Đề Cambridge IELTS 19 General Training Writing

This response is an attempt to address the question, but the candidate has misunderstood the requirements. The bullet points ask them to offer to make this popular dish for the club event, but this response asks the manager to arrange for the dish to be prepared. This also affects the third bullet point, where instead of explaining why the dish should be included in the International Students’ club event to celebrate food, the candidate explains why their sporting team would benefit. The score for Task Achievement is affected by this inaccurate content. Apart from the inaccurate details, there is a sense of coherence within the letter. There are linking devices [because | However | Hopefully] with some use of referencing [it | me | other team | this], but there are errors [This very healthy / It is very healthy). Vocabulary is good enough for the task. There is some accurate use [special traditional food | seasoning] but with frequent lapses in word choice [couzine | digestive of the food and spelling [variaty / variety | addictives / additives]. Similarly, grammatical structures are limited. There are some accurate structures, including if clauses, modals, and a range of tenses [if it is possible | need to have | have done | must not | should remember]. However, errors do occur frequently, and punctuation is faulty and missing altogether in some places [about that if not I will not]. To achieve a higher score, the letter needs to fully address the task, and demonstrate a greater level of accuracy with vocabulary and grammatical structures.

This is a strong response to the question and the candidate’s position is clear from the beginning. The candidate argues that people will find most satisfaction doing the work themselves at home. There is some consideration of the other side, and the conclusion is clear and relevant. Ideas are sequenced logically and cohesion is managed well with some good cohesive devices [Doing that | Summarizing] but some overuse. There are a few slips [who support ourselves / to support us]. Each paragraph presents a clear central topic. Vocabulary is natural and accurate [certain activities | quit | invaluable time]. Sentence structure shows a variety of complex structures including multi-clause sentences, but a higher degree of accuracy would improve the response.

This letter covers each area of the task and provides a nice level of detail. The request is to extend the lease for a further six months, plans have changed due to a work opportunity and a problem with the back door is highlighted. The tone is suitable for writing to the owner of the apartment. Ideas are organised coherently and progression is clear. There are a range of cohesive devices [So | although] and helpful use of referencing [it | who | which]. Unfortunately, there is a high level of error in spelling. This does detract from the score, which is a shame as this writer is clearly trying hard to include a good range of vocabulary. Unfortunately, the errors are noticeable because there are so many of them [expierd / expired | apperoutly / apparently | extand ower / extend our | nightbrohood / neighbourhood | espisialy / especially]. There is a mix of simple and complex grammatical structures, with some good examples [is about to | if it’s possible | if I’m going to stay]. However, again, the level of error is quite high and is noticeable. There are errors in plural forms [6 more month / 6 more months] in use of past tenses [ask / asked] and future forms [”I love to / I’d love to]. The content of this letter covers each area of the task, but to achieve a higher score, the candidate should demonstrate a greater level of accuracy with vocabulary and grammatical structures.

This response addresses both parts of the question: the reasons for consumers buying local goods, and whether this is positive or negative. In the first line, we see the writer thinks it is a positive trend. Then reasons are given for buying local goods rather than imported goods: if the product is local, it will be a good product; locally produced goods will be cheaper; the money will remain in the local area, helping the local economy with jobs and money; and buying local will avoid buying fake goods. A personal example is given to illustrate the positive trend. The conclusion is really ‘giving advice’ to consumers to buy local brands to develop their local economy. There is progression through the response, but linking expressions are largely missing or incorrect [Hear / Here | / suggest you that / | suggest that]. However, cohesive devices are sometimes used well [those who | our | those product that) but can be faulty. Vocabulary has an adequate range, with some good collocation, [known brand | price difference | no such charges or taxes applied] despite some errors in spelling [verious frouad / various fraud]. There are some examples of complex sentence forms, for example, in the fourth paragraph, but there are quite frequent grammatical errors. To achieve a higher score, the candidate should present the ideas around the ‘positive and negative trend’ more clearly. Their conclusion should summarise the main arguments, rather than ‘give advice’ to local consumers. They should also demonstrate a greater level of accuracy with vocabulary and grammatical structures.

This letter is a good response to the task and the letter format is appropriate and helpful. However, the second bullet point, which is to suggest how the company would benefit, is not well covered. In the third paragraph, there is mention of an increased understanding of design skills from another department, but it is not entirely clear how this benefits the company. More could be added on this point to improve the response. Nevertheless, ideas are arranged coherently and there is good progression. Some useful linking devices are used [However | First of all | Moreover | Besides], although they all come at the beginning of the sentence. We also have reference and substitution (in the following paragraphs | are perfect here], but there are errors [those / that is]. There is some good vocabulary, but there are also errors which detract from the score [permition / permission | asistanted / assisting] but do not have too much impact. Grammatical structures contain some stronger examples [would like to thank you for | why I am keen to stay], but overall, the level of error is quite high. In order to score more highly, the candidate should clearly highlight all three bullet points and extend responses. There should also be greater accuracy in spelling and fewer errors in the grammatical structures.

This is a good response. The candidate presents ideas on both sides (whether it is right or wrong for photographers to follow famous people) and gives a clear opinion at the end. There is a demand for photographs of famous people; some people think it is acceptable for photographers to go ahead, as the fans demand it (an example is given of a famous film star) and some celebrities like it, as it makes them more famous; and others think it is wrong, as celebrities are also human beings who deserve some [space] (an example is given of another celebrity). The conclusion draws both sides together. The response is logically organised. There are a range of linking devices [Before | One more reason | On the other hand] and the candidate uses cohesive devices within sentences effectively, such as referencing [people who | that person | this type]. Vocabulary is good with some higher-level collocation [particular celebrity | taking pictures]. There are a few errors in spelling [wearning / wearing] and word choice, but they do not impede communication. There are a variety of complex structures and frequent sentences with multiple clauses. To achieve a higher score, the candidate should demonstrate a greater level of accuracy with vocabulary and grammatical structures.