My essay, проверьте, покритикуйте! Спасибо!

[NestyIvan]

Извините, я влезу, оба метода равны, вы должны описать + и - обоих методов желательно в равных пропорциях, а в конце дать свое мнение.

Извините, я вмешаюсь в Ваше вмешательство.
В задании же написно "Discuss advantages". Если описывать минусы, это разве не будет оффтопиком?

[Ирика]

NestyIvan, спасибо за поправку.
Я имела в виду, что оба утверждения равносильны, и в этом случае, действительно, надо плюсы обоих приводить в равной степени для обычных детей, например, а не только для особеных.

[dslinkov87]

Здравствуйте. Мог бы кто-нибудь посоветовать, дать ссылку или прислать на почту подборку с хорошими эссе?
Заранее спасибо.

[Timbuktu]

1. Саймон - ielts-simon.com - разделы про Writing
2. Райан - погуглите "Task 2 - How To Write At a 9 Level"
3. Брейверман - ielts-blog.com/category/ielts-writing-samples/ - есть примеры эссе и на высокий, и на низкий band

Саймон и Райан пропагандируют разные стили написания эссе, вам нужно выбрать что больше подходит вам. У Брейвермана просто чьи-то эссе, которые он и его люди оценили на определенный band.

[[rcf]]

Посмотрите, пожалуйста, мое ессе.

Aircrafts have been increasingly used to transport fruits and vegetables to some countries where such plants hardly grow or are out of season. Some people consider it a good trend, but some people oppose it. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Nowadays, general public takes for granted the abundance of different kinds of fruits and vegetables on market shelves. Some people believe that this availabilty benefits us in many different ways such as cheap accessible vitamins and food diversity. And, of course, they support the trend for expanding the market mainly by increasing aircraft fleet. Yet there is another view on this believe. Opposite camp claims that natural resourses are just wasted and ecology should take precedence.

The use of cargo airplanes undoubtly is the most efficient method for transporting everything. But when it comes to perishable food, it is the only way which can be used. Take, for example, the route from Thailand to Australia, any load can be delivered within twenty-four hours using flying machine. If ships were used it would take days. Fruits would just spoil during this travel. Thus, without doubt, airplanes helps to get fresh fruits and vegetables to market shelves faster and the movement toward aircraft usage is definitely a possitive thing.

However, there are serious drawbacks from the ecological point of view. Air polution and natural resourse waste are just few of them. Aircrafts consume thousands liters of high octane fuel and the amount of exhausts is enormous. The produced noise is yet another issue especially for birds and animals which inhabit close to airport areas. Therefore, the tendency for excessive airplane usage should be seriously debated since current benefits have only short-term advantages for people.

After discussing these two completely controversial points of view, I personally believe that the trend towards increasing the number of aircrafts should be analysed in earnest by community. It will only damage ecosystems in long-term perspective.


Спасибо.

[Vanderley]

Каждый раз как смотрю на новое эссе, у меня deja vu. Только кажется писал ИвлГуммиБеар, что не стоит юзать личные местоимения второго и первого лица, начинать предложения с союзо and, or and but, ну и про пунктуацию в сложносочиненных предложения, кондишналах и сплитсентенсы, и вот всё это снова в другой эссе Печаль.

Теперь, у вас не раскрывается вот это:

to some countries where such plants hardly grow or are out of seaso

Плохо.

Ещё мне не нравится первый боди параграф. Возможно это и не ошибка, но энивэй. Вы пишете про perishable food и как фрукты не перенесут несколькодневную транспортировку, что неверно для многих фрукто, таких как яблоки.ю апельсины, ананасы, кокосы etc. Лучше было бы написать про some fruits. А ещё лучше было бы написать про то, что за счет использования самолетов, детки в некоторых регионах получают доступ к витаминам, которых нету в местных фруктах, и про то что детки имеют доступ к фрукта круглогодично. Это бы как раз вашу проблему с игнорированием куска задания решило.

