AI IELTS Writing AI Correction
- Opinion
The government should sometimes infringe on people’s freedom for the security of society. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
스코어팩토리 AI가 에세이를 평가하였습니다.
Evaluation
Task Response: [5]
The student addresses the task partially, providing a specific position on the issue. However, the reasons for their stand are not fully developed and examples provided are not thoroughly explored.
Coherence & Cohesion: [6]
Paragraphs are used but there are times when the information doesn't flow logically, which might lead to reader confusion.
Lexical Resource: [6]
The student demonstrates a broad vocabulary with some flexibility, utilizing words like "denounced", "exposed", and "infringe". However, misuse and repetition of certain words/phrases should be improved.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy: [5]
The essay exhibits a mix of simple and complex sentence structures, but it is marred by frequent grammatical errors and awkward phrasing.
Overall: [5.5]
The student shows a fair understanding of the task and linguistic ability, but needs to work on the development of ideas, logical progression of information, and grammatical accuracy.
Task Response: [5]
The student addresses the task partially, providing a specific position on the issue. However, the reasons for their stand are not fully developed and examples provided are not thoroughly explored.
Coherence & Cohesion: [6]
Paragraphs are used but there are times when the information doesn't flow logically, which might lead to reader confusion.
Lexical Resource: [6]
The student demonstrates a broad vocabulary with some flexibility, utilizing words like "denounced", "exposed", and "infringe". However, misuse and repetition of certain words/phrases should be improved.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy: [5]
The essay exhibits a mix of simple and complex sentence structures, but it is marred by frequent grammatical errors and awkward phrasing.
Overall: [5.5]
The student shows a fair understanding of the task and linguistic ability, but needs to work on the development of ideas, logical progression of information, and grammatical accuracy.
스코어팩토리 AI가 작성한 모범답안입니다.
The government should sometimes infringe on people’s freedom for the security of society. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Essay:
In contemporary society, there is ongoing debate regarding whether governments should ever infrict certain freedoms for the safety of the public. In my view, although the concept presents challenges to personal liberties, it is somewhat necessary to ensue societal security.
Granted, protecting individual liberties is a fundamental priority of any democratic government. These freedoms include the right to personal privacy, which, when breached, could potentially lead to public outrage and a loss of trust in government. Furthermore, there exists the frightening possibility of private information falling into the wrong hands, further jeopardizing public safety. In such cases, individuals are primarily responsible for ensuring their own security, since governmental interference would not only restrict personal liberties but also cause discomfort due to the imposed limitations.
Conversely, advances in technology have given rise to new types of crime that individuals are no longer capable of preventing or handling on their own. For instance, the unauthorised spread of personal images online can occur at an alarming speed, with individuals powerless to stop it due to the vast, interconnected nature of the internet. This highlights the growing need for government involvement in matters of public security. Sometimes, this will unavoidably infringe on certain individual freedoms, but this is a necessary compromise in an age where security vulnerabilities are ever-increasing.
In conclusion, the balance between individual freedom and societal security is delicate. While preferable for personal liberties to always be upheld, the government must occasionally intervene, albeit as minimally as possible, to maintain communal safety.
Word Count: 260
Essay translated in Korean:
현대사회에서는 정부가 공공의 안전을 위해 일부 자유를 침해해도 되는지에 대한 논란이 계속되고 있다. 개인적으로는 이 개념이 개인의 자유에 어려움을 초래한다고 합리적인, 자사회 보장을 위해 다소 필요한 것으로 본다.
데무구민주주의의 어떤 정부도 기본적인 우선사항으로 개인의 자유를 보호해야 한다. 공공의 분노와 정부에 대한 신뢰 상실을 초래할 수 있는 개인의 프라이버시에 대한 권리를 포함한다. 또한, 잘못된 손에 개인 정보가 빠져 나가는 끔찍한 가능성이 존재하며, 이로 인해 공공의 안전이 더욱 위협받을 수 있다. 이러한 경우에 개인은 주로 자신의 보안을 보장하는데 책임이 있으며, 정부의 간섭은 개인의 자유를 제한할 뿐만 아니라 부과된 제한으로 인한 불편감을 야기할 수 있다.
반면에, 기술의 발전은 인간들이 혼자서 예방하거나 처리 할 수 없는 새로운 범죄 유형을 불러 왔다. 예를 들어, 인터넷을 통한 개인 이미지의 무단 전파는 놀라운 속도로 발생할 수 있으며 개인은 인터넷의 거대하고 상호 연결된 특성으로 인해 이를 멈출 수 없다. 이는 공공 안전사항에서 정부의 참여가 점점 더 필요하다는 것을 부각시킨다. 때때로이는 회피 할 수 없는 개인의 자유를 침해 할 것이지만, 보안 취약성이 계속 증가하는 시대에서는 필요한 타협이다.
결론적으로, 개인의 자유와 사회적 안전에 대한 균형은 미묘하다. 개인적 자유가 항상 지켜지는 것이 좋겠지만, 정부는 공동체의 안전을 유지하기 위해 가끔은 개입해야 한다. 아무리 최소한으로라도.
Good expressions:
1. ongoing debate (진행중인 논쟁)
2. fundamental priority (기본적인 우선 순위)
3. potentially lead to (잠재적으로 ~을 초래할 수 있다)
4. frightening possibility (끔찍한 가능성)
5. unauthorised spread (무단 전파)
6. interconnected nature (상호 연결된 특성)
7. a necessary compromise (필요한 타협)
8. delicate balance (미묘한 균형)
In contemporary society, there is ongoing debate regarding whether governments should ever infrict certain freedoms for the safety of the public. In my view, although the concept presents challenges to personal liberties, it is somewhat necessary to ensue societal security.
