Đề Cambridge IELTS 20 General Training Writing

This response covers the main points within the task. The writer addresses the first bullet point, ‘where’ they studied, and the third, ‘how the year was helpful’. However, there is no real answer to the second bullet point around, ‘what you learnt about the country you studied in’. To improve task achievement, some information about what they learned about Australia should be included.

The letter is logically organised and the ideas can be followed, although the linking words are quite simple and repetitive [So | But | And also] and there is some inaccurate use [As you know]. A wider range of linking devices would improve the rating.

There is some good use of vocabulary [to achieve | challenging | reason I chose to] but there are errors in word choice [early of] and the range is rather limited. Similarly, the grammatical range is limited, for example, inaccuracy in comparative forms [better in / better than in | easy / easier] and does cause some difficulty for the reader.

To improve the score, the second bullet point around ‘what you learnt about the country you studied in’ should be included and a wider range of accurate vocabulary and grammatical structures.

This is a strong response to the task. It is unfortunate that this candidate has not used paragraphing, as this is a requirement of IELTS Task 2, and the score for Coherence and Cohesion is limited due to this.

The position is clear, and the ideas presented are relevant and well developed. The candidate agrees that there are more advantages, illustrates why they think this is true, and gives the example of the company that they currently work in.

Apart from the lack of paragraphing, the message is very easy to follow. There are higher-level linking expressions [in that regard | Meanwhile | One may argue | As true as this may be] and cohesion is generally well managed, although there is some repetition due to some lack of reference [business].

Vocabulary is flexibly used, with some skilful examples, and collocation [strong sense of pride | spell disaster | outsource the job | greater appreciation | remain relevant | generate wealth]. Some minor spelling errors remain [primarly | posess | beginings]. Grammatical structures are also flexibly used, with the majority of sentences without error, and examples of multi-clause sentences. Occasional errors remain [ran / run], including in word order [may less likely be / may be less likely].

This is an example of a response that has suffered a penalty for the absence of paragraphing. The band score could be improved by the use of paragraphing, to support the sequencing of ideas within this high-level response.

This response is a good attempt; the writer has addressed all the bullet points: information about the new theatre includes who it is built for, the name of the architect and the reason it was built, the actor is invited, and the reasons why he would be a good person include his work in fundraising for cultural organisations that suffer finance issues. There could be more expansion on the third bullet point for a higher task achievement score. The tone is appropriate to make this request to a famous actor. Organisation of ideas is generally logical, with linking devices used well [Finally | but] with some effective use of referencing [who | this project | it] although cohesion within sentences can be faulty.

Vocabulary is generally good, with some examples of a wider range of resource [talented | new cultural experiences | from different fields] but overall, the errors in word choice are noticeable [congratulate this new start | pass the cultural services over]. The errors in spelling do not impede communication [buiit | funderising | openning].

Similarly, there are some effective grammatical structures, including [if] structures and multi-clause sentences. However, overall, these structures are not always very accurate. There are errors with plural forms [actor and musician] prepositions [join to] and articles.

For a higher score, the third bullet point could be expanded, and greater accuracy in linking expressions, vocabulary and grammar would also be helpful.

This is an example of a strong response. It certainly explores the topic and includes reference to the products and the treatments that people pay for to look younger. The position becomes clearer as the response develops. Ideas are communicated well, and include: the products people use, the impact of social media on self-esteem, and the mental health implications of ageing (to think we should not be ageing). The conclusion is appropriate: that these dangerous treatments have no real benefits, but people do it to be accepted.

This is already a strong response, but there is room to develop and clarify what the writer thinks are the benefits and drawbacks of having access to these products and treatments.

The response is easy to read, with good cohesion. Ideas are logically ordered, with effective paragraphing to support overall coherence. There is a range of cohesive devices [Even if | Nowadays | The big concern | On platforms | On that note | On another side]. However, as almost every sentence starts with a linking device, there is some ‘overuse’.

Vocabulary is flexible, with some good collocation and higher-level items [Eternal youth | content creators | to be subjected to] with only a few errors in spelling [especialised | self steem | phisical | standart] or word form [vigilance / vigilant]. Similarly, there is a wide range of grammatical structures, including comparatives [less visible | easiest way] and multi-clause sentences, but a few errors remain.

To achieve the highest ratings, the candidate should link the points more tightly to whether it is ‘a good or bad thing’ for people to spend their money in this way, and demonstrate a greater degree of accuracy in vocabulary.

This is a strong response to the task; all three bullet points are clearly addressed and a suitable tone is used to communicate feedback to the company. The response is presented in the correct letter format and ideas are arranged logically.

The range of vocabulary is good, with some higher-level examples [punctuality | remarkable | proceeded smoothly | single-handedly]; however, some spelling errors remain [appriciated | concearned | expences | canrge]. The writing shows a variety of structures, including passive forms [was correctly tied up] and conditional forms using [if]. However, overall sentences are short. To achieve the highest scores, the candidate would need to include a wider range of grammatical structures and try to avoid errors in vocabulary.

This is a good example of a higher-level response to this Task 1 question.

This response addresses both elements of the question. The writer provides three reasons why people buy too many clothes, and there are examples given on how people can be persuaded to reduce the number of clothes that they buy. There is appropriate content within the response, but it could be improved by a more comprehensive conclusion.

Ideas are arranged logically and the paragraphing is helpful in sequencing the response. Cohesive devices are used to good effect, especially in the first half [I believe | First of all | Sometimes | The third reason] and there are examples of reference [while others | they | Those who visit] but the final paragraph reads more like a list (maybe the candidate was in a hurry to finish) with fewer effective cohesive features.

Vocabulary is generally appropriate, with some stronger items [huge social differences | incredibly rich | terribly poor | perfect moment] but also errors [outits / outfits | add / adverts | ale / able | moder / modern]. Similarly, grammatical structures are varied, but the level of error is high and limits the rating here.

To achieve a higher rating, the third paragraph should be more fully developed, with a concluding section. The vocabulary and grammatical resource in that paragraph should also be at a higher level.