Nowadays, there seems to be more and more people are dealing with obesity or overweight. To solve this problem, many people think that educating is a solution. But there are still some people argue that education does not work. For me, both opinions have a good points to follow but I incline to that education does not work much.

First of all, why we should educate people? Educating people by showing them the harmful effects of being obesity can change their daily habits. People may eat more vegetables, spend less time on smartphone. Schools should also teach students about good nutrients. Parents may have to keep track of their sons eating habits.

On the other hand, sometimes, education doesn’t have much effect on some people. An example is fast food. Although many people don’t suggest eating it but there still a lot of people eat them. Why? Because fast food like its name is usually fast served and can be eaten fastly and it is very delicious too so that many people like it. Or like smartphone. Although people know that smartphone is not good for their eyes or brain if using too much but they keep using. From two exmples above, education is not very useful. To solve that government should propose laws that apply tax on junk drinks or fast food to reduce the amout of that kind of food consumed.

In conclusion, while some people think that obesity is due to educating people, others strongly believe that education does not work much. For me I strongly believe that apart from education, government should have a law to deter people about overweight and obesity problem.

1.     Task Response:

• Bạn trả lời đúng yêu cầu đề bài: thảo luận cả hai quan điểm và đưa ra ý kiến cá nhân. Tuy nhiên, phần đưa ra quan điểm cá nhân ở cuối chưa mạnh, cần nhấn vào đó để tạo ấn tượng.

• Bạn viết với bố cục tốt, nhưng giọng văn đang thiên về “nói” nhiều hơn, chưa đậm tính học thuât. Nổi bật ở các câu hỏi như: Why?,…

• Có luận điểm được đưa ra để hỗ trợ cho mỗi quan điểm, nhưng phần phát triển ý cho quan điểm "giáo dục hiệu quả" chưa sâu, chưa thuyết phục người chấm. Mặt khác, phần “giáo dục không hiệu quả” TỐT, có nhượng bộ Although.

Đánh giá: Tốt – 6.5

2.     Coherence and Cohesion (Tính mạch lạc và liên kết):

• Bài viết có cấu trúc rõ ràng gồm mở bài, thân bài, và kết bài.

• Bạn có sử dụng các từ nối cơ bản như "First of all", "On the other hand", "In conclusion". Tuy nhiên, việc sử dụng từ nối đang chưa tự nhiên ("From two exmples above"). Bài điểm 8 Coherence and Cohesion thực sự là khi dùng được các kết nối ngầm qua các đại từ như “its”, “their”,…

• Các ý trong mỗi đoạn thân bài có liên kết với nhau, nhưng đôi khi chuyển ý chưa mượt mà. Ví dụ: từ fast food sang smartphone trong đoạn 2 thân bài, dùng Or like smartphone sẽ bị chấm điểm “awkward.”

Đánh giá: Trung bình khá – 6.0

3.     Lexical Resource (Vốn từ vựng):

• Bạn sử dụng được một số từ vựng liên quan đến chủ đề như "obesity", "overweight", "educating", "harmful effects", "daily habits", "nutrients", "fast food", "junk drinks", "tax", "consumed" --> TỐT.

• Tuy nhiên, vốn từ vựng còn khá cơ bản và lặp lại. Bạn nên sử dụng những collocations hoặc metaphor trong bài. Chú ý: viết metaphor rất khó, nhiều khi sẽ bị coi là nhồi từ, nên cân nhắc và luyện thành thạo. Hơn nữa, collocations nhồi nhiều cũng không tốt. Phải học cách dùng collocations trong ngữ cảnh.

• Có một số lỗi sai về word form và collocation, như:

-        "dealing with obesity or overweight" --> "dealing with obesity and overweight" hoặc "are obese or overweight"

-        "being obesity” --> "being obese" hoặc "obesity"

-        "eat fastly" --> "eat quickly"

-        "propose laws that apply tax on" --> "introduce laws to tax" hoặc "impose taxes on"

-        "deter people about overweight and obesity problem" --> "deter people from becoming overweight/obese" hoặc "address the problem of obesity"

Đánh giá: Trung bình (Basic vocabulary, some errors in word choice/form, limited range). --> 5.5

4.     Grammatical Range and Accuracy (Ngữ pháp):

• Bạn sử dụng được câu đơn và câu phức. Tuy nhiên, cấu trúc câu còn khá đơn giản và chưa đa dạng. Nên sử dụng đảo ngữ để làm câu punch à nhấn mạnh.