Из мелочей не нравится:

• they support the trend for expanding the market mainly by increasing aircraft fleet - кто расширяет аэрофлот, те же кто поддерживает или кто-то ещё? Судя по they support ... by increasing aircraft fleet - те же, кто и поддерживает.
• inhabit close to airport areas -> inhabit areas close to airports. Так лучше. Первый вариант звучит как населяют близко к аэропортам.
• benefits have only short-term advantages
• After discussing these two completely controversial points of view - я не вижу здесь двух controversial точек зрения. Самолеты быстры и эффективны - ничего controversial. Самолёты засирают воздух - ничего controversial. Что вы имели ввиду?

Вам задание исправить ошибки, про которые я выше говорио и то, что я выделил красны ниже.

Nowadays, general public takes for granted the abundance of different kinds of fruits and vegetables on market shelves. Some people believe that this availabilty benefits us in many different ways such as cheap accessible vitamins and food diversity. And, of course, they support the trend for expanding the market mainly by increasing aircraft fleet. Yet there is another view on this believe. Opposite camp claims that natural resourses are just wasted and ecology should take precedence.

The use of cargo airplanes undoubtly is the most efficient method for transporting everything. But when it comes to perishable food, it is the only way which can be used. Take, for example, the route from Thailand to Australia, any load can be delivered within twenty-four hours using flying machine. If ships were used it would take days. Fruits would just spoil during this travel. Thus, without doubt, airplanes helps to get fresh fruits and vegetables to market shelves faster and the movement toward aircraft usage is definitely a possitive thing.

However, there are serious drawbacks from the ecological point of view. Air polution and natural resourse waste are just few of them. Aircrafts consume thousands liters of high octane fuel and the amount of exhausts is enormous. The produced noise is yet another issue especially for birds and animals which inhabit close to airport areas. Therefore, the tendency for excessive airplane usage should be seriously debated since current benefits have only short-term advantages for people.

After discussing these two completely controversial points of view, I personally believe that the trend towards increasing the number of aircrafts should be analysed in earnest by community. It will only damage ecosystems in long-term perspective.

А вообще неплохо написано как по мне. Нравится.

[[rcf]]

Nowadays, general public takes for granted the abundance of different kinds of fruits and vegetables on market shelves. Some people believe that this availabilty benefits community in many different ways such as cheap accessible vitamins and larger food diversity. It is especially important for places where such plants hardly grow or are out of season. Currently, it is mainly accomplished by increasing aircraft fleet. Yet there is another view on this belief. Opposite camp claims that natural resourses are just wasted and ecology should take precedence.

The use of cargo airplanes undoubtly is the most efficient method for transporting everything. Hovewer, when it comes to perishable food, it is the only way which can be used. Take, for example, the route from Thailand to Australia, any load can be delivered within twenty-four hours using flying machine. It would take days if ships were used. Some fruits would just spoil during this travel. Thus, without doubt, airplanes help to get fresh fruits and vegetables to market shelves faster and the movement toward aircraft usage is definitely a positive thing.

However, there are serious drawbacks from the ecological point of view. Air polution and natural resourse waste are just a few of them. Aircrafts consume thousands liters of high octane fuel and the amount of exhausts is enormous. The produced noise is yet another issue, especially for birds and animals inhabitant areas of which close to airports. Therefore, the tendency for excessive airplane usage should be seriously debated since current benefits are short-term in nature.

After discussing these two completely controversial opinions on the prevailing trend for enlarging airplane fleet , I personally believe that the trend towards increasing the number of aircrafts should be analysed in earnest by community. It will only damage ecosystems in long-term perspective.


Поправил эссе. В заключении я преднамеренно использовал I так как нужно высказать мнение.

And, of course, - было удалено. Я хоть и знаю про and but все равно использовал его, т.к. звучало лучше на мой взгляд.

По запятым поправил где нашел, в сослагательном правда поменял местами части, поэтому там запятую не нужно теперь.

[Vanderley]

Не хватает запятых:

• natural resourses are just wasted and ecology should take precedence
• airplanes help to get fresh fruits and vegetables to market shelves faster and the movement toward aircraft usage is definitely a positive thing
• Aircrafts consume thousands liters of high octane fuel and the amount of exhausts is enormous

Плохо то, что вы ляпнули кусок из формулировки не изменяя. Я так понимаю вы это для TA сделали. Я считаю, что всё таки в боди это тоже надо было как-то вписывать. Но сейчас уже этого не надо наверное делать. Просто имейте ввиду на будущее. Ещё у вас сейчас вступление слишком длинное. 6 предложений это явный перебор например.

for birds and animals inhabitant areas of which close to airports - oh my God! Вы сами понимаете что тут написали?

current benefits are short-term in nature - вроде нормально. Можно ещё так current benefits are of a short-term nature. Это так, FYI.

