My essay, проверьте, покритикуйте! Спасибо!

[Yurah]

На мой взгляд, логичнее дать свой опинион в заключении единожды.

Если в задании спрашивают опинион, то давать его надо и во введении и в заключении. Не одними словами, а с помощью парафраза. Во введении опинион нужен, чтобы обозначить свою позицию. Потому что дальше идут аргументы и доказательства. А к чему будут аргументы и доказательства, если нет опиниона во введении?

[Maimiti_Isabella]

покритикуйте и меня пожалуйста

It is generally believed that some people are born with certain talents, for instance for sport or music, and others are not. However, it is sometimes claimed that any child can be taught to become a good sports person or musician.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.


The issue of whether the genius is a result of hard work or an inherent trait has sparked heated debates in recent decades. In my point of view, everyone can be trained in various spheres and reach a great results.

You've been asked to discuss first and give your opinion next. So, from this point of view, your body paragraphs and conclusion answer the task - no questions here. However, the Introduction doesn't not correspond either to the task or to the rest of your essay.

If you give your opinion in the Intro, there's no really any point in looking at any arguments, is there? You've already stated your position and your job is then to justify it. This means, you will lose some marks on TA/Coherence.

In short, the essay task asks you for the discussion + opinion essay. Your Introduction completely ignores the 'discussion' bit.

I hope you understand what I mean.

PS I haven't had a look at the language issues so I'm not commenting on anything but TA.

[Dremlin]

Если в задании спрашивают опинион, то давать его надо и во введении и в заключении. Не одними словами, а с помощью парафраза. Во введении опинион нужен, чтобы обозначить свою позицию. Потому что дальше идут аргументы и доказательства. А к чему будут аргументы и доказательства, если нет опиниона во введении?

Не понятно для чего нужно писать свой опинион дважды, тем более в интро? Вам же по любому нужно будет рассмотреть оба поинта. В задании написано "Discuss and give your opinion". Логично ведь, что Вы рассматриваете обе стороны "за" и "против" и как логическое заключение говорите, что согласен только с одной стороной или обеими.
В интро надо было подготовить читателя (экзаменатора), что в эссе будут рассмотрены обе точки зрения.

А вот эссе типа "to what extent do you agree or disagree", да. Здесь нужно обозначить что Вы собираетесь отстаивать, потому что здесь могут быть 3 варианта развития событий.

[agronom]

You've been asked to discuss first and give your opinion next. So, from this point of view, your body paragraphs and conclusion answer the task - no questions here. However, the Introduction doesn't not correspond either to the task or to the rest of your essay.

If you give your opinion in the Intro, there's no really any point in looking at any arguments, is there? You've already stated your position and your job is then to justify it. This means, you will lose some marks on TA/Coherence.

In short, the essay task asks you for the discussion + opinion essay. Your Introduction completely ignores the 'discussion' bit.

I hope you understand what I mean.

PS I haven't had a look at the language issues so I'm not commenting on anything but TA.

спасибо большое."разжевали" очень доходчиво.

[agronom]

спасибо всем за коменты.если возможно-может кто нибудь дать примерную оценку этого ессе?буду бллагодарен за разбор "по косточкам" и "тыканию носом" в проблемные места.

[agronom]

немного подправил в исходном варианте

[Maimiti_Isabella]

немного подправил в исходном варианте

6.5 (but more likely 6.0)

Many language-related problems (BTW, this is a box while this is boxing )

In the first body para there are obvious coherence problems

The Intro now fits the task but it is very short, full of cliches and generally doesn't do a good job of showing off your essay writing skills.

Cliches are bolded:

The issue of whether the genius (???) is a result of hard work or an inherent trait has sparked heated debates in recent decades.

There are too many examples but it's not always clear what they exemplify as you haven't developed the ideas.

Your Conclusion suddenly introduces a new example and this is absolutely inappropriate.

[agronom]

6.5 (but more likely 6.0)

Many language-related problems (BTW, this is a box while this is boxing )

In the first body para there are obvious coherence problems

The Intro now fits the task but it is very short, full of cliches and generally doesn't do a good job of showing off your essay writing skills.

Cliches are bolded:


There are too many examples but it's not always clear what they exemplify as you haven't developed the ideas.

Your Conclusion suddenly introduces a new example and this is absolutely inappropriate.