• Có nhiều lỗi ngữ pháp, ảnh hưởng đến sự rõ ràng và tự nhiên của bài viết:

-        Thiếu hoặc dùng sai mạo từ (a/an/the): "educating is a solution" --> "education is a solution", "a good points" --> "good points"), "spend less time on smartphone" --> "spend less time on smartphones" hoặc "on a smartphone".

-        Lỗi về giới từ: "incline to that education" --> "incline to the view that education".

-        Lỗi về word form: "fastly" à "quickly"), "exmples" --> "examples").

-        Lỗi về cấu trúc câu: "But there are still some people argue" --> thêm "who": "But there are still some people who argue".

-        Lỗi dùng từ nối dư thừa: "Although... but..." --> chỉ cần dùng "Although..." hoặc "...but...".

-        Câu hỏi trong thân bài: "Why we should educate people?" và "Why?" không phù hợp với văn phong học thuật của IELTS Writing Task 2.

Đánh giá: Trung bình yếu (Limited range of structures, frequent errors that sometimes impede meaning) --> 5.0

OVERALL: 6.0 WRITING.

The chart presents information about the actual end expected population of Jakarta, Shanghai and Sao Paulo in 1990 and 2000. Overall, all three cities experienced a growth in population from 1990 to 2000.

In 1990, the population in Sao Paulo was the highest among the three cities, reaching around 16 million. Shanghai came next with about 13 million people, and Jakarta had the smallest population, at approximately 9.5 million.

In 2000, the population of all three cities increased. The actual population in Jakarta was about 11 million, which was slightly lower than the prediction of nearly 12 million. Shanghai had around 14.5 million people in 2000, very close to the prediction. Sao Paulo had a much higher population than predicted: the expectation was 20 million, but the actual number reached 24 million, making it the city with the largest population among the three.

In conclusion, prediction are quiet correct with Jakarta and Sao Paulo while Shanghai are roughly higher than prediction.

1. Task Response:

• Bạn đã mô tả được thông tin chính từ biểu đồ: dân số của 3 thành phố vào 2 năm và so sánh số liệu thực tế với dự đoán --> TỐT.

• Bạn có nhắc đến trend của biểu đồ là: tăng, nhưng chưa đủ cụ thể.

• Bạn đã đưa ra số liệu để minh họa.

• Tuy nhiên, phần kết luận "In conclusion, prediction are quiet correct with Jakarta and Sao Paulo while Shanghai are roughly higher than prediction" mâu thuẫn với phần thân bài. Ở thân bài, bạn nói Shanghai "very close to the prediction".

--> ĐÁNH GIÁ: 6.0

2. Cohesion and Coherence (Tính Mạch lạc và Liên kết)

• Bài viết có cấu trúc rõ ràng: Mở bài, thân bài theo năm (1990, 2000), và kết luận.

• Bạn sử dụng các từ nối cơ bản ("Overall", "In 1990", "In 2000", "In conclusion").

• Nhưng cần sự mượt mà hơn giữa các câu.

• Đánh giá: 6.0

3. Lexical Resource (Vốn Từ vựng)

• Bạn sử dụng từ vựng phù hợp với chủ đề biểu đồ: population, reaching, million, prediction, actual, higher, lower.

• Có sử dụng từ vựng so sánh: highest, next, smallest, much higher, slightly lower, very close to.

• Còn một số lỗi nhỏ về từ vựng hoặc cách dùng từ:

  • "quiet correct" --> "quite accurate" hoặc "quite correct".

• Nên sử dụng thêm các từ đồng nghĩa hoặc cách diễn đạt khác để tránh lặp từ: "experienced a growth", "increased", "rose", "saw an increase".

• Đánh giá: 6.0

4. Grammatical Range and Accuracy (Ngữ pháp và Độ chính xác)

• Sử dụng các cấu trúc câu cơ bản và câu ghép.

• Có sử dụng thì quá khứ đơn để mô tả số liệu lịch sử.

• Một số lỗi ngữ pháp cần lưu ý:

  • "prediction are quiet correct" -> "predictions are quite correct"

  
  

  • "Sao Paulo had a much higher population than predicted" - câu này tạm được, nhưng nên thêm "the actual number reached 24 million".

