IELTS - Writing - For Band 7 or Above.
- Thread starter H0peAndFa1th
- Start date
Okay so a few things. The essay asks you what are the "reasons". Your introduction says "The main reason" and in the very next paragraph your opening line is "there are numerous causes". You see the issue here. You can actually introduce some of the reasons in the introduction to make it more appealing.
The second thing which I don't like is the "universal argument". I have alluded to this before in some of previous reviews. What I mean by this is that my suggestion would be to avoid such arguments which are very generic like oh this activity has impact on society, economy or nation. It can be said about almost any topic on IELTS. It is boring and looks learnt. Be specific by what you mean.
Overall, introduction is just okay.
I don't agree with the arguments here but essays are subjective so an examiner may have a different view than mind. I'm not the last authority on essays but I just gave you my opinion.
Another issue with the paragraph is that you say there are "various" reasons but just give one. Why waste that one line then?
The problem with the above argument is that it is very broad. Let me give you an example. What if people were saving a lot but then investing the saved money in stocks. Would they not get impacted by the crisis you have mentioned. The stock markets crashes so even if someone saved enough money and invested he/ she still would be left with no money. Hence, I say don't make these broad based arguments. Keep things simple. First half is okay. I think second half is treading on a dangerous path here.
Very weak conclusion. it is almost repeat of the introduction paragraph.
Same issue as your previous essay. This introduction may work in school / college essays but sadly won't work in IELTS. Not sure, if you actually researched on IELTS essay. My suggestion is start with IELTS Liz videos on essay writing. Google it. See her videos for basics and read her website.
Not reviewing the rest of the essay. There are big issues with the structure in the first look itself. Your intro para is longer than your both body paragraphs. Your conclusion paragraph is same length as body paragraphs. Spend some more time in reading about IELTS essays and then write one.
Introduction is fine. I would probably avoid heavy words which seem out of place here.
So many words but no real message here. Not sure what to make of it. In my opinion this paragraph is haphazard. But, may be an examiner will think otherwise. I can't say.
This paragraph is not very convincing.
My serious advice is to read more than write more. I know it is said practice makes perfect but sadly in IELTS essays just writing more essays is not going to help unless you understand what to write. My sincere advice would be to go back at least 30-40 pages or may be more. Grab a cup of coffee and start reading other reviews and comments. And start making notes.
All the best!
Hi, Thanks @cansha for your advice. I did go thru the videos on Liz's website, and trying another recent topic. Would be grateful for your kind review:
Some people feel online courses are better while others feel classroom courses are good? Discuss both views and give your opinion.
The advent of technology has transformed the delivery of courses in schools and colleges, giving rise to a new medium of learning, i.e. online courses. These online courses find favour from a large section of people who feel they are much better compared to the classroom courses. I feel online courses are a good option, but they cannot have same impact as classroom learning.
One of the key advantages of online courses is they obviate the distances between learner and teacher, thereby enabling the students to access such courses from best institutions in the world, resulting in wider opportunities for both the learner and teacher. Such online courses are mostly in form of video lectures with interactive facilities, facilitating the illustration of topics via multimedia, helping the students to grasp the concepts well. The instructor needs to exercise caution to keep online courses to be very simple and easy to understand for students with different nationalities and academic backgrounds. With these courses, a student can enrol with a local university and still study the courses taught online in globally recognised institutions.
On the other hand, classroom courses have been the traditional method of teaching that requires students and teacher to assemble in a classroom. Mostly classroom courses have multiple students being taught the same topic at the same time, helping students to interact with each other and the teacher, which results in group learning. In recent times, classroom courses have also been enriched with the use of technological innovations like presentations, live demonstrations, etc. The main advantage of classroom courses lies in the ability to communicate with teacher in person for resolving any doubts or queries.
To conclude, online courses have considerably enhanced the world of education, they can be best used to augment a student's learning of specific topics rather than being the only medium of teaching. While each student has its own preference, I feel classroom courses are more effective and cannot be substituted by online courses.
Some people feel online courses are better while others feel classroom courses are good? Discuss both views and give your opinion.
The advent of technology has transformed the delivery of courses in schools and colleges, giving rise to a new medium of learning, i.e. online courses. These online courses find favour from a large section of people who feel they are much better compared to the classroom courses. I feel online courses are a good option, but they cannot have same impact as classroom learning.