Про два controversial мнения я не согласен. Вы меня видимо первый раз не поняли. Тема эссе controversial, слгласен, но она одна. А плюсы и минусы, ваши два параграфа, ни разу не controversial. Кто спорит, что самолёты засирают воздух? Может я чего-то не понимаю.

Поправил эссе. В заключении я преднамеренно использовал I так как нужно высказать мнение.

Это ок. Главное us выкинули.

And, of course, - было удалено. Я хоть и знаю про and but все равно использовал его, т.к. звучало лучше на мой взгляд.

And -> moreover, but -> however. But вы правильно поправили.

[Vyacheslav16]

Уважаемые дамы и господа, мой первый выход на "сцену". Встречайте.

The first car appeared on British roads in 1888. By the year 2000 there may be as
many as 29 million vehicles on British roads.
Alternative forms of transport should be encouraged and international laws
introduced to control car ownership and use.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The number of vehicles has increased enormously for the last century. There are more than 29 million cars, buses and trucks in Great Britain nowadays. This could cause permanent traffic jams and air pollution. There is an opinion that other transport should be developed and adequate laws made.

I strongly believe a balanced compromise has to be reached. It is absolutely obvious that car is the most suitable and comfortable means of transportation in everyday life for the majority of people. Not many of us need a train or a plane to go to work. Often it is much more convenient and cheaper to drive a car than to go by train when visiting your relatives or friends in a neighbour town. Besides, it is highly unreasonable to have the country dotted with railroads and airports. Small flying objects driven by accumulator batteries would be probably a perfect solution, but we do not live in a fairy tale. In my opinion, public transport should be developed. More people would use it if it were well organized, fairly cheap and comfortable. Thus, it would lead to reduction in the overall amount of vehicles on the roads.

While petrol is being made car owners are likely to use it as the most effective fuel. However, good progress has been made in producing electric cars. If it goes the same way a worthy substitute will be made. Though a bit expensive, hybrid cars are already not bad today.

To sum it up, there are no radical solutions of transport problems, but some measures, such as the development of public transport and electric car production, should be taken.


Всего слов: 274.


P.S. Господа экзаменаторы из BKC оценивают мои Writing skills на 5 баллов. Моя цель - оценки не ниже 7 в каждой части экзамена.

[Polina_K]

Уважаемые дамы и господа, мой первый выход на "сцену". Встречайте.

The first car appeared on British roads in 1888. By the year 2000 there may be as
many as 29 million vehicles on British roads.
Alternative forms of transport should be encouraged and international laws
introduced to control car ownership and use.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The number of vehicles has increased enormously for the last century. There are more than 29 million cars, buses and trucks in Great Britain nowadays. This could cause permanent traffic jams and air pollution. There is an opinion that other transport should be developed and adequate laws made.

I strongly believe a balanced compromise has to be reached. It is absolutely obvious that car is the most suitable and comfortable means of transportation in everyday life for the majority of people. Not many of us need a train or a plane to go to work. Often it is much more convenient and cheaper to drive a car than to go by train when visiting your relatives or friends in a neighbour town. Besides, it is highly unreasonable to have the country dotted with railroads and airports. Small flying objects driven by accumulator batteries would be probably a perfect solution, but we do not live in a fairy tale. In my opinion, public transport should be developed. More people would use it if it were well organized, fairly cheap and comfortable. Thus, it would lead to reduction in the overall amount of vehicles on the roads.

While petrol is being made car owners are likely to use it as the most effective fuel. However, good progress has been made in producing electric cars. If it goes the same way a worthy substitute will be made. Though a bit expensive, hybrid cars are already not bad today.

To sum it up, there are no radical solutions of transport problems, but some measures, such as the development of public transport and electric car production, should be taken.


Всего слов: 274.


P.S. Господа экзаменаторы из BKC оценивают мои Writing skills на 5 баллов. Моя цель - оценки не ниже 7 в каждой части экзамена.

