AI IELTS Writing AI Correction
- Discussion
Some people think they have the right to use as much freshwater as they want, but others think that the government should control the use of freshwater as it is a limited resource. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
스코어팩토리 AI가 에세이를 평가하였습니다.
Evaluation
Task Response: [7]
The student answers the question appropriately, providing a balanced discussion of both viewpoints. However, the author could have made their own opinion more explicit, rather than say the viewpoints are equally significant, then leave it at that.
Coherence & Cohesion: [8]
The essay is well-structured, with clear paragraphing and good use of linking words. Ideas flow logically and are easy to follow.
Lexical Resource: [7]
The author demonstrates a good range of vocabulary including 'proponents,' 'pivotal,' 'contend,' 'high-technology,' and 'assertion.' But sometimes, the writer makes word choices that sound slightly unnatural or overly complicated.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy: [7]
The essay includes a range of complex structures and varied sentence structures. However, there are several grammatical errors such as "the places like desserts" and "countries has".
Overall: [7.25]
Overall, the student's essay demonstrates a good understanding of the task and shows a wide range of language use. However, the clarity of the writer's argument and grammar accuracy needs to be improved for a higher score.
Task Response: [7]
The student answers the question appropriately, providing a balanced discussion of both viewpoints. However, the author could have made their own opinion more explicit, rather than say the viewpoints are equally significant, then leave it at that.
Coherence & Cohesion: [8]
The essay is well-structured, with clear paragraphing and good use of linking words. Ideas flow logically and are easy to follow.
Lexical Resource: [7]
The author demonstrates a good range of vocabulary including 'proponents,' 'pivotal,' 'contend,' 'high-technology,' and 'assertion.' But sometimes, the writer makes word choices that sound slightly unnatural or overly complicated.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy: [7]
The essay includes a range of complex structures and varied sentence structures. However, there are several grammatical errors such as "the places like desserts" and "countries has".
Overall: [7.25]
Overall, the student's essay demonstrates a good understanding of the task and shows a wide range of language use. However, the clarity of the writer's argument and grammar accuracy needs to be improved for a higher score.
스코어팩토리 AI가 작성한 모범답안입니다.
Some people think they have the right to use as much freshwater as they want, but others think that the government should control the use of freshwater as it is a limited resource. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Essay:
There is considerable debate regarding the appropriateness of unrestricted usage of freshwater, a precious resource. While some assert the freedom to utilize as much as desired, others believe that due to its finite nature, the government needs to intervene for regulated usage.
The right to limitless consumption of water is an argument that highlights individual freedom and advancements in technology. Some individuals believe they should not be confined in utilising an abundant natural resource. Additionally, they stress the power of modern technology that can transform previously unusable water sources into potable water. For instance, areas like deserts, usually void of freshwater, are now capable of harvesting rainwater and purifying it for drinking purposes with the aid of advanced machines. Similarly, the high-salt sea water, occupying the greater share of earth, can be desalinated and made safe for consumption through cutting-edge technologies.
Contrarily, critics of unrestricted water usage emphasize the imperative need for conservation. Water is not a resource that can be effortlessly harvested or created at will, rather it's a finite resource that we should treat with respect. Freshwater forms a critical part of our ecosystem and overconsumption could lead to its depletion, potentially disrupting the balance of our planet. Accordingly, a methodical government-led approach in managing water usage is favored by many.
In conclusion, unrestricted usages of freshwater despite the role of technology should go hand in hand with a balance in government-led management to maintain our ecosystem's health.
Word count: 262
Essay translated in Korean:
물을 제한 없이 사용하는 것의 적절성에 대한 논쟁이 있다. 일부는 그런 물을 원하는 만큼 사용해야 한다고 주장하며, 다른 일부는 이것이 한정된 자원이기 때문에 정부가 개입해 규제된 사용이 필요하다고 주장한다.