One of the key advantages of online courses is they obviate the distances between learner and teacher, thereby enabling the students to access such courses from best institutions in the world, resulting in wider opportunities for both the learner and teacher. Such online courses are mostly in form of video lectures with interactive facilities, facilitating the illustration of topics via multimedia, helping the students to grasp the concepts well. The instructor needs to exercise caution to keep online courses to be very simple and easy to understand for students with different nationalities and academic backgrounds. With these courses, a student can enrol with a local university and still study the courses taught online in globally recognised institutions.
On the other hand, classroom courses have been the traditional method of teaching that requires students and teacher to assemble in a classroom. Mostly classroom courses have multiple students being taught the same topic at the same time, helping students to interact with each other and the teacher, which results in group learning. In recent times, classroom courses have also been enriched with the use of technological innovations like presentations, live demonstrations, etc. The main advantage of classroom courses lies in the ability to communicate with teacher in person for resolving any doubts or queries.
To conclude, online courses have considerably enhanced the world of education, they can be best used to augment a student's learning of specific topics rather than being the only medium of teaching. While each student has its own preference, I feel classroom courses are more effective and cannot be substituted by online courses.
This is my first essay here. Please evaluate.
Science will soon make people live up to 100 or even 200 years. Some people believe if this happens then it is a good thing while others consider it bad.
Discuss both the views and give your own opinion.
With the continuous research and development in the field of medical sciences, it is often propagated nowadays that scientists are inching closer to enhance the current life span of human being. The question of whether such development will be considered worthy enough by the society or not, requires considerable discussion. I certainly believe this invention will not be beneficial to mankind of current world and create negative impacts on the lives of people in long run.
There are a few aspects to debate against the aforementioned idea of increasing the age cycle. Firstly, I think implementing this impracticable science will have worst effects on different phases of life of human being. As the duration of childhood and adulthood will remain same, while the declining part of age will increase. Consequently, work-life balance will be affected severely causing imbalance in current life order. For instance, age of 15 or 18 - in some parts of the world, is considered adult and up to 12 years is considered childhood. Hence, living as an adult from 18 to, say, 80 or 90 years will be infeasible. In worst case, even such scenario happens, living from 90 years to 200 years as old age is of no use. Mankind cannot be bear such consequences on living hood.
Whilst debating in favor of the increased ages, one of positives is the increased productivity. If a layman has to live for extended periods, the current scenario of living will be completely changed. Scientists often debate that if this has to happen, it will completely overhaul the present lifestyle with increased cycles of different stages of life. Therefore, an adult will be able to work for more years resulting in increased output.
It seems reasonable to conclude that bio medical sciences will not be able to enhance the current age of human in near future. If it has to happen, immense changes have to be implemented to completely convert the current stages of living hood.
Science will soon make people live up to 100 or even 200 years. Some people believe if this happens then it is a good thing while others consider it bad.
Discuss both the views and give your own opinion.
With the continuous research and development in the field of medical sciences, it is often propagated nowadays that scientists are inching closer to enhance the current life span of human being. The question of whether such development will be considered worthy enough by the society or not, requires considerable discussion. I certainly believe this invention will not be beneficial to mankind of current world and create negative impacts on the lives of people in long run.
There are a few aspects to debate against the aforementioned idea of increasing the age cycle. Firstly, I think implementing this impracticable science will have worst effects on different phases of life of human being. As the duration of childhood and adulthood will remain same, while the declining part of age will increase. Consequently, work-life balance will be affected severely causing imbalance in current life order. For instance, age of 15 or 18 - in some parts of the world, is considered adult and up to 12 years is considered childhood. Hence, living as an adult from 18 to, say, 80 or 90 years will be infeasible. In worst case, even such scenario happens, living from 90 years to 200 years as old age is of no use. Mankind cannot be bear such consequences on living hood.
Whilst debating in favor of the increased ages, one of positives is the increased productivity. If a layman has to live for extended periods, the current scenario of living will be completely changed. Scientists often debate that if this has to happen, it will completely overhaul the present lifestyle with increased cycles of different stages of life. Therefore, an adult will be able to work for more years resulting in increased output.
