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: [7]
The response is relevant and all parts of the task are addressed. There is a clear position given although some support is less coherent compared to others.
Coherence & Cohesion: [7]
The essay has logical structure and good cohesion between the points to guide the reader. However, the flow from one idea to the next, especially in the conclusion could be further improved.
Lexical Resource: [7]
The writer demonstrates good command of the vocabulary and applied it appropriately. However, some sentences could be more concise by avoiding repetition.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy: [6]
Despite variety in sentence structures, there are frequent grammatical errors that may confuse the reader. The use of singular and plural nouns needs correction and the sentence structure in places could be better.
Overall: [6.75]
While the essay is mostly well-structured and the student has a good range of vocabulary, the grammatical errors slightly affect the strength of arguments. Further revision to address grammatical inconsistencies and to improve sentence structure is suggested.
Task Response: [7]
The response is relevant and all parts of the task are addressed. There is a clear position given although some support is less coherent compared to others.
Coherence & Cohesion: [7]
The essay has logical structure and good cohesion between the points to guide the reader. However, the flow from one idea to the next, especially in the conclusion could be further improved.
Lexical Resource: [7]
The writer demonstrates good command of the vocabulary and applied it appropriately. However, some sentences could be more concise by avoiding repetition.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy: [6]
Despite variety in sentence structures, there are frequent grammatical errors that may confuse the reader. The use of singular and plural nouns needs correction and the sentence structure in places could be better.
Overall: [6.75]
While the essay is mostly well-structured and the student has a good range of vocabulary, the grammatical errors slightly affect the strength of arguments. Further revision to address grammatical inconsistencies and to improve sentence structure is suggested.
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:
The statement posits that maintaining the security of society sometimes requires the government to infringe upon individual liberties, a notion that I am partially in agreement with.
On one side of the debate lies the principle that personal liberty and privacy should be sacrosanct. If governmental authorities continuously breach individual rights, societal backlash and feelings of discomfort may ensue. Moreover, the potential for misuse of personal data by criminal organizations cannot be overlooked, and I staunchly believe that it's the individual's prerogative to shield themselves from such dangers.
Contrarily, as crime rates rise akin to technological advancement, the government's role in maintaining security becomes increasingly imperative. For instance, once a personal image erroneously makes its way to the internet, the globalized nature of connectivity renders the situation beyond the individual's control. Such imminent security issues call for cautiousness, and when deliberate crimes are committed, the layperson may find themselves ill-equipped to respond. In such instances, the government's intervention, even at the cost of personal freedom, becomes crucial.
In conclusion, despite the potential erosion of individual liberties, the amplification of security threats in our precarious digital age necessitates occasional government intervention.
Word count: 202
Essay translated in Korean:
이 문장은 사회의 보안을 유지하기 위해 정부가 때때로 개인의 자유를 침해해야 한다는 주장을 제시하고 있습니다. 이 주장에 대해 저는 부분적으로 동의하고 있습니다.
논의의 한편에는 개인의 자유와 사생활이 신성해야 한다는 원칙이 있습니다. 만일 정부 당국이 지속적으로 개인의 권리를 침해한다면, 사회적 반발과 불편함이 심화 될 수 있습니다. 또한, 범죄 조직이 개인 정보를 잘못 사용하는 가능성도 간과할 수 없으며, 이러한 위험으로부터 스스로를 보호하는 것은 개개인의 책임이라고 저는 강하게 믿고 있습니다.
반면에, 기술 발전과 맞물려 범죄율이 증가함에 따라, 정부의 보안 유지 역할이 점점 중요해집니다. 예를 들어, 개인의 사진이 실수로 인터넷에 공개되면, 글로벌 연결성의 성질으로 개인이 상황을 통제하는 것은 불가능 할 수 있습니다. 이렇게 급변하는 보안 문제들은 조심스러움을 요구하며, 의도적인 범죄가 발생할 경우, 일반인들은 반응할 준비가 되어있지 않을 수 있습니다. 이러한 경우에 정부의 개입이, 개인의 자유를 침해하더라도, 필수적이게 됩니다.
결론적으로, 개인의 자유가 침식될 가능성이 있음에도 불구하고, 우리의 위태로운 디지털 시대에서 증폭되는 보안 위협은 때때로 정부의 개입을 필요로 합니다.
Good expressions:
1. sacrosanct (신성한): 신성한
2. societal backlash (사회적 역행): 사회적 역행
3. ill-equipped (준비가 미흡한): 준비가 미흡한
4. precarious digital age (위태로운 디지털 시대): 위태로운 디지털 시대
5. necessitates occasional government intervention (가끔 정부 개입을 필요로 함): 가끔 정부 개입을 필요로 함.
The statement posits that maintaining the security of society sometimes requires the government to infringe upon individual liberties, a notion that I am partially in agreement with.
On one side of the debate lies the principle that personal liberty and privacy should be sacrosanct. If governmental authorities continuously breach individual rights, societal backlash and feelings of discomfort may ensue. Moreover, the potential for misuse of personal data by criminal organizations cannot be overlooked, and I staunchly believe that it's the individual's prerogative to shield themselves from such dangers.
