dim/essayforum_raw_writing_10k huggingface dataset:
QUESTION: **With The Increasing Use And Development Of New Technology, Many Machine Are New Able To Do The Work Which People Used To Perform. What Are The Advantages And Disadvantages Of This Trend?**  
  
## are machines replacing human already?

  
  
It's true that thanks to the development of technology, machines are increasingly replacing humans on a number of works. While I accept that this has both pros and cons, I would contend that there are more disadvantages than advantages.  
  
Admittedly, it's understandable that why people consider that the automation would be a fortunate thing. This sound thinking can be attributed to a host of benefits brought by machines. To begin with, as machines are likely to be more cost-effective than human counterpart, applying machines enable businesses to attain the greater efficiency and better productivity. This situation is perfectly exemplified by Samsung. By setting up the chains of robots in their factory in 2000, Samsung's yield increased by 100%. Furthermore, since machines such as robots are designed to work in extremely harsh environments such as in space and underwater, this is likely to mitigate the risk of human injury.  
  
On the contrary to aforementioned approach, there are various negative consequences of the trend we should take into consideration. Firstly, machines have eradicated a wide range of jobs in several industries. Automobile manufacturing is a telling example. According to the Economist, the unemployment rate in cars industry has experienced a significant rise in recent years because numerous car firms are using robot rather than hiring employees. Furthermore, due to the fact that robots and machines are likely to be hacked, it's extremely hazardous if they are malfunctioning and designed for warfare.  
  
In sum, although robots and machines provide humans with advantages of efficiency and productivity. I would argue that the disadvantages are more significant than the advantages.
Hi, I liked your essay, although your intro and especially your conclusion seem a little short. You have quite a few issues with articles, which doesn't really affect the reader's understanding, but makes your writing sound less natural. Here are some specific comments:  
  
development of technology, {a good synonym for development of technology here would be "advances in automation"}  
  
replacing humans in a number of works {"works" sounds odd unless you are talking about works of art - try "tasks"}  
  
it's understandable ~~that~~ why people consider that ~~the~~ automation would be a fortunate thing.{try to avoid using "thing" - be more specific - maybe "progression" or "trend" or "development"}  
  
cost-effective than their human counterparts, applying machines enables businesses to attain ~~the~~ greater  
  
setting up ~~the~~ chains of robots  
  
On the contrary to the aforementioned {"In contrast to the ... " sounds more natural here}  
  
the unemployment rate in the car industry  
  
are using robots rather than hiring employees.  
  
if they are malfunctioning and designed for warfare. {this is unclear - I guess you mean "if they are modified in order to be used for warfare", but this is a much different situation than being hacked.  
  
I would argue that the disadvantages are more significant than the advantages. {I think you need to state your reasons why you believe this - why do the disadvantages outweigh the advantages?}
Tai, you are not discussing an argument essay based on this topic. As far as the prompt is concerned, your opinion is not of importance in the discussion because that is not what you are being asked to present. Rather, the essay asks you to present information regarding the advantage and disadvantage of the increase in machines available to do jobs that people used to do. This is a mistake in the task accuracy portion and will result in a score of 1 because your response is not related to the task. There is no simple statement of the advantage and disadvantage of technology because you decided to approach the essay from a "discuss both sides and offer a personal opinion" format. That is the wrong format. Remember, the TA is the first element for scoring in the essay because it proves your ability to understand basic English instructions. Fail to properly assess and perform the instructions based on the given topic and you are definitely not going to pass the test. How can you pass when it is going to be painfully obvious to the examiner that you do not have the English comprehension skills to make it in an English speaking university?
## convicts executions

  
  
The question whether to render a murder an execution has haunted the society in recent times. It is stated that this type of punishment can be affiliated with committing guilt, therefore, it should be replaced by life prison implementation. In my opinion, I totally agree with the mentioned statement for the viable reasons as followed.  
  
In the first place, a capital crime can rob one's life from their hand which can leave a hostile memory for their family. This means that the society has deprived the right to survive and the accountability of the guilty criminal for their family. This can leave the legacy of the cruelty and unjustification. Considering the immortality of the punishment in medieval era that has been abolished in modern world for example. The criminals were racked with gallow or burnt on stake alive in front of their village or their kingdom. Furthermore, in some alleged murder-committing crime, the criminal can have time to gather incorborate evidence for their innocence.  
  
