剑桥雅思18–21官方写作范文

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.

This good response begins with an introduction, then in the second paragraph summarises the main trends. The next few paragraphs contain the data and cover each of the participant groups. The information is organised logically and a range of linking devices are used [Overall | Another striking point | In the next 10 years]. There is also some flexible reference and substitution [while | which | it | their] with a few inaccuracies. Vocabulary is generally good [got involved in | levelled off | dramatic surge], but there are some errors [flactuated / fluctuated | amateurs on draturgy / amateur dramatics]. This response has a variety of grammatical structures and the past simple tense is well controlled. There are sentences with multiple clauses, including superlatives (most popular], but also some errors in verb forms [introduced / was introduced], some missing articles [public / the public | dramatic surge / a dramatic surge | next two / the next two], some errors with prepositions [in club for it / in the club | by about 20 / to about 20] and inconsistent capitalisation. The candidate should demonstrate a greater level of accuracy with grammatical structures.

This response covers the task and is engaging to read. The candidate starts by saying competition can be good and bad, too much can be [destructive] and too little can be [depressing] as you would have [no motivation, no goals]. No specific examples are given, and they would improve the response. The rest of the response addresses ‘cooperation’ but is mostly about how people can cooperate rather than comparing ‘cooperation’ with ‘competition’ in line with the question. The conclusion [… be a winner] slightly contradicts the earlier point [/ don’t believe that there is such a thing as “co-operating” too much]. Unfortunately, there is no paragraphing to group ideas together or indicate main topics. This affects the rating for coherence and cohesion. There is some higher-level vocabulary [destructive | motivation | career-wise] with some idiomatic use [draw the line] which makes vocabulary the strongest area in this response. A wider range would be needed for a higher score. There is a range of grammatical structures, including comparative forms and conditional [if) structures. Although they do address the task and present relevant ideas, to achieve a higher score, the candidate should organise the response into paragraphs and discuss both views. They could also demonstrate a greater level of accuracy with vocabulary and grammatical structures.

Overall, this is a strong response. The candidate has covered the main features of the changes and has included an overview to summarise the changes, in the first and the last paragraph. The main details are accurate, apart from the addition of [another Hotel) in the private beach area. The reader can follow the ideas as they are logically organised. This is due to the linking words [However | Besides | also | Another | Overall] and cohesive features [existing one | vice-versa], but there are some errors. Vocabulary demonstrates some flexibility [first impression | relocated | noticeable change], but there is also some inaccuracy and repetition. The weakest area, though, is the use of grammatical structures. There is a mix of sentence forms, with some good complex use [made use of | can be seen that | These include … which are] but some errors, such as inaccurate use of the plural [one more Showers | boats areas] (because the candidate has copied the plural form from the question) and incorrect verb form [is moved down | has been moved down]. To achieve a higher score, the candidate should present an overview to summarise the main stages, for example: The changes to the harbour between 2000 and now focus on improvements that are targeted towards attracting visitors or tourists to the harbour, and include a new hotel, with private beach, more capacity for the passenger ferries and expanded facilities.

In this good response, the candidate presents their opinion at the start, then gives two main points about why the current working week should not change: economic development and the disruption to our existing pattern of a two-day weekend. In the final paragraph, they consider the other side of the argument and people who might like an additional day off. (However, a counter argument is not necessary for this type of question.) Overall, ideas are presented in a clear order, and there is some good use of linking words and expressions [First of all | Nevertheless | Most importantly | Unless]. The response contains some good vocabulary with effective collocation [unprecedented economic recession | conducive to | sense of achievement], and there is a range of structures including conditionals [if), modals [would | may | could] and multi-clause sentences. There are some errors in prepositions and other structures [/ am used to do / I am used to doing], but the impact is not disruptive. To achieve a higher score, ideas could be more fully extended, for example, by giving more detail on how removing a working day could be negative for the economy or for workers.