Contrarily, as crime rates rise akin to technological advancement, the government's role in maintaining security becomes increasingly imperative. For instance, once a personal image erroneously makes its way to the internet, the globalized nature of connectivity renders the situation beyond the individual's control. Such imminent security issues call for cautiousness, and when deliberate crimes are committed, the layperson may find themselves ill-equipped to respond. In such instances, the government's intervention, even at the cost of personal freedom, becomes crucial.
In conclusion, despite the potential erosion of individual liberties, the amplification of security threats in our precarious digital age necessitates occasional government intervention.
Word count: 202
Essay translated in Korean:
이 문장은 사회의 보안을 유지하기 위해 정부가 때때로 개인의 자유를 침해해야 한다는 주장을 제시하고 있습니다. 이 주장에 대해 저는 부분적으로 동의하고 있습니다.
논의의 한편에는 개인의 자유와 사생활이 신성해야 한다는 원칙이 있습니다. 만일 정부 당국이 지속적으로 개인의 권리를 침해한다면, 사회적 반발과 불편함이 심화 될 수 있습니다. 또한, 범죄 조직이 개인 정보를 잘못 사용하는 가능성도 간과할 수 없으며, 이러한 위험으로부터 스스로를 보호하는 것은 개개인의 책임이라고 저는 강하게 믿고 있습니다.
반면에, 기술 발전과 맞물려 범죄율이 증가함에 따라, 정부의 보안 유지 역할이 점점 중요해집니다. 예를 들어, 개인의 사진이 실수로 인터넷에 공개되면, 글로벌 연결성의 성질으로 개인이 상황을 통제하는 것은 불가능 할 수 있습니다. 이렇게 급변하는 보안 문제들은 조심스러움을 요구하며, 의도적인 범죄가 발생할 경우, 일반인들은 반응할 준비가 되어있지 않을 수 있습니다. 이러한 경우에 정부의 개입이, 개인의 자유를 침해하더라도, 필수적이게 됩니다.
결론적으로, 개인의 자유가 침식될 가능성이 있음에도 불구하고, 우리의 위태로운 디지털 시대에서 증폭되는 보안 위협은 때때로 정부의 개입을 필요로 합니다.
Good expressions:
1. sacrosanct (신성한): 신성한
2. societal backlash (사회적 역행): 사회적 역행
3. ill-equipped (준비가 미흡한): 준비가 미흡한
4. precarious digital age (위태로운 디지털 시대): 위태로운 디지털 시대
5. necessitates occasional government intervention (가끔 정부 개입을 필요로 함): 가끔 정부 개입을 필요로 함.
제출한 라이팅
It is believed that public freedom should be infringed to endure the 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 individuals’ freedom. Each individual has their own privacy, if governments attempt to access it, they might face condemnation from society, and citizens may not feel their rights are being respected. There is a possibility, which can be exposed to criminal because of various criminal groups exist in the world, which could lead to misuse of personal information. Moreover, I believe that individuals security should be their own responsibility. If governments infringe to public freedom for security reasons, it may lead to numerous limitations and make people feel uncomfortable.
On the other hand, with the advancement of technology, various crimes are increasingly occurring these days. The extent of crime that individuals cannot be held responsible is going to increase. For instance, if an individual’s picture is mistakenly spread on the internet, there may be no way to stop this due to the internet’s global connectively. Given the current weakness in security in society, the public must be cautious about this problem. Even if, a criminal deliberately commits a crime, people may have no idea to prevent it. Thus, governments should prioritize security even if it means infringing on public freedom.
In conclusion, while individuals could be deprived their freedom by governments due to security, if the government do not protect people from criminal in an era of vulnerable security, serious problem may arise. Therefore, governments should be encouraged to infringe the public freedom to ensure security.
On the one hand, governments should respect individuals’ freedom. Each individual has their own privacy, if governments attempt to access it, they might face condemnation from society, and citizens may not feel their rights are being respected. There is a possibility, which can be exposed to criminal because of various criminal groups exist in the world, which could lead to misuse of personal information. Moreover, I believe that individuals security should be their own responsibility. If governments infringe to public freedom for security reasons, it may lead to numerous limitations and make people feel uncomfortable.
On the other hand, with the advancement of technology, various crimes are increasingly occurring these days. The extent of crime that individuals cannot be held responsible is going to increase. For instance, if an individual’s picture is mistakenly spread on the internet, there may be no way to stop this due to the internet’s global connectively. Given the current weakness in security in society, the public must be cautious about this problem. Even if, a criminal deliberately commits a crime, people may have no idea to prevent it. Thus, governments should prioritize security even if it means infringing on public freedom.
In conclusion, while individuals could be deprived their freedom by governments due to security, if the government do not protect people from criminal in an era of vulnerable security, serious problem may arise. Therefore, governments should be encouraged to infringe the public freedom to ensure security.
공유
リストに戻る 😎
