Đề Cambridge IELTS 21 General Training Writing

The writer has covered the three bullet points in detail: the passion for walking, the types of litter [plastic bags, bottles, containers | tires | gasoline containers], and the suggestions for solutions [pay fines | cameras | police patrols].

The response is easy to read, with good cohesion. The writer has used a range of cohesive devices [however | Not only | but | also] and used referencing [them | such people] to achieve this.

There is flexibility in the use of vocabulary, with some good collocation and higher-level items [thriving nature | delicate environment | dealt with | control the situation], and only a few errors [immidiately / immediately | leving / leaving]. Similarly, there are a variety of grammatical structures, including modal forms and some multi-clause sentences. However, many of the sentences are fairly short, single clause sentences and, in the second paragraph, there is repeated use of the present perfect.

This is already a strong response to the task. To achieve the highest ratings, there could be greater accuracy in use of vocabulary, and wider use of multi-clause sentences.

The response addresses the part of the question about ‘bringing countries together’ but does not cover the aspects of ‘creating competition between countries’ and is, therefore incompletely addressed. The position is stated at the end of the first paragraph [I believe that international sports events, are a good way to bring countries together] but the development is not clear. There is a focus on the behaviour of the players rather than how this impacts on the countries. To improve this response, there should be more focus on whether sporting events ‘bring countries together’ or harm relationships between them.

Information is organised into three paragraphs and some cohesive devices are used [which | whenever] but overall, there is a lack of progression.

Vocabulary is minimally adequate with some correct resource [well-mannered | Compelling | demonstrate] but spelling can be inaccurate [avidances | snopsiye] and the range is not very wide. There is a limited ability to use grammatical structures and errors are frequent.

To achieve a higher score, the candidate should present more ideas around the second part of the question and ensure the conclusion relates fully to the question. They should also demonstrate a greater level of accuracy with vocabulary and grammatical structures.

This letter is a strong response and it covers each area of the task, describing the concert attended [Kensington], saying why it was enjoyable [nice music] and including an overall suggestion to keep the summer concerts going. These points should be extended further for a higher score, for example, including clearer ideas on how to improve the concerts, rather than [keep the direction].

Organisation of ideas is generally logical and there is a clear progression. Linking devices are used well, with a range of referencing [one of them | the last | their], although there is some inaccurate use [to go there | such a kind of].

There is appropriate vocabulary [in connection with | huge problem choosing] with a few errors [above] that don’t detract from the meaning. There are some effective grammatical structures, including multi-clause sentences and a range of tenses. However, the range of structures overall is limited, and there are errors [I have see / I have seen | want / wants]. Overall, sentences are short and the level of error in grammar does have an impact on the score.

To achieve a higher score, the bullet points should be more fully explored, and a greater range of vocabulary and grammatical structures should be included.

The first paragraph, and the end of the third paragraph are copied from the question. The writer does agree that this kind of opportunity to live and work in another country is a positive one, but beyond this, the development is not clear. The main ideas are limited and we do not really hear why it is good for employees, and good for the company in any detail.

Organisation is not very logical but there is a sense of underlying coherence.

Simple vocabulary is used accurately, but overall, there are frequent errors [weel / wheel | technologers | couture | richfull | would / world] that are noticeable for the reader. There are some complex structures used but, overall, sentence control is very weak and this makes some parts, such as the conclusion, very hard to follow.

Note: wording that is copied from the question is not assessed by the examiner. Test takers should try not to simply copy the question within their response.

In this response, all the bullet points are covered and the purpose of the letter is generally clear. The introduction to the new mentor includes information about previous areas of work, and current studies, an indication of the area of help [e-commerce], and an invitation for the first meeting. Overall, more clarity and more detail across bullet points 2 and 3 would improve the TA rating. For example, in bullet point 3 [send to you an invitation], we do not know if this meeting is online or face-to-face, or any other details around arrangements. This could be added to improve the response.

The letter is organised and ideas can be followed but the sentences are not linked together well. There are some effective examples of reference [our | this] but, overall linking words are quite simple and repetitive [and], sometimes cohesive devices are not accurate [Althoug] and, often, missing altogether. This makes the response rather repetitive.

Vocabulary is mixed. There are some effective examples [Junior position | vast experience | checked your agenda] but overall control is weak, with errors in word choice [meet me better | time] and spelling [beeing / being | fine / five | addicional / additional]. The grammatical range is limited and rather repetitive.

There are some accurate structures and attempts at complexity [if], but overall structures are used repetitively, for example, most sentences start with [I] and tend to be short.

Overall, the bullet points are covered, but to improve the score, more detail for bullet points 2 and 3 should be included. As well as effective paragraphing to support the organisation of ideas and greater accuracy and range in grammatical structures.

This is a strong response. It addresses the requirements of both parts of the task. There are two reasons given for spending money on vitamin pills in paragraph 2, followed by several tactics on how people can be persuaded to improve their diet instead. These ideas are extended and supported.

Ideas are well organised and logically ordered, with ideas sequenced across 5 paragraphs. Cohesive devices are helpful, with linking words [Firstly | For example | Moreover | Additionally | Having said that] and reference [their | which].

Vocabulary is used well, with some good resource [play a vital role | balanced diet | different tactics | tolerant to lactose], there is some error with spelling [advicable / advisable] but, overall, a wider range of lexis would improve the score. Grammatical structure is mixed, with some multi-clause sentences, including conditionals [if] and modal forms [can | should] there are also a few slips and errors e.g. with the modal forms [should be create | can also helps], punctuation and missing articles. Again, the range is not sufficiently wide for a higher rating.

This is a good response, with relevant content. To achieve a higher score, the range of vocabulary and grammatical structures should be increased.