This is a strong response. The first short paragraph is an introduction, then the second paragraph contains an overview of the process [starting with growing plants] and [finishing with supplying ethanol]. This is sufficient as an overview, but the candidate should also summarise the main stages. The rest of the response presents and highlights the process. Ideas are logically organised and the response follows the order given in the diagram. There is good use of linking words to describe a process [At the first stage | After being | Subsequently] and other linking devices, including reference and substitution [they | then used). The candidate uses vocabulary well with some flexibility [extracted | photosynthesis], but there are a handful of errors [phrases / phases | tress / trees || humman / human | transportattin / transportation | tupe / type]. These errors do not get in the way of the meaning. Grammatical range is quite broad and there is a variety of complex structures and sentences with multiple clauses. There are a few errors [where slice them / which slices them]. To achieve a higher score, an overview which summarises the main stages should be presented, for example: This cycle for biofuel production involves three main stages: harvesting and preparing plant material for processing, producing ethanol by chemical processing, then using the fuel for transportation, before the cycle begins again.

This is a strong response to the task. In the first paragraph, the candidate makes their view clear, agreeing with the statement that saving money for the future is a good idea. In the next two paragraphs, they present ideas on how saving money is actually quite challenging: young people can [tend to live in the present), so [don’t always plan ahead, the cost of housing, starting families and health care can be high, and [unforeseen expenses cannot be avoided). The rest of the response is about how people can decide how much to spend and how much to save. The last line [Perhaps you need less than you first thought years ago] suggests that saving is not the answer for everyone. The ending gives advice to the reader, rather than summarising the main ideas. Ideas are easy to follow and logically organised. Linking expressions are well integrated [Whether | Sometimes | Perhaps] and generally accurate, and cohesive devices are used well [Many tend to | everybody who] with some errors [own choices / their own choices]. Paragraphing at the start is appropriate, but the last four sentences are set out separately and inappropriately, which affects the score. There is some higher-level vocabulary, with effective collocation [full of enthusiasm | tend to live in the present | settle down | unforeseen expenses]. The candidate uses a variety of structures, including comparative forms [rather than | do you prefer], conditionals [/f] and a range of multi-clause sentences. Errors remain, with some missing punctuation and incorrect tenses [be found out / find out] and prepositions [In any age / At any age], but this does not affect the reader’s understanding. To achieve a higher score, the candidate should ensure that the conclusion summarises the main ideas, and use effective paragraphing, especially in the second half of the response.

This candidate has worked hard to report all data contained in the graphs. The key areas are covered, but the overall effect is rather mechanical, as each point is presented in a linear sequence. The ideas are set out in the correct order, following the order of the graphs in the question, but linking between and within the sentences is not strong. The format is quite repetitive [taking classes | learning] because of the lack of linking devices. Similarly, vocabulary is limited and a wider range would be needed for a higher score. Grammatical range is also minimal. There is a noticeable level of error, but the reader is still able to understand the message. To improve the score, this candidate should use a wider range of linking devices and take a less mechanical approach. A stronger and wider range of vocabulary and grammar would also be beneficial.

This is a good response to the task. The candidate clearly agrees with the idea that people should be able to buy international food in supermarkets. The main reason given is that people want to try something [new and interesting] and different. Examples are given of French products and seasonal produce for vegetarians. One disadvantage is given, related to the impact of hot weather on transportation. The conclusion includes bringing cultures together through food but does not summarise the points made in the full answer. A more relevant conclusion would help the candidate achieve a higher score, as well as further extending the ideas. Generally, the candidate organises the ideas well, and we can follow them clearly. Some good linking devices are used [where | maybe even | which | who], but some errors remain [this cases / these cases | than / then]. The response is set out across five paragraphs, but three of them have only two sentences. These are short paragraphs and could be extended to illustrate the central topic in more detail. Again, vocabulary is generally appropriate for the question, with some strong examples [extraordinary | depending on their tastes], but there is a lack of precision [stuff] and frequent minor spelling errors [choise | suply | especialy | culturies | unusial. However, we can still understand what is meant. There are attempts at a wider range of structures and a number of multi-clause sentences. However, the level of error [which they never buy before / which they have never bought before | the way how it has been delivered / the way it has been delivered] detracts from the score. Overall, a more comprehensive conclusion, longer paragraphs, a wider range of vocabulary and fewer grammatical slips would improve the response and achieve a higher score.