물 사용에 있어 개인의 자유와 기술 발전을 강조하는 무제한 소비권 주장은 이론적으로는 가능하다. 일부는 이런 자연 자원을 사용하는 것에 제한을 받지 않아야 한다고 생각한다. 그들은 또한 수익성이 없던 원천을 식수로 변환할 수 있는 현대 기술의 힘을 강조한다. 예를 들어, 사막과 같은 지역은 통상 신선한 물이 부족하지만 고도의 기계를 도입해 비수를 수확하고 음료용으로 정화하는 것이 가능하다. 마찬가지로, 지구 상의 많은 부분을 차지하는 고염분 해수도 첨단 기술을 통해 염분을 제거하고 안전하게 섭취할 수 있게 만들 수 있다.
반면, 물 사용에 제한을 두는 비판론자들은 보존의 필요성을 강조한다. 물은 쉽게 채취하거나 생성할 수 있는 자원이 아니라, 우리가 존중해야 할 한정된 자원이다. 신선한 물은 우리 생태계의 중요한 부분을 형성하며, 과다 소비는 그 해질 수 있어 이 모두를 방치할 수는 없다. 이에 따라, 정부 측면에서의 절차적 접근방식이 많은 사람들에게 호감을 얻고 있다.
결론적으로, 기술의 역할에 비해 신선한 물의 무제한 사용은 우리 생태계의 건강을 유지하기 위하여 정부 주도의 관리와 균형을 이루어야 한다.
Good expressions:
1. Considerable debate - 상당한 논란
2. Imperative need for conservation - 보전의 중요한 필요성
3. Government-led approach - 정부 주도 접근 방식
4. Cutting-edge technologies - 최첨단 기술
5. Transform previously unusable water sources - 수익성이 없던 원천을 변환하다
6. Striking a balance - 균형을 맞추다
7. Disrupting the balance of our planet - 지구의 균형을 깨뜨리다
8. Stands to reason - 합리적인 이유
There is considerable debate regarding the appropriateness of unrestricted usage of freshwater, a precious resource. While some assert the freedom to utilize as much as desired, others believe that due to its finite nature, the government needs to intervene for regulated usage.
The right to limitless consumption of water is an argument that highlights individual freedom and advancements in technology. Some individuals believe they should not be confined in utilising an abundant natural resource. Additionally, they stress the power of modern technology that can transform previously unusable water sources into potable water. For instance, areas like deserts, usually void of freshwater, are now capable of harvesting rainwater and purifying it for drinking purposes with the aid of advanced machines. Similarly, the high-salt sea water, occupying the greater share of earth, can be desalinated and made safe for consumption through cutting-edge technologies.
Contrarily, critics of unrestricted water usage emphasize the imperative need for conservation. Water is not a resource that can be effortlessly harvested or created at will, rather it's a finite resource that we should treat with respect. Freshwater forms a critical part of our ecosystem and overconsumption could lead to its depletion, potentially disrupting the balance of our planet. Accordingly, a methodical government-led approach in managing water usage is favored by many.
In conclusion, unrestricted usages of freshwater despite the role of technology should go hand in hand with a balance in government-led management to maintain our ecosystem's health.
Word count: 262
Essay translated in Korean:
물을 제한 없이 사용하는 것의 적절성에 대한 논쟁이 있다. 일부는 그런 물을 원하는 만큼 사용해야 한다고 주장하며, 다른 일부는 이것이 한정된 자원이기 때문에 정부가 개입해 규제된 사용이 필요하다고 주장한다.
물 사용에 있어 개인의 자유와 기술 발전을 강조하는 무제한 소비권 주장은 이론적으로는 가능하다. 일부는 이런 자연 자원을 사용하는 것에 제한을 받지 않아야 한다고 생각한다. 그들은 또한 수익성이 없던 원천을 식수로 변환할 수 있는 현대 기술의 힘을 강조한다. 예를 들어, 사막과 같은 지역은 통상 신선한 물이 부족하지만 고도의 기계를 도입해 비수를 수확하고 음료용으로 정화하는 것이 가능하다. 마찬가지로, 지구 상의 많은 부분을 차지하는 고염분 해수도 첨단 기술을 통해 염분을 제거하고 안전하게 섭취할 수 있게 만들 수 있다.