For another reason, life in prison can iterate a murder's humane. During the prison sentence the inmate have the gap time to think about their guilty and this can awake one's austerity and compassion between people and people. This means that the society lets the criminals derive the grant with clemency to conjure up their life again. In my country, the prisoners can decrease their penalty through improved behavior. In addition, this can spark off a better civilian for the society from the prisoner.  
  
In conclusion, death penalty should be abolished and replaced by life prison implementation for the 2 aforementioned reasons.
Linh, even without the prompt requirement, I can offer you some serious advice regarding your grammar and coherence. You need to stop thinking in one language and then simply translating that thought into English. Your native language cannot be translated to English accurately. You must develop a proper and relevant translation of your message in English. Practice thinking in English to make that process second nature to you eventually. Right now, your sentence development is focused on using complex words rather than making understandable simple sentences. You do not need to use complex words when you cannot even write simple sentences yet. You are trying to run before you can walk in this case. None of the sentences that you wrote will be understandable to the native English reader / speaker. For example, I cannot figure out what you are referring to when you say; "Considering the immortality of the punishment in medieval era that has been abolished in modern world for example. " I am quite sure this is a transliteration on your part, which makes it even more difficult to understand. What makes sense in your language will be rubbish when translated to English.
**Question:** *Under British and Australian laws a jury in a criminal case has no access to information about the defendant's past criminal record. This protects the person who is being accused of the crime.  
  
Some lawyers have suggested that this practice should be changed and that a jury should be given all the past facts before they reach their decision about the case.  
  
Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answers.*  
  
## guilty of past crimes

  
  
In Britain and Australia, records of the defendant's previously convicted crimes are lawfully concealed from the jury. This practice is expected to prevent biased judgments on the defendant. However, it has encountered disagreement from some lawyers as they insist that a view of the accused person's criminal background should be provided to the jury. This essay partially agrees with this viewpoint, whilst to an extent, acknowledges the merits of the existing practice.  
  
Firstly, a comprehensive view of the defendant's background, including past criminal records, provides the essential foundation for the decision making process of the jury. Without exception, a person's past events profoundly influence their actions in the present. In the context of a criminal case, criminals involving in systematic crimes such as drug trafficking or bank theft have a tendency to re-commit their crimes, because the crimes are basically their profession. In addition, some offences reflect a person's habitual course of action. For instance, multiple past records of shoplifting or drunk-driving may indicate that the person has a habit of committing these crimes. Therefore, chances of them committing such offences are significantly higher than that of those who consistently conform to the laws.  
  
On the other hand, the current practice is reasonable in the sense that it defends the accused person from misleading stereotypes facilitated by their previous conviction. The mistakes in the past may be irrelevant to the present circumstances, and the person's actions may no longer be based on the past situations. Some offences may be unintentional, and therefore do not reflect a person's tendency of actions. It is also to be noted that many past criminals receive re-education and wish to turn to the honest path of living. Hence, judgments based on previous conviction may become unfair and biased.  
  
In conclusion, both the current practice and the opposing idea have their own reasonable justifications. The criminal background of a person may act as a foundation for their present offences, and therefore should be considered by the jury. Nevertheless, conclusions based on accidental crimes in the past may be inaccurate and irrelevant in the present situation.  
  
*This one's a bit long since it's a complicated topic, I had a hard time working it out in my head :)) Please include a specific band score for this essay in your comment if possible. Thank you!*
Tan, I can sense the effort that you placed into the development of your response for this essay. While the response that you gave is well developed and highly thought out, you did not present the required response to the prompt so you will score a 1 for this essay. The score of 1 for your essay is based on the fact that you decided to discuss an "extent" essay when this is a single opinion essay. As a single opinion essay, the only requirement is either you agree or disagree and then explain your response using supporting information and evidence. This essay could not have been mistaken for an "extent" essay because the prompt instruction was really straightforward, it asked if you "agree or disagree". Plain and simple. Nowhere in the essay discussion instruction were you asked about "to what EXTENT do you agree or disagree?" Do you see the difference between the two prompt instructions? That is where you found yourself confused. If you do not see the word "extent" in the discussion instruction, then there is no reason for you to partially discuss two points of view in this instance as there is no requirement for you to do that either. This error in prompt instruction comprehension is actually the reason that most IELTS test takers fail the test. I strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with the various types of discussion instructions and how it is presented in the various practice tests here. It will help you to identify the proper discussion type for your next practice test so that you can discuss the topic in the proper manner.
**The widespread use of the internet has given people access to information on a level never experienced before. How does this increase in the availability of information influence life in today's world?**  
  