Granted, protecting individual liberties is a fundamental priority of any democratic government. These freedoms include the right to personal privacy, which, when breached, could potentially lead to public outrage and a loss of trust in government. Furthermore, there exists the frightening possibility of private information falling into the wrong hands, further jeopardizing public safety. In such cases, individuals are primarily responsible for ensuring their own security, since governmental interference would not only restrict personal liberties but also cause discomfort due to the imposed limitations.
Conversely, advances in technology have given rise to new types of crime that individuals are no longer capable of preventing or handling on their own. For instance, the unauthorised spread of personal images online can occur at an alarming speed, with individuals powerless to stop it due to the vast, interconnected nature of the internet. This highlights the growing need for government involvement in matters of public security. Sometimes, this will unavoidably infringe on certain individual freedoms, but this is a necessary compromise in an age where security vulnerabilities are ever-increasing.
In conclusion, the balance between individual freedom and societal security is delicate. While preferable for personal liberties to always be upheld, the government must occasionally intervene, albeit as minimally as possible, to maintain communal safety.
Word Count: 260
Essay translated in Korean:
현대사회에서는 정부가 공공의 안전을 위해 일부 자유를 침해해도 되는지에 대한 논란이 계속되고 있다. 개인적으로는 이 개념이 개인의 자유에 어려움을 초래한다고 합리적인, 자사회 보장을 위해 다소 필요한 것으로 본다.
데무구민주주의의 어떤 정부도 기본적인 우선사항으로 개인의 자유를 보호해야 한다. 공공의 분노와 정부에 대한 신뢰 상실을 초래할 수 있는 개인의 프라이버시에 대한 권리를 포함한다. 또한, 잘못된 손에 개인 정보가 빠져 나가는 끔찍한 가능성이 존재하며, 이로 인해 공공의 안전이 더욱 위협받을 수 있다. 이러한 경우에 개인은 주로 자신의 보안을 보장하는데 책임이 있으며, 정부의 간섭은 개인의 자유를 제한할 뿐만 아니라 부과된 제한으로 인한 불편감을 야기할 수 있다.
반면에, 기술의 발전은 인간들이 혼자서 예방하거나 처리 할 수 없는 새로운 범죄 유형을 불러 왔다. 예를 들어, 인터넷을 통한 개인 이미지의 무단 전파는 놀라운 속도로 발생할 수 있으며 개인은 인터넷의 거대하고 상호 연결된 특성으로 인해 이를 멈출 수 없다. 이는 공공 안전사항에서 정부의 참여가 점점 더 필요하다는 것을 부각시킨다. 때때로이는 회피 할 수 없는 개인의 자유를 침해 할 것이지만, 보안 취약성이 계속 증가하는 시대에서는 필요한 타협이다.
결론적으로, 개인의 자유와 사회적 안전에 대한 균형은 미묘하다. 개인적 자유가 항상 지켜지는 것이 좋겠지만, 정부는 공동체의 안전을 유지하기 위해 가끔은 개입해야 한다. 아무리 최소한으로라도.
Good expressions:
1. ongoing debate (진행중인 논쟁)
2. fundamental priority (기본적인 우선 순위)
3. potentially lead to (잠재적으로 ~을 초래할 수 있다)
4. frightening possibility (끔찍한 가능성)
5. unauthorised spread (무단 전파)
6. interconnected nature (상호 연결된 특성)
7. a necessary compromise (필요한 타협)
8. delicate balance (미묘한 균형)
제출한 라이팅
It is believed that public freedom should be infringed to endure security of society by governments. This view can be argued with both agreements and disagreements, but my opinion leans towards agreement than disagreement.
On the one hand, governments should respect to individuals’ freedom. Individuals have their own privacy. If governments try to access it, they might be denounced from society, and civils cannot be respected their rights. There is a possibility, which can be exposed to criminal because there are various criminal groups in the world, resulting in it could be flowed wrong direction. Moreover, I believe that individuals security must be taken responsibility for itself. If governments infringe to public freedom due to security, there will be arranged a lot of limitations and feel uncomfortable.
On the other hand, followed by advanced technology, various crimes are occurring these days. Extent of crime that individuals cannot be responsible is going to increase. For instance, if individual’s picture spread out into the internet by mistake, nobody will not halt this situation due to connection of the internet all the world. Since weakness of security in current society, public have to be careful this problem. Even if, criminal deliberately commit a crime, people have no idea to prevent this. Thus, governments should keep the security although infringing public freedom.
In conclusion, while individuals could be deprived their freedom by governments, if the government do not protect people by criminal in vulnerable security era, the largest problem can be emerged as soon as possible. Thus, governments should infringe the public freedom.
On the one hand, governments should respect to individuals’ freedom. Individuals have their own privacy. If governments try to access it, they might be denounced from society, and civils cannot be respected their rights. There is a possibility, which can be exposed to criminal because there are various criminal groups in the world, resulting in it could be flowed wrong direction. Moreover, I believe that individuals security must be taken responsibility for itself. If governments infringe to public freedom due to security, there will be arranged a lot of limitations and feel uncomfortable.
On the other hand, followed by advanced technology, various crimes are occurring these days. Extent of crime that individuals cannot be responsible is going to increase. For instance, if individual’s picture spread out into the internet by mistake, nobody will not halt this situation due to connection of the internet all the world. Since weakness of security in current society, public have to be careful this problem. Even if, criminal deliberately commit a crime, people have no idea to prevent this. Thus, governments should keep the security although infringing public freedom.
In conclusion, while individuals could be deprived their freedom by governments, if the government do not protect people by criminal in vulnerable security era, the largest problem can be emerged as soon as possible. Thus, governments should infringe the public freedom.
공유
back to list 😎