반면, 물 사용에 제한을 두는 비판론자들은 보존의 필요성을 강조한다. 물은 쉽게 채취하거나 생성할 수 있는 자원이 아니라, 우리가 존중해야 할 한정된 자원이다. 신선한 물은 우리 생태계의 중요한 부분을 형성하며, 과다 소비는 그 해질 수 있어 이 모두를 방치할 수는 없다. 이에 따라, 정부 측면에서의 절차적 접근방식이 많은 사람들에게 호감을 얻고 있다.
결론적으로, 기술의 역할에 비해 신선한 물의 무제한 사용은 우리 생태계의 건강을 유지하기 위하여 정부 주도의 관리와 균형을 이루어야 한다.
Good expressions:
1. Considerable debate - 상당한 논란
2. Imperative need for conservation - 보전의 중요한 필요성
3. Government-led approach - 정부 주도 접근 방식
4. Cutting-edge technologies - 최첨단 기술
5. Transform previously unusable water sources - 수익성이 없던 원천을 변환하다
6. Striking a balance - 균형을 맞추다
7. Disrupting the balance of our planet - 지구의 균형을 깨뜨리다
8. Stands to reason - 합리적인 이유
제출한 라이팅
The debate whether the use of freshwater should be regulated by the government has sparked diverse opinions. Some argue that there must be the strict control on use of freshwater, while others hold the view that limited use of freshwater should be reconsidered that it has to be available for anybody. This essay will explore these contrasting viewpoints before articulating my overall stance below.
On one side of the argument, there is a belief that water is not absolutely a kind of products which people can manufacture continuously without any restrictions. Proponents of this view argue that those having the limit on producing are required to handle as a part of scare resources . For instance, excessive use by people has been led to the extinction of rare goods. Additionally, purified water plays a pivotal role in maintaining our essential life.
On the contrary, others are not content with the aforementioned points. They contend that state-of-the-art technology may contribute to supplying endless drinking water, ensuring people’s stable living. One of the primary reasons behind their assertion is that in the places like desserts where there are not common to easily access clean water , developed countries has already applied advanced technology to purify the rain for their drinking . Furthermore, advocates of this view are convinced that occupying more than 70% of the globe, sea water, though having high salt concentration, can be transformed into drinkable resource with unexpected high-technology.
In my view, both perspectives have valid points. Although it stands to reason that leading edge of technology may contribute to solutions for water shortage to some extent, it should be noted that it is necessary for governments to place practical policies on limited resources, attracting more attention from the public. Provided that these opinions are convincing and persuasive when considered from each standpoint, there needs to be additional aspects to be discussed, including the radical change on the populace’s thinking for the importance of water.
In conclusion, it is evident that both viewpoints carry equal significance, and neither can be refuted outright. Striking a balance between these two approaches is crucial.
On one side of the argument, there is a belief that water is not absolutely a kind of products which people can manufacture continuously without any restrictions. Proponents of this view argue that those having the limit on producing are required to handle as a part of scare resources . For instance, excessive use by people has been led to the extinction of rare goods. Additionally, purified water plays a pivotal role in maintaining our essential life.
On the contrary, others are not content with the aforementioned points. They contend that state-of-the-art technology may contribute to supplying endless drinking water, ensuring people’s stable living. One of the primary reasons behind their assertion is that in the places like desserts where there are not common to easily access clean water , developed countries has already applied advanced technology to purify the rain for their drinking . Furthermore, advocates of this view are convinced that occupying more than 70% of the globe, sea water, though having high salt concentration, can be transformed into drinkable resource with unexpected high-technology.
In my view, both perspectives have valid points. Although it stands to reason that leading edge of technology may contribute to solutions for water shortage to some extent, it should be noted that it is necessary for governments to place practical policies on limited resources, attracting more attention from the public. Provided that these opinions are convincing and persuasive when considered from each standpoint, there needs to be additional aspects to be discussed, including the radical change on the populace’s thinking for the importance of water.
In conclusion, it is evident that both viewpoints carry equal significance, and neither can be refuted outright. Striking a balance between these two approaches is crucial.
공유
返回列表 😎