## availability of information online

  
  
Although it might be believed by skeptical that the load of information on the internet is not very dependable and can be used to manipulate the general view of the people toward certain topics, I believe that the advantages of this wide access to information outweighs its disadvantages. One can simply come to the conclusion that productivity, quality of life, and people's ability to think has been improved as a direct result of vast availability of the information.  
  
To begin with, from an industrial point of view, the availability of information, whether it be the technical or social, increase the productivity of people. What might once have learnt through years of apprenticeship, can be learnt in significantly shorter amount of time using the available information on the web. People who want to develop their own products can obtain the technical information necessary through the technical journals. The access to the web helps the developer further with the easier marketing of the product. This pattern can be seen once one look at the large number of startup companies and all the updates and developments that is done on existing products.  
  
Additionally, access to the information about all the advantages and disadvantages of the products increases the expectancy of the costumers as well. Once people know that they can obtain a product with same function but greater quality and lower price, they would not prefer the lower quality- which once might be thought as the only choice. As a result, more care is given toward the product design and marketing by the developer.  
  
Finally, politically speaking, the abundance of information on the web helps people become much more conscious about their life choices. Getting the news from multiple sources, people are obliged to think for themselves and analyze the events critically for any further decision. For instance, access to the writings and interviews of political specialists about the current political event around the globe might increase one's understanding of the event and also the governments reaction to the incidence. This leads to better judgment of the governments' actions and also increase the expectations of people; thus higher availability of information, though indirectly, pushes the leadership toward a better direction.  
  
In conclusion, analyzing the effects of the vast availability of information from industrial and political point of view, it helps people to develop themselves, the industry, and their leaders. Although it goes without saying that using this opportunity is as important as having access to it. What might seem a great tool, would be useless once it is not used.
I like your essay, it is cohesive and well-written. I think there may be some flaws in your essay, though. Although it might be *believed* considered  
  
 => because you have already had one" believe" in your essay, you can use" consider" instead of" believe"  
  
*by skeptical*=> by skepticism   
*increase*=> increases  
amount of time*using* the available => to use  
Keep trying! Love u
Harold, while the body of the paragraphs responds to the essay, your paraphrasing does not properly reflect the original topic information. In fact, in your desire to use as many "big" English words as you could, you ended up writing a confusing hodge podge of information for the reader, who walked away from the first paragraph without any clear understanding of what the prompt discussion is all about and what opinion you are being asked to present in the essay. When your opening presentation is that confusing, you will be judged to not have truly understood the prompt and are just trying to get by by using complicated words that do not necessarily help to explain the point of your essay. You cannot impress the reviewer by the complexity of the English vocabulary that you have when you cannot even properly explain what the prompt requirements are.  
  
Additionally, you provided two concluding paragraphs in the essay when only one is required. Both the terms "Finally" and "In conclusion" means the same thing, the end of the essay. However you did not really provide an actual concluding paragraph to the essay because you continued to discuss additional information in each paragraph. Thus, you left your essay open ended instead of concluded.
## natural areas closed to people?

  
  
People increasingly enhance ability to access to remote natural areas thanks to advanced technology. While I understand that critics may see this as of significant threat to nature, I believe that benefits do outweigh drawbacks.  
  
Not only does human exploration of natural world disorder fauna and flora but also lead to dangerous situations for scientists and tourists themselves on certain occasions. Firstly, native wildlife might be destroyed by such human activities as building infrastructure and changing original landscapes. Furthermore, waste left behind after tours contains many materials and substances which are extremely harmful to the environment. Secondly, traveling to remote places untough by people namely deep oceans or high mountains is very risky because of dangerous factors hidden in these places. The more dangerous places are, the more travelers want to reach to there.  
  