спасибо большое.будем дальше работать на скиллз

[agronom]

6.5 (but more likely 6.0)

Many language-related problems (BTW, this is a box while this is boxing )

In the first body para there are obvious coherence problems

The Intro now fits the task but it is very short, full of cliches and generally doesn't do a good job of showing off your essay writing skills.

Cliches are bolded:


There are too many examples but it's not always clear what they exemplify as you haven't developed the ideas.

Your Conclusion suddenly introduces a new example and this is absolutely inappropriate.

спасибо большое.будем дальше работать на скиллз

[House M.D.]

Всем добрый день. Покритикуйте, пожалуйста, и мое эссе.

Some people prefer to spend their lives doing the same things and avoiding changes . Others , however think that change is always a good thing . Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

In regards to the changes in life humanity always divides into two categories. Some inclined to have stability rather than variability in all spheres of their activities. For others, however, it is inacceptable to lead measured life without any diversity. Both views will be analysed before a logical conclusion is drawn.

On the one hand, there are some obvious benefits in performing the same objects without facing any changes. Firstly, stability enables people feel themselves more confident about the future and achieve their aims. For example, the category of people who work in the same organization for a long time, usually successfully climb the career ladder than those who swap their job occasionally. In addition to this, employees who stay on the same position for decades of years are ultimately better specialists than those who prefer diversity in their career life.

On the other hand, there are some inarguable advantages of diversification. Firstly, individuals who tend to make changes have an opportunity to rethink the meaning of their lives and possibly discover their true purpose. For instance, for such persons there is a high probability to find their true vocation trying a series of jobs which is not available for those who loyal to one job place. Additionally, it is believed that monotony and routine make humans to feel apathy and indifference to all that happens around. On the contrary, even a minor shift in people's lives might ignite new interests and make them to look at the same things from another angle.

Taking account of the examples and reasons provided so far, I tend to consider that both stability and variability have their own positive and negative moments. In my opinion, rational balance between two approaches would be the golden mean.

[Goran Dražić]

Всем добрый день. Покритикуйте, пожалуйста, и мое эссе.

Some people prefer to spend their lives doing the same things and avoiding changes . Others , however think that change is always a good thing . Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

In regards to the changes in life humanity always divides into two categories. Some inclined to have stability rather than variability in all spheres of their activities. For others, however, it is inacceptable to lead measured life without any diversity. Both views will be analysed before a logical conclusion is drawn.

On the one hand, there are some obvious benefits in performing the same objects without facing any changes. Firstly, stability enables people ___ feel themselves more confident about the future and achieve their aims. For example, the category of people who work in the same organization for a long time, usually successfully climb the career ladder than those who swap their job occasionally. In addition to this, employees who stay on the same position for decades of years are ultimately better specialists than those who prefer diversity in their career life. - because they do the same thing and have limited experience?

On the other hand, there are some inarguable advantages of diversification. Firstly, individuals who tend to make changes have an opportunity to rethink the meaning of their lives and possibly discover their true purpose. For instance, for such persons there is a high probability to find their true vocation trying a series of jobs ___ which is not available for those who ___ loyal to one job place. Additionally, it is believed that monotony and routine make humans to feel apathy and indifference to all that happens around. On the contrary, even a minor shift in people's lives might ignite new interests and make them to look at the same things from another angle.

Taking account of the examples and reasons provided so far, I tend to consider that both stability and variability have their own positive and negative moments. In my opinion, rational balance between two approaches would be the golden mean.

[Tal]

Пара дополнений от меня:

For example, the category of people who work in the same organization for a long time, usually successfully climb the career ladder than those who swap their job occasionally.

Полагаю, лучше так:
People who work in the same organization for a long time, usually climb the career ladder more successfully than those swapping their job occasionally.
1) Не забывайте сравнительную степень (more)
2) У Вас часто используется (people) who, думаю, лучше разнообразить количество оборотов: местами who можно просто опустить, местами - изменить форму глагола.

For instance, for such persons there is a high probability to find their true vocation trying a series of jobs...

For instance, there is a high probability for such individuals to find their true vocation trying a series of jobs...

ИМХО, individuals - лучший синоним к people. Здесь я уменьшила количество вводных оборотов, чтобы было легче воспринимать.