Вы никак не прокомментировали "international laws should be introduced", тогда как для Task Response важно ответить на все части вопроса, чтобы получить 6 или больше.

Слабая разбивка на параграфы - нет баланса, нет топик сентенс во втором абзаце тела. По поводу этого абзаца - автомобили с другим типом двигателя тоже являются vehicles, поэтому не очень подходят как альтернативный транспорт.

Рекомендую избегать категоричных фраз типа "It is absolutely obvious that car is the most suitable and comfortable means of transportation"

Us, we, your - на время написания эссэ исключить из лексикона

Почитать хорошие эссэ на предмет "progression" - как постепенно и связно раскрывают тему. Когда я читала ваше эссэ, было ощущение несвязности, как будто человек не планировал, что будет писать, а просто излагал идеи по мере поступления.

[Vyacheslav16]

Polina_K, спасибо за замечания, учту.

[Vyacheslav16]

Интересно, а кто-нибудь заметил по какому принципу я построил 2 параграфа тела?

[[rcf]]

да все понял. c inhabit areas нагородил

Спасибо за проверку..

[[rcf]]

Пожалуйста, посмотрите кто-нибудь.

Millions of dollars are spent on space research every year. Some people argue that the money should be spent on improving living standards on Earth. Do you agree or disagree?


Nowadays, various space exploration programs are conducted by many developed countries. All these projects and experiments require money, and many people claim that humanity is just wasting billions for nothing when this money could be spent more wisely improving living standards. Personally, I completely disagree with such assertions, and I am going to refute them below.

First of all, the greater number of these programs are not cost as much money as many presume. Take, for example, currently popular in mass media project called 'Curiousity Rover'. NASA has spent only 2 billion dollars on it. Comparing with cost of other social programs it is not a huge amount of money. Additionally, the fact that private companies such as SpaceX and many others easily enter the area of research clearly reaffirms my point about money. Thus, concerns of spending or even better to say wasting too much money do not have real basis, and they are unfounded.

Secondly, speaking about living standarts and social goods people often forget what helped to provide them eventually. The most obvious and well-known example here is GPS navigations which is commonly used in daily life by many people. It has become possible only because of space related programs. It is not the only example of how these projects can help people to improve their living standarts. Weather forecasts, satellite TV, the Internet, there are so many of them. Therefore, speaking about сutting financial backing to such projects looks at least odd.

To conlude, the space exploration programs boost the level of living standarts eventually and money is spent in a good way. People who believe that earthly problems have to be solved primarily mostly do not undestand that solution may be found by these researches.

Спасибо.

[Vyacheslav16]

Моё второе эссе. Над первым еще собираюсь поработать и выложить исправленный вариант. Буду весьма благодарен за обоснованные замечания.

The threat of nuclear weapons maintains world peace. Nuclear power provides cheap and clean energy.

The benefits of nuclear technology far outweigh the disadvantages.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?


Nuclear bomb has been invented. Peaceful atom is used in nuclear power stations. Some people believe that the benefits of nuclear technology far outweigh the disadvantages.

In my opinion, the drawbacks of nuclear technology are too dangerous not to be taken into account. I believe nuclear power can be a real nightmare for the whole mankind. It is not just a theory anymore. People of Japan and the former USSR had an opportunity to confirm the fact, since they have endured a nuclear bomb attack and a nuclear power station catastrophe respectively. Some powerful countries are proud of having nuclear weapons. However, it is terrible to imagine what may come if a mad ruler decides to use them. It would be the end of the world if a nuclear war would start. People, who are aware of the danger, live with permanent fear of it. In addition, all the living beings can perish if nuclear power stations start breaking. God gave much wisdom to a man for creating such a complex thing by which he can destroy himself. Is not this somewhat paradoxical?

Beyond all doubts, people have gained much benefit of using nuclear energy. It is clean and comparatively not so expensive. If only I were sure that it always would be used for good and no accidents would ever happen, I would become a preacher of the technology. Unfortunately, I cannot but admit this unreal. Anyway, since nuclear energy exists people must do their best in using it with the utmost care.

In conclusion, the use of nuclear technology is very dangerous. I guess many people could agree with the fact if they had stayed alive. Can their lives be measured by money economized on energy?

Всего слов: 288.