In spite of the drawbacks mentioned above, I believe that people, especially scientists, can acquire highly valuable knowledge via studying natural environment. It is undeniable that only by visiting isolated natural places do people comprehend more deeply about how variety of strange creatures survive and grow in the scope of their own environments. As a result, public perception to protect natural habitat could increase by impartation of the scientific study or by tour experience. BBC planet earth series is an excellent instance, the series keeps people supplied with vastly natural information from diversified living environments, including oceans, mountain and the South and the North Pole. In fact, it is unrealistic to require inhabitants to protect ambiguous stuff that they are unaware of.  
  
In conclusion, it seems to me that we gain more than we lose from the discovery of the natural world.
@Dongvo  
Hi Dong, let me feedback to you. First and foremost, can you add the question in your essay so we will know whether you answer the prompt or not and you paraphrase them effectively or not.  
  
Second, You better use one idea then explaining the detail in one paragraph rather than mention all idea in one paragraph (example: paragraph 1: advantages, paragraph 2: the disadvantages) It will help you to maintain the coherence and cohesion. I also still do this mistake.  
  
Third,  
In last paragraph (conclusion) you have to put more sentence to conclude your ideas and cover all your statement. You can't just put one sentence there.
**Hi~please help me correct the essay below .I really need your help.:) Thanks~**  
  
## economic development and environmental preservation

  
  
It is undeniable that the economic development is the key component to both the nation's growth and its citizens' quality of life. However, everything must come with its cost and the price we are paying for our own prosperity is the environment. Therefore, there have been debates heated by the query whether economic development and environmental protection can be promoted simultaneously or not. From my perspective, these two are not completely incompatible and can be mutually reinforcing provided that we cooperate in reaching the goal of so-called sustainable environmentally friendly development.  
  
Admittedly, we can not nullify the benefits that the economic development can bring about. The stability and prosperity of the economy can help to elevate our living standards and also improve the nation's other fields such as agriculture, technology advancement and military power. Paradoxically, the growth of the economy comes at a cost: the environment. The excessive exploitation is now acting as a catalyst for natural resource depletion. Additionally, the factories are holding responsibility for the alarming rate of carbon footprint and the discharge of chemical waste. These acts and many likewise others are exerting a devastating impact on the existence of our environment. In this view, the economic development and environmental protection can be conflicting.  
  
However, I believe that developing the economy without instigating environmental degradation is feasible. First and foremost, people are becoming more and more aware of the integral part that the environment plays. They are now familiar with environment-friendly products and turning away from the companies that is only interested in profits rather than the surroundings.To illustrate, the prevalence of electronic bicycles amongst Vietnamese can embody this situation. Furthermore, the governments should also throw their weight behind the environment issues. They can introduce a law to enforce the companies to curb their carbon emissions,confine their utilization of natural resources and refine chemical waste before releasing.  
  
In conclusion, to retain the balance between economic development and environmental preservation, people must be environmentally conscious, not only to save the Earth but also to attain a sustainable prosperity.  
  
Thank you again for helping me correct my essay ~~~
hay @Wontaeyoung  
  
better if you avoid to use the word *it* as opening word, although you can, it is not really strong word for academic, also for the word *we* that you use in paragraph 2 better if you change it.  
  
*The development of economic is undeniable key for both nation's growth and citizens' quality of life*.  
  
*No one can nullify the benefits from the economic development can bring about*.  
  
... and also *to* improve the *other* nation's ~~other~~ fields such as (...) advancement, and military power.  
  
*They can implement a law enforcement for the companies to curb carbon emissions, to confine utilization of natural resources, and to refine chemical waste before releasing*.  
  
your conclusion did not develop well, you should paraphrase your main idea from the introduction, and also put some main idea about what did you discuss from body paragraph 1 & 2 (not include a detail)
Young, as I read your essay, I came to only one conclusion, and this is without having access to the original prompt. Your paragraphs are not really paragraphs that defend a stance in the sense of the original prompt. Rather, you presented a series of opening statements which are paraphrased representations of the original prompt and nothing more. You presented a partial retelling of the original prompt without really representing usable ideas or facts that would tell the reader that you have already presented the original discussion topic and the discussion instructions so now you will be discussing your body of paragraphs. Do not focus so much on proving your advance word usage that you forget that you have to discuss the supporting facts, examples, or reasons within the body in order to defend your stance. This is the most obvious problem of your essay that can be observed with or without the original prompt. Do us all a favor and post the prompt in its original form the next time you post an essay for review. That way, I can offer you a more analytical observation of your essay work.