    
    

• Đánh giá: Lỗi ít hơn bài Task 2, nhưng ảnh hưởng đến sự trôi chảy nhiều --> 7.0

OVERALL: 6.0

In light of the escalating obesity epidemic worldwide, we stand at the crux of a profound health crisis. While many assume that governments bear the primary responsibility, I firmly believe that relying solely on their efforts is far from sufficient to tackle this issue comprehensively. Rather, the ultimate goal hinges on a synergy of individual initiative and governmental action, for only through such collaboration can we hope to curb this silent epidemic.

The case for individual responsibility lends itself very well to the transformative power of parental and educational efforts. Few would deny that parents play a pivotal role in shielding children from unhealthy habits, encouraging them to adopt active lifestyles and balanced diets - the very least required to forestall the sedentary tendencies rampant among today’s youth. Beyond the home, schools, with their capacity to shape young minds, can integrate comprehensive health education into their curricula, equipping students with a deeper insight into nutritional values and the perils of poor dietary choices. Such initiatives, though modest, can yield substantial results, potentially turning the tide against childhood obesity - a crisis that, if left unchecked, threatens a generation’s future.

Individual efforts alone, however, are by no means sufficient to surmount these pervasive challenges. Against the backdrop of the issue’s complexity, addressing obesity demands not merely sporadic actions but holistic, top-down strategies. Governments, armed with economic and legislative authority, are uniquely positioned to exert widespread influence. Nowhere is this more evident than in Mexico, where taxing sugary drinks has markedly reduced consumption, offering a blueprint for public health interventions. In the absence of such centralized oversight, we risk leaving children’s well-being to fragmented attempts, ultimately failing to foster a healthier society. Indeed, without robust policies, individual actions remain but drops in an ocean of excess.

In conclusion, while decisive individual actions, pursued diligently, can mitigate this crisis, their impact is magnified only when coupled with governmental resolve. By joining forces, individuals and governments can drive transformative change, addressing this multi-faceted issue on a scale that is nothing less than essential, if not irrefutably so.

São Paulo, with a commanding population base ^{vc - collocation} of approximately 17 million in 1990, experienced unparalleled ^CC+VC expansion to nearly 25 million by 2000. This rise, outpacing projections by a staggering 3 million ^detail, underscores ^general its dominant demographic momentum. Jakarta, initially the least populous of the three ^CC, followed suit, with its population burgeoning from about 8 million to close to 12 million, again exceeding estimates by a notable margin.

Shanghai, however, presents a more intriguing pattern. Contrary to predictions of a population decline to 11 million, the city experienced a demographic reversal, surging to 15 million by 2000, a deviation of 4 million from forecasts. In conclusion, São Paulo's expansion, Jakarta's ascent, and Shanghai's demographic turnaround collectively illustrate the dynamics of urban population growth during the decade.

vc: vocab

cc: coherence and cohesion

gr: grammar.

The chart presents information about the actual and expected population of Jakarta, Shanghai, and Sao Paulo in 1990 and 2000. Overall, all three cities experienced a growth in population from 1990 to 2000, with some differences between the predictions and the actual figures.

CẢI THIỆN OVERALL --> ấn tượng với người chấm từ đầu:

Overall, all three cities witnessed significant population growth hoặc witnessed a upward trend in population between 1990 and 2000. However, the actual figures differed ^GR from predictions, most notably ^GR+VC in Sao Paulo.

In 1990, Sao Paulo had the highest population among the three cities, reaching around 16 million. Shanghai followed with approximately 13 million people, while Jakarta had the smallest population, at about 9.5 million.

CẢI THIỆN: In 1990, Sao Paulo recorded the highest population ^VC among the three cities, standing at ^GR+VC approximately 16 million. HOẶC: Sao Paulo recorded the highest population in 1990, standing at approximately 16 million.

Shanghai came next with ^VC around 13 million inhabitants ^VC, while Jakarta registered the smallest figure ^{VC - trong bài của em chưa có từ figure, từ này nên dùng để đa dạng hơn} at approximately 9.5 million.

By 2000, the population of all three cities had increased ^{--> có được câu mở đầu chung như này là tốt, nhưng nên viết hay hơn xíu.} In Jakarta, the actual population was around 11 million, slightly lower than the predicted figure of nearly 12 million. Shanghai’s actual figure was roughly 14.5 million, which was very close to the forecast. However, the population of Sao Paulo rose significantly more than expected: it was predicted to be 20 million, but the actual number reached 24 million, making it the most populous city among the three.

