I thought I'd share with my followers some of my writing feedback.
To fully benefit from it, print it out so you can follow point by point. If you're interested in seeing more feedback like this, comment below in the comment section.
Question
Every
year several languages die out. Some people think that this is not important
because life will be easier if there are fewer languages in the world.
To what
extent do you agree or disagree with this option?
In recent years,many languages in danger of extinction annually. While some people feel happy about this because it will make our lives much easier,I completely disagree with this point of view for several reasons.
The argument
in favour of allowing languages die out would be that the way we communicate
with each other become much more easier if there is only few languages
exist.However,I believe this is a very shortsighted view.When there are only
few languages in the world,many people find it difficult to communicate with
other people.What I mean by this is that they have to learn new words,idioms
and other things ,all of which are burdens on people who want to learn the
language from the scratch. Hence,I vehemently think it would be more difficult
for people whose languages die out to adapt themselves to other languages.
If a
language disappears,a whole life will disappear with it.In other words,languages
are more than a simple means of communication ;languages are strongly related
to customs,culture and history of people who spoken it.Also,If only few
languages exist,we will loose the cultural diversity that makes the world more
interesting and catchy. Without these functions that languages offer,our lives
become more difficult and boring.Therefore,nobody can predict which language
will be predominant and important in the future so that I think it is
completely wrong to decide that if a particular language disappears is a
positive development in terms of how we communicate with each other.
In
conclusion,it seems to me that languages disappearance has devastating
consequences on people ,and that make people ‘s life more difficult and
tedious.
Corrections
Question
Every
year several languages die out. Some people think that this is not important
because life will be easier if there are fewer languages in the world.
To what
extent do you agree or disagree with this option?
Answer
The argument
in favour of allowing languages (to) die out
would be that the way we communicate with each other become(s) much more easier if there is only (a) few
languages exist(ed) (or
‘if there were only a few languages’). However, I believe this is a very
shortsighted view.When there are (If there
were) only (a) few languages in the
world, many people (would) find it difficult to communicate with other
people. What I mean by this is that they have to learn new words, idioms and
other things ,all of which are (a) burdens
on people who want to learn the language from the
scratch. Hence,I vehemently think it would be more difficult for
people whose languages die out to adapt themselves to other languages.
If a
language disappears,a whole life will disappear with it. In other words, languages
are more than a simple means of communication ;languages are strongly related
to customs, culture and history of people who spoken it. Also, If only (a)few languages exist(ed),we
will (would)
loose the cultural diversity that makes the world more interesting and catchy. Without these functions that languages
offer, our lives (would)become more
difficult and boring. Therefore, nobody can predict which language will be
predominant and important in the future so that I think it is completely wrong
to decide that if a particular language disappears is a positive development in
terms of how we communicate with each other.
In
conclusion, it seems to me that language’s disappearance has (would have) devastating
consequences on people ,and that (would)
make people ‘s life (lives) more difficult and tedious.
Feedback
1)
Rephrasing the statement in the introduction is a very risky business, and this
is especially true in questions that are directly asking for your opinion. This
question, for example, gave you a statement and asked to what extent you agreed
with it. If you change the meaning of the statement, then you will be agreeing
or disagreeing with something totally different than what the question asked
you to. I believe that your rephrase wasn't as accurate as it could have been.
Let's look
at a few words and phrases:
'In recent
years' (There was no mention of recent years. The tense that was used was the
present simple, this tense is used with facts, and permanent states. 'In recent
years' gives the feeling that this is something new and temporary.)
'many' (the
word that was used in the question was several. This word means more than 2,
but not many.)
'While some
people feel happy about this' (The question just said that some people think
this is not important. This means that it is not significant.)
You changed
the meaning of 3 things in the statement, the permanent situation, the number
of languages, and the opinion of people. This makes your opinion off topic.
Different examiners react a little different to responses like this. You need
to be as accurate as possible with the rephrase of the question.
2) You were
imagining that languages died out, and what the imaginary situation would be.
When we imagine our current or future situation is different, we use the 'past
simple' in the dependent clause (the if clause), and we use would/could/might
in the result clause. Example: If I were rich (I'm not), I would buy a Bugatti
(imaginary result)
3) I find
your argument very weak and illogical because a language can't die out without
people learning a new one first. People can't stay quiet for years until a
language dies out, and then worry about learning a new language. A language can
only die out if people learn another one and stop using their first language,
so your argument about the difficulty of learning a new language isn't valid.
4) Even
though giving two sides of an opinion is good, it isn't a requirement for a
band
7. I recommend that students that find it difficult to think of arguments
for two sides, only support their argument. You can just state your argument,
and state 2 reasons for your opinion. You can do the same for these questions: Is
this a positive or negative development? and 'Do you agree or disagree?'.
To get a simple idea how to identify question
types, and structure them, watch these 2 videos. There are many ways of
answering questions. Here are ways of identifying different types, and some
suggested structures.
Identifying question types: https://youtu.be/0qR2YlqJ7gE
Structuring question types: https://youtu.be/46_ubj-SQdQ
5) In the
introduction, you stated "I completely disagree with this point of view
for several reasons.". Why did you mention several reasons. This means
that if you don't give several reasons then your answer isn't developed. You
are asked to give reasons and examples for your ideas. You made a commitment to
explain something that you didn't. If you had dropped that phrase it would have
been better.
Band Mark
Criteria
|
Band Mark
|
Task Achievement
|
Band 6
|
Cohesion and Coherence
|
Band 7
|
Lexical Resource
|
Band 7
|
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
|
Band 6
|
Overall Mark
|
6.5
|
To get feedback like this, or for other services, click here.
Please post more feedback like this one.thanks
ReplyDelete