It seems reasonable to conclude that bio medical sciences will not be able to enhance the current age of human in near future. If it has to happen, immense changes have to be implemented to completely convert the current stages of living hood.
There are some good topic related words but some informal(spoken form) language can be noticed.
Honestly speaking, the ideas are confusing. I would like to suggest you explain both ideas equally.
Also, It's a good idea to write the paragraph with your opinion later.
Starting with your main sentence:
I certainly believe this invention will not be beneficial to mankind of current world and create negative impacts on the lives of people in long run.
These are the issues I found.
1- This => which invention? the word 'this' is confusing.
2- current world => unusual collocation here. (Not sure what it means.)
3- The two phrases connected by 'and' has some problem related to parallel structures. (the two phrases don't add up to form a meaningful sentence. try breaking two phrases see if it makes sense)
- this invention will not be beneficial to mankind.
- this invention creates negative impacts.
See if 'and' is right conjunction to join these two phrases meaningfully.
4. in long run => in the long run.
I would like to suggest you rewrite this sentence because this is the main sentence of your essay.
I didn't check other structures in detail but common mistakes are highlighted in red. Also underlined parts are vague or incorrect. Please check. Also I noticed problem with use of articles too.
Thanks for sharing.
Many thanks for your valuable f/b. I Please can you advice how to write a strong conclusion?
Thank you very much sir for your kind review. Is it a band 6 essay?
I will try to post more essays here. At least i will know more about my basic mistakes.
Amazing story dear. I took IDP's computer based test. I lost in listening and ended up with 7.5. I have noticed that your listening score improved in paper based test. Do you think that one can do better in listening in paper based test?
Dear Mentors,
Please evaluate my task 2. My previous attempt gave me a 6 in Writing.
Some people think that international competitive sports such as football bring conflict between people of different age groups and nationalities. Others think sport is helping reach understanding between people and nations.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Different sporting competitions, like soccer, at international level are considered as a tool, to initiate conflicting matters amidst nations and individuals, by a part of society. While for some people sports play a mediation role to resolve fights. In my opinion, I believe that such sport activities help societies to resolve their fights and sometimes, even end decades-fought wars.
On the one hand, games bring an opportunity for arch rivals to gather at one platform - no matter how old or intense are the conflicts between the two – which is the first step for dialogue and I completely agree with this. Take Indo-Pak issues, for instance, they had fought three to four full fledged wars till date. Sporting competitions, however, are the only events bringing both these countries on a table. No matter whether its cricket or football, to initiate a dialogue, different international sport events have helped them. Consequently, peace is achieved and wars, somewhat, have stopped in the long run.
On the contrary, for few people international game events are responsible for creation of hate and anger among countries. They think that losing a game against opponents, hits hard at the patriotic passion of individuals. Hence, this results in long term hatred towards the winners and consequently, which converts sport rival into an enemy. For instance, several football matches abandon due to eruption of fiery chants among supporters. However, these sort of activities does not create an impact on relations of two countries.
It seems reasonable to conclude that games at international level play a vital role in resolving issues of quarrel between states by bringing them together on table-talk. However, few incidents may occur without severe effects on long-lasting relationship of countries.
Please evaluate my task 2. My previous attempt gave me a 6 in Writing.
Some people think that international competitive sports such as football bring conflict between people of different age groups and nationalities. Others think sport is helping reach understanding between people and nations.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Different sporting competitions, like soccer, at international level are considered as a tool, to initiate conflicting matters amidst nations and individuals, by a part of society. While for some people sports play a mediation role to resolve fights. In my opinion, I believe that such sport activities help societies to resolve their fights and sometimes, even end decades-fought wars.
On the one hand, games bring an opportunity for arch rivals to gather at one platform - no matter how old or intense are the conflicts between the two – which is the first step for dialogue and I completely agree with this. Take Indo-Pak issues, for instance, they had fought three to four full fledged wars till date. Sporting competitions, however, are the only events bringing both these countries on a table. No matter whether its cricket or football, to initiate a dialogue, different international sport events have helped them. Consequently, peace is achieved and wars, somewhat, have stopped in the long run.