CẢI THIỆN: By 2000, all three cities had seen their populations rise further ^GR+VC. HOẶC: By 2000, the populations in all three cities had grown. In Jakarta, the actual population stood at around 11 million in 2000, slightly below the prediction of nearly 12 million. HOẶC: Jakarta's actual population reached approximately 11 million, slightly short of ^GR+VC the predicted figure of almost 12 million

...

In contrast ^CC, Sao Paulo's population increased dramatically, surpassing the predicted 20 million to reach 24 million and become the populous city. --> dùng câu phức một cách thành thạo là vậy đó.

In conclusion, the predictions were quite accurate for Jakarta and Shanghai, while Sao Paulo's population was much higher than expected.

TR: 7 CC: 7 GR: 7 VC:7

1. TR: Em có thế mạnh ở bài Task 1 là biết cách chọn số liệu và phân tích, nên TR của em luôn nằm ở mức ổn là 7. Ba tiêu chí còn lại cần cải thiện thêm nhiều. Ở lần này, em đã tăng lên được.

2. CC:

   • Chia thân bài ổn: một đoạn 1990, một đoạn 2000 và so sánh giữa forecast - thực tế.

   • Dùng được một vài cohesive devices đúng chỗ như: followed with, However, while.

3. GR:

   • Sử dụng được rút ngọn mệnh đề quan hệ như: reaching, followed with. --> từ anh gạch đỏ.

   • Không sai ngữ pháp nữa.

4. VC:

   • Dùng được "populous" --> paraphrase ổn.

   • Cái tốt nhất là em là chen các từ tả data đúng: approximately, roughly,... --> từ anh gạch đỏ.

   • Nên dùng thêm vài cụm ở cấp bậc cao hơn như: surpassed, fell short of, reached a peak, stood at.

CẢI THIỆN: The prevalence of obesity and being overweight is a growing concern in contemporary society. --> Sử dụng "prevalence", "growing concern", cấu trúc danh từ hóa.

In response to this challenge, a common perspective holds that public health education is the primary solution. ^VC

...

While both viewpoints present compelling arguments, I am inclined to believe that education, while valuable, is often inadequate in isolation. --> VC+GR.

On the one hand, educating people about the harmful effects of obesity may lead to positive lifestyle changes ^{lặp từ education/educate}. When people are taught to eat more vegetables, reduce sugar intake, and exercise regularly, they may try to build healthier daily habits ^{ổn, nhưng anh recommend dùng VC tốt hơn: adopt healthier daily routines.} Schools can also teach students about proper nutrition, and parents can pay more attention to their children's eating habits. In this way, education can play an important role in raising awareness.

CẢI THIỆN:

• promoting awareness regarding the detrimental consequences of obesity can potentially ^{ăn điểm VC khi biết dùng kỹ thuật hedging} foster healthier lifestyle choices. --> ăn điểm VC, dùng foster vừa đúng ngữ cảnh vừa ăn điểm từ vựng cao.

On the other hand, simply giving people information does not always lead to action ^{tốt, biết mở đầu, nhưng nên dùng đảo ngữ để nhấn mạnh}. For instance, even though people know that fast food is unhealthy, they still eat it because it is cheap, convenient, and tasty ^{awkward, lập luận chưa có sức nặng.} Similarly, many people continue to use smartphones excessively despite knowing the negative effects on their health ^{có vốn hiểu biết, nhưng link được đến obesity}. These examples show that awareness alone is not enough to change behavior. Therefore, the government should introduce ^{dùng implement để VC cao điểm hơn} policies such as higher taxes on junk food and sugary drinks to reduce their consumption and encourage healthier choices.

CẢI THIỆN:

• Rarely, if ever, do simple solutions suffice for complex issues.

• For instance, despite widespread awareness ^GR of the health risks associated with ^GR fast food, its consumption remains high, primarily due to factors like affordability, accessibility, and palatability. This disconnect between knowledge and action highlights the limitations of education alone. ^CC

• Similarly, even when individuals understand the detrimental impact of sedentary lifestyles ^LINK, often linked to excessive screen time, they may not alter their habits, illustrating that awareness alone is insufficient to drive behavioural shifts ^{academic terms --> VC lên 8.}

In conclusion, while education can help people understand the risks of obesity, I believe that it is not enough ^{enough lặp, cấp bậc từ không cao --> dùng insufficient} to solve the problem. A ^{chỗ này chuyển ý chưa mượt, nên thêm cụm "In the grand scheme of things,} combination of education and government intervention is necessary to effectively reduce obesity in society.