You can edit this text for your reference. Changes will not be saved.
6
Overall Band
6
Task Response
6
Coherence
6
Lexical
6
Grammar
The essay presents a clear position on the topic and provides relevant examples to support the arguments. However, there are issues with coherence and cohesion, as well as some grammatical errors and awkward phrasing that affect the overall clarity and effectiveness of the essay. The vocabulary is adequate but could be more varied.
The essay addresses the task by discussing both sides of the argument and providing a clear opinion. However, the arguments and examples could be more developed and detailed. The conclusion is somewhat repetitive and does not add new insights. Overall, the response is relevant but lacks depth.
The essay maintains a logical structure with a clear introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. However, there are some issues with the flow of ideas and transitions between sentences and paragraphs. Repetition of ideas in the conclusion affects the cohesion.
The vocabulary is appropriate but lacks variety and sophistication. Some phrases are awkwardly constructed, and there are occasional errors in word choice. There is room for improvement in using a wider range of vocabulary to convey precise meanings.
The essay demonstrates a reasonable control of grammar, but there are noticeable errors in sentence structure, subject-verb agreement, and article usage. These errors occasionally obscure the meaning and impact the overall readability of the essay.
Detailed Analysis by Paragraph
Question:
Evaluate this IELTS Writing Task 2 answer
Introduction
Some individuals say that retailers should be banned from providing foods that are proven to be health-detrimental by scientific research for consumers. In my opinion, I strongly disagree with this idea since although this policy can strengthen public health, it breaks personal choices on their own food.
The introduction clearly states the topic and the writer's position. However, the sentence structure is somewhat awkward, and the phrase 'breaks personal choices' could be more effectively expressed.
Body paragraph 1
On the one hand, forbidding stores from trading foods which are officially proven to be harmful could be an ideal policy to improve public health. This action can significantly contribute to reducing the rates of chronic diseases caused by unhealthy foods by preventing residents from buying them, leading to lower prevalence of these foods after a long period not appearing in shops. For instance, recent research shows that the number of people suffering from obesity are decreasing substantially because of the inhibition of fast foods. Thus, it is reasonable when the governments do not allow shops to sell those unhealthy foods.
This paragraph presents a clear argument with an example. However, the explanation is somewhat repetitive, and some sentences are overly complex, affecting clarity. The phrase 'after a long period not appearing in shops' is awkward.
Body paragraph 2
However, I believe that the reason why retailers should have the right to sell food products even when they are demonstrated to be unhealthy by scientific studies is that banning damaging food could infringe individual freedoms. Everyone should have their own choices on what they will consume, since they are those who pay by themself and directly be responsible for their health. For instance, although fast food is proven to be detrimental to consumers’ health and people are aware of it, they still choose to eat this kind of food instead of greener and healthier one due to its appetizing taste, which makes them satisfied. Therefore, a prohibition on food that is bad for people’s health should not be implemented as a consideration to personal liberty on choosing foods.
This paragraph effectively presents the argument for personal freedom with a relevant example. However, the explanation is slightly long-winded, and some sentences are awkwardly structured. The phrase 'pay by themself' is incorrect.
Conclusion
In conclusion, although the idea of prohibiting selling harmful food have the ability to improve social health, I think that it could offend individual freedom in choosing foods.
The conclusion restates the main argument but is somewhat repetitive and does not add any new insights. The phrase 'have the ability to improve social health' could be more concisely expressed.
Sign In
[nextend_social_login]
or sign in with email
The password must have a minimum of 8 characters of numbers and letters, contain at least 1 capital letter
I agree with storage and handling of my data by this website.
Privacy Policy
Cô Huyền sẽ liên hệ trực tiếp với bạn qua email hoặc điện thoại trong 1-2 ngày tới để trao đổi cụ thể hơn về việc học.
Hoặc bạn cũng có thể chủ động liên hệ với cô giáo theo thông tin dưới đây để được xếp lớp sớm nhất.
(+84) 0383-096-717
Email: huyenbui@cohuyenielts.com
Xin cám ơn.
ĐĂNG KÝ HỌC IELTS VỚI CÔ HUYỀN
Để đăng ký học IELTS lớp cô Huyền, vui lòng điền form dưới đây để được tư vấn. Hoặc gọi điện trực tiếp cho cô giáo theo số +84.0383.096.717 để giữ chỗ.