On the contrary, for few people international game events are responsible for creation of hate and anger among countries. They think that losing a game against opponents, hits hard at the patriotic passion of individuals. Hence, this results in long term hatred towards the winners and consequently, which converts sport rival into an enemy. For instance, several football matches abandon due to eruption of fiery chants among supporters. However, these sort of activities does not create an impact on relations of two countries.
It seems reasonable to conclude that games at international level play a vital role in resolving issues of quarrel between states by bringing them together on table-talk. However, few incidents may occur without severe effects on long-lasting relationship of countries.
In first sentence of Introduction there is no clear organization of the clauses. Commas are confusing.
I think spending few minutes studying "restrictive vs nonrestrictive clauses" will be beneficial.
While for some people sports play a mediation role to resolve fights : What is the meaning of while here? The sentence doesn't make sense.
decades-fought : I am not sure if that is a word. if there is such word it could be decade-fought without 's'. But not sure about it. Sounds odd with 's' though. Please confirm this.
Take Indo-Pak issues, for instance, : Please check for punctuation (there should not be comma before for instance). Also, who is the pronoun 'they' used for? "the issues" didn't fight, India and Pakistan did.
Also why past perfect? ... you are talking about not talking about past in the sentence after that.
I would write it as:
For example, India and Pakistan fought three to four....
OR
India and Pakistan, for example, fought three to four....
have stopped in the long run. : can't get what you mean here. Please be sure about the meaning of "in the long run".
You are perhaps taking it as synonym of ultimately but it's not exact synonym. "in the long run" is similarly to ultimately but in the future).
First body paragraph doesn't look well developed to me.
Couldn't read all for due to time constraints. Hope above feedback will be helpful to some extent.
It means that I have to work harder and harder on my grammar. So many mistakes.
Some people believe that it is wrong to keep animals in zoos, while others think that zoos are both entertaining and ecologically important. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Confining animals to zoos is considered inaccurate by few people, however, for others zoological gardens ought to be important for providing entertainment and easy access to natural beasts and birds. In my opinion, I certainly believe that zoos provide opportunities to mankind to view animals at ease and are important for environment.
On the one hand, these animal housing facilities provide easy access to human being, as well as, an opportunity for recreational activities and I completely agree. Firstly, kids can watch their favorite animals with naked eye which allows them to have a real feel of what they see on TV screens or in published books. Subsequent point is that zoos present animals from each and every of the world in one place. People cannot travel around the planet to natural fields in search of every species. Take, Giraffes, for example - which are only available in the middle and southern part of Africa, if there had been no zoos then children of European or any other content would have never seen them in actual. Consequently, it becomes almost infeasible to see different animals all of our lives.
On the contrary, people who oppose zoos often consider keeping animals in confined spaces as inhumane. For them, each species shall be kept in their natural habitat just like human beings so that they can enjoy their lives same like us. Secondly, such group of individuals think that keeping animals in confined spaces mars their natural abilities. This sort of forceful abduction results in changing animals’ habits, food requirements and certain other aspects.
Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that zoos are needful for mankind, as they provide entertainment and scenic opportunities; however, animals ought to be taken well care off depending upon their requirements.
Confining animals to zoos is considered inaccurate by few people, however, for others zoological gardens ought to be important for providing entertainment and easy access to natural beasts and birds. In my opinion, I certainly believe that zoos provide opportunities to mankind to view animals at ease and are important for environment.
On the one hand, these animal housing facilities provide easy access to human being, as well as, an opportunity for recreational activities and I completely agree. Firstly, kids can watch their favorite animals with naked eye which allows them to have a real feel of what they see on TV screens or in published books. Subsequent point is that zoos present animals from each and every of the world in one place. People cannot travel around the planet to natural fields in search of every species. Take, Giraffes, for example - which are only available in the middle and southern part of Africa, if there had been no zoos then children of European or any other content would have never seen them in actual. Consequently, it becomes almost infeasible to see different animals all of our lives.
On the contrary, people who oppose zoos often consider keeping animals in confined spaces as inhumane. For them, each species shall be kept in their natural habitat just like human beings so that they can enjoy their lives same like us. Secondly, such group of individuals think that keeping animals in confined spaces mars their natural abilities. This sort of forceful abduction results in changing animals’ habits, food requirements and certain other aspects.
Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that zoos are needful for mankind, as they provide entertainment and scenic opportunities; however, animals ought to be taken well care off depending upon their requirements.