My essay, проверьте, покритикуйте! Спасибