some people think that it is better to use scientific techniques to grow food,while others think that we should grow food naturally. discuss both views and give you own opinion
This response is estimated at Band 6.0. Can you write a better one?
Write yours and get clear feedback on all four criteria.
- Closest to official scores
- What to fix on each criterion
- Feedback in about 20 seconds · free
Sample Response
The debate surrounding the method of growing food has emerged as a central issue in contemporary discourse. While proponents argue that it is better to utilize scientific techniques to grow food, opponents counter that growing food naturally is what people should do. From my perspective, the latter stance holds greater validity due to its logical coherence.
My preference for this stance stems from its logical coherence and empirical support, particularly concerning food grown in a natural way. This viewpoint rests on the rationale that growing naturally could provide a reliable and safe food supply to consumers. To be more specific, cultivating food such as vegetables and fruits in a natural way means growingmeansbgrowing them in fields and utilizing fallen leaves or flowers as fertilizersfertlizers. In ancient agricultural society, humans were restricted to the fieldsIn ancient agriculture society, Human were stricted in the fields to take care of all crops with all of their attention. The same situation inherited to green and natural farming, where farmers only utilize the least and authorizedauthorited chemicals, ensuring the quality of food and safety, equaling the fact that natural growing eliminateseliminate the risks of pollution and potentialpotentional chemicals, which are regarded as main detrimental factors in the modern worldin modern world. Thus, the demand for green and organic food surged especially in this post-industry period regarding healthy and green concerns rising. As a result, organic food is at the luxury level, where people are willing to pay for its premiumpremuim price.
Conversely, the opposing stance presents reasoned arguments, primarily arguing that it is better to use scientific techniques to grow food. At the heart of this argument lies the fact that it could yield short-term benefits ignoring the long-term interests. To elaborate, techniques such as fertilizers and pesticidespestcides could help protect crops from worms and foster their growth, enhancing productivity in the short termterms. In stark contrastIn start contract, it may exertexcert profound detrimental impact on both corps per se and human. Fertilizers may boost other plants and weeds like grassjungles like the grass around crops, which may deprive crops of the nutrientsdeprive the nutrients which should not be absorbed by them, leading to reduction on final production and threatening food supply. Simultaneously, pontential harmful chemicals contained in pestcides may not recognize as a poisonous substances with existing detection toolsexsiting detective tools. Consequently, it will accumulate via food people eatate and may accumulate in the food chain leading to irreversible damage to the whole societyto whole society.
In summary, after thoroughly evaluating both perspectivespersperctives, I remain steadfast in my support for the proposition that growing food in a naturalnutural way is better.
Why this response received Band 6.0
The essay clearly presents a personal stance and addresses both perspectives of the prompt, though the argument for scientific farming focuses heavily on its drawbacks rather than fully explaining its merits. Paragraphing and overall progression are logical, though coherence is occasionally hindered by mechanical phrasing. To improve, focus on presenting the opposing viewpoint more objectively and reducing frequent spelling and grammatical errors.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
You address both sides of the prompt and state a clear opinion, though the perspective favoring scientific techniques is mostly discussed through its negative consequences.
Ensure you fully develop the strengths of the opposing view before explaining your own position or counterarguments.
Coherence and Cohesion
Information is arranged in a clear paragraph structure with a logical overall progression, though some cohesive devices are used awkwardly.
Use a wider variety of natural transition words and ensure linking phrases are correctly phrased.
Lexical Resource
You demonstrate a good range of topic-specific vocabulary, but frequent spelling mistakes and minor word choice errors lower precision.
Proofread carefully to eliminate typographical and spelling errors in key academic vocabulary.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A variety of complex sentence structures is attempted, but frequent grammatical and agreement errors occur throughout the text.
Focus on subject-verb agreement and correct passive voice constructions in complex sentences.