusion effectively summarises the points made.
Coherence & Cohesion: 6
There is lack of cohesion in some places, which makes the essay a bit difficult to follow. However, the overall structure is logical and clear with an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. The transitions used between ideas could have been smoother.
Lexical Resource: 7
The essay demonstrates a solid range of vocabulary but it sometimes feels forced or not used appropriately. Words and phrases such as 'originally', 'improperly to animals', 'people’s commercial intentions' demonstrate a good understanding of language needed. However, some expressions like 'just pets in home, not animals that can be seen in natural' are not grammatically correct and interrupt the flow of the essay.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy: 6
The essay showcases a range of grammatical structures. However, there are quite a few grammatical and punctuation errors that detract from readability, e.g., the use of the word 'improperly' in 'zoos are improperly to animals' is incorrect. Despite these errors, the meaning is generally clear throughout.
Overall: 6.5
It's a competent essay that covers the task well, but with slightly improved cohesion and more accurate grammar, it could easily achieve upwards of 7.0.
스코어팩토리 AI가 작성한 모범답안입니다.
Some people think that zoos are cruel and all the zoos should be closed. However, other people think that zoos are useful to protect the rare animals. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Essay:
There is an ongoing debate whether zoos are a cruel representation of human dominance or sanctuaries for protecting endangered species. My opinion rests with the second perspective and I will present both sides of this debate in the following paragraphs.
Those who believe zoos are cruel argue primarily on the basis of the restricted and unnatural conditions animals are subjected to. Animals, originally occupants of vast wilderness, are confined to narrower spaces and their freedom is compromised, turning them into objects of amusement rather than creatures in their natural environment. Such captivity might result in amplifying stress and anxiety among these animals, a reason why many argue that zoos are unfair and should be eliminated.
On the contrary, proponents of zoos argue that they provide sanctuary to endangered species that are losing their habitats due to human endeavors. The accelerated destruction of environment for human convenience has left many species vulnerable. In such a situation, zoos are seen as solutions which provide environments emulating their natural habitats and offering care when they're sick or hungry.
In conclusion, despite the ethical concerns, zoos seem to be a necessary evil in the current scenario. As responsible beings, it is now our duty to transform these institutions into spaces which ensure animal welfare whilst educating the public about conservation efforts.
Word count: 208
Essay translated in Korean:
사람들 사이에서는 동물원이 인간의 지배력을 잔인하게 나타내는 곳인지, 아니면 멸종 위기에 처한 동물을 보호하는 피난처인지에 대한 논쟁이 계속되고 있습니다. 저는 후자의 관점에 동의하며, 아래의 문단에서 이 논쟁의 양면을 제시하겠습니다.
동물원이 잔인하다고 주장하는 사람들은 동물들이 받게 되는 제한된 비자연적 환경을 중심으로 논하곤 합니다. 본래 광대한 야생의 주민들인 동물들은 좁은 공간에 가두어지며 그들의 자유가 침해받게되며, 이렇게됨으로써 그들은 자연환경에서의 생물 보다는 즐겁게 보는 대상이 되버립니다.
반면, 동물원 찬성론자들은 동물원이 편리함을 추구하는 인간 활동으로 인해 서식지를 잃고있는 멸종위기 동물에게 피난처를 제공한다고 주장합니다. 환경파괴가 가속화되면서 많은 종이 취약해졌습니다. 이런 상황에서 동물원은 그들의 자연서식지를 모방한 환경을 제공하고, 그들이 아프거나 배고플때 돌볼 수 있도록 하는 해결책으로 보는 것입니다.
결론적으로, 윤리적인 문제에도 불구하고 현재의 상황에서 동물원은 필요악인 것 같습니다. 책임감 있는 존재로서, 이제 우리의 의무는 이런 기관을 동물 복지를 확보하며 공공에게 보전노력에 대해 교육하는 공간으로 바꾸는 것입니다.
Good expressions:
1. necessary evil (필요악)
2. confined to narrower spaces (좁은 공간에 가둬지다)
3. losing their habitats (서식지를 잃다)
4. provide sanctuary to endangered species (멸종 위기 종에게 피난처를 제공하다)
5. transform these institutions (이 기관을 변화시키다)
There is an ongoing debate whether zoos are a cruel representation of human dominance or sanctuaries for protecting endangered species. My opinion rests with the second perspective and I will present both sides of this debate in the following paragraphs.
Those who believe zoos are cruel argue primarily on the basis of the restricted and unnatural conditions animals are subjected to. Animals, originally occupants of vast wilderness, are confined to narrower spaces and their freedom is compromised, turning them into objects of amusement rather than creatures in their natural environment. Such captivity might result in amplifying stress and anxiety among these animals, a reason why many argue that zoos are unfair and should be eliminated.
On the contrary, proponents of zoos argue that they provide sanctuary to endangered species that are losing their habitats due to human endeavors. The accelerated destruction of environment for human convenience has left many species vulnerable. In such a situation, zoos are seen as solutions which provide environments emulating their natural habitats and offering care when they're sick or hungry.
In conclusion, despite the ethical concerns, zoos seem to be a necessary evil in the current scenario. As responsible beings, it is now our duty to transform these institutions into spaces which ensure animal welfare whilst educating the public about conservation efforts.
Word count: 208
Essay translated in Korean:
사람들 사이에서는 동물원이 인간의 지배력을 잔인하게 나타내는 곳인지, 아니면 멸종 위기에 처한 동물을 보호하는 피난처인지에 대한 논쟁이 계속되고 있습니다. 저는 후자의 관점에 동의하며, 아래의 문단에서 이 논쟁의 양면을 제시하겠습니다.
동물원이 잔인하다고 주장하는 사람들은 동물들이 받게 되는 제한된 비자연적 환경을 중심으로 논하곤 합니다. 본래 광대한 야생의 주민들인 동물들은 좁은 공간에 가두어지며 그들의 자유가 침해받게되며, 이렇게됨으로써 그들은 자연환경에서의 생물 보다는 즐겁게 보는 대상이 되버립니다.
반면, 동물원 찬성론자들은 동물원이 편리함을 추구하는 인간 활동으로 인해 서식지를 잃고있는 멸종위기 동물에게 피난처를 제공한다고 주장합니다. 환경파괴가 가속화되면서 많은 종이 취약해졌습니다. 이런 상황에서 동물원은 그들의 자연서식지를 모방한 환경을 제공하고, 그들이 아프거나 배고플때 돌볼 수 있도록 하는 해결책으로 보는 것입니다.
결론적으로, 윤리적인 문제에도 불구하고 현재의 상황에서 동물원은 필요악인 것 같습니다. 책임감 있는 존재로서, 이제 우리의 의무는 이런 기관을 동물 복지를 확보하며 공공에게 보전노력에 대해 교육하는 공간으로 바꾸는 것입니다.
Good expressions:
1. necessary evil (필요악)
2. confined to narrower spaces (좁은 공간에 가둬지다)
3. losing their habitats (서식지를 잃다)
4. provide sanctuary to endangered species (멸종 위기 종에게 피난처를 제공하다)
5. transform these institutions (이 기관을 변화시키다)
제출한 라이팅
Some people argue that zoos are harmful to animals and should not be opened, while others contend that zoos have positive effects for rare animals. Both views can be persuasive, but I partly agree the latter view.
To begin with, zoos are not appropriate habitats for animals due to their small size. Originally, animals have lived in the wild for long periods. However, due to people’s commercial intentions, animals started to be captured from the wild. They lost their freedom by eating and sleeping in small spaces. This means that it can be seen as just pets in home, not animals that can be seen in natural. I believe that animals should grow up in proper environments such as the natural wilderness. If they are confined to spaces created by humans, they might be products that are just suitable for tourists. Thus, zoos are improperly to animals.
However, as eras change and technology develops, there are a lot of endangered species in the world. The other reason is the destruction of natural environment due to individuals’ pursuit of convenience, leading to animals losing their habitats. Thus, spaces such as zoos should be built to protect animals. Moreover, zoos can create environments similar to the wilderness, for instance, by planting the same trees and plants and providing preys feeding. Additionally, zoos can protect and care for animals when they are hungry or sick. I believe that playing this role is natural for people because they have caused the loss of animals’ habitats.
In conclusion, although zoos are inappropriate habitats for animals, since their natural habitats have already been significantly destroyed, people must take responsibility. Thus, society should make efforts to protect them, and zoos should establish better environments.
To begin with, zoos are not appropriate habitats for animals due to their small size. Originally, animals have lived in the wild for long periods. However, due to people’s commercial intentions, animals started to be captured from the wild. They lost their freedom by eating and sleeping in small spaces. This means that it can be seen as just pets in home, not animals that can be seen in natural. I believe that animals should grow up in proper environments such as the natural wilderness. If they are confined to spaces created by humans, they might be products that are just suitable for tourists. Thus, zoos are improperly to animals.
However, as eras change and technology develops, there are a lot of endangered species in the world. The other reason is the destruction of natural environment due to individuals’ pursuit of convenience, leading to animals losing their habitats. Thus, spaces such as zoos should be built to protect animals. Moreover, zoos can create environments similar to the wilderness, for instance, by planting the same trees and plants and providing preys feeding. Additionally, zoos can protect and care for animals when they are hungry or sick. I believe that playing this role is natural for people because they have caused the loss of animals’ habitats.
In conclusion, although zoos are inappropriate habitats for animals, since their natural habitats have already been significantly destroyed, people must take responsibility. Thus, society should make efforts to protect them, and zoos should establish better environments.
공유
返回列表 😎