[debugx]

please, check my essay:
Some people feel that entertainers (e.g. film starts, pop musicians and sports starts) are paid too much money.
Do you agree or disagree?
Which other type of jobs should be highly paid?

It is true that many famous people make a lot of money performing on stage, doing sports or taking part in exciting movies. While some people claim that entertainers do not deserve very high salary, I personally believe that the money which they make is completely appropriate for their talents for several reasons.

To begin, people should have a salary according to their abilities. It is undeniable that many well-known singers and actors are fairly talented people who have many years of education. Moreover, in many countries it is a real challenge to become a successful entertainer because of a lot of hassles and competition. For example, the famous Russian signer Kirkorov studied in a musical school quite hard and diligently before he managed to achieve the fame and money which he has now. Secondly, being an entertainer is a very hard lifestyle which requires a person to devote all his free time to this profession. Sometimes they are unable to spend any time with their family or friends because of a lot of work. Furthermore, being a celebrity or a popular sport star is very dangerous because they might be kidnapped or blackmailed. Many film stars, for instance, have to hire bodyguards in order to be safe. Finally, the life of many entertainers is very difficult and full of obstacles; therefore, it is absolutely unfair to say that they are paid too much money.

However, I agree that there are a lot of other jobs which also should be highly paid. For example, a teacher is a very ancient and significantly important profession. It is greatly beneficial for countries to have highly educated specialists in this field. The lack of professional teachers leads to a poor society with a lot of economical and social problems. Therefore, it is undisputable that teachers must have a highly decent wage.

In conclusion, it is clear that entertainers usually have a salary which fully reflects their skills and abilities. However, it is not the only profession which should be highly paid. There are a lot of other jobs, for example, a teacher, which should be paid a lot of money as well.

[Polina_K]

please, check my essay:
Some people feel that entertainers (e.g. film starts, pop musicians and sports starts) are paid too much money.
Do you agree or disagree?
Which other type of jobs should be highly paid?

It is true that many famous people make a lot of money performing on stage, doing sports or taking part in exciting movies. While some people claim that entertainers do not deserve very high salary, I personally believe that the money which they make is completely appropriate for their talents for several reasons.

To begin, people should have a salary according to their abilities. It is undeniable that many well-known singers and actors are fairly talented people who have many years of education. Moreover, in many countries it is a real challenge to become a successful entertainer because of a lot of hassles and competition. For example, the famous Russian signer Kirkorov studied in a musical school quite hard and diligently before he managed to achieve the fame and money which he has now. Secondly, being an entertainer is a very hard lifestyle which requires a person to devote all his free time to this profession. Sometimes they are unable to spend any time with their family or friends because of a lot of work. Furthermore, being a celebrity or a popular sport star is very dangerous because they might be kidnapped or blackmailed. Many film stars, for instance, have to hire bodyguards in order to be safe. Finally, the life of many entertainers is very difficult and full of obstacles; therefore, it is absolutely unfair to say that they are paid too much money.

However, I agree that there are a lot of other jobs which also should be highly paid. For example, a teacher is a very ancient and significantly important profession. It is greatly beneficial for countries to have highly educated specialists in this field. The lack of professional teachers leads to a poor society with a lot of economical and social problems. Therefore, it is undisputable that teachers must have a highly decent wage.

In conclusion, it is clear that entertainers usually have a salary which fully reflects their skills and abilities. However, it is not the only profession which should be highly paid. There are a lot of other jobs, for example, a teacher, which should be paid a lot of money as well.

1) Недостаточно раскрыт второй вопрос.
2) Повторы идей (the life of many entertainers is very difficult)
3) Вам хорошо тщательно проработать тему артиклей, а то не получится "produces frequent error-free sentences".
4) Слишком много однотипных предложений с which. Попробуйте проработать тему "relative clauses" и научиться пользоваться participial constructions.
5) Осторожно с фразами it is undisputable, It is undeniable - это про "there may be a tendency to over-generalise"

[debugx]

Polina_K, спасибо. Можете плиз пояснить
1. почему второй вопрос недостаточно раскрыт? С логической точки зрения, тут одного предложения хватит, чтобы перечислить все типы работ, которые должны быть высоко оплачиваемы. И это на 100% покроет данный вопрос, потому что, если честно, он довольно странный, т.е. не предполагает рассуждения.
3. покажите плиз, где я ошибся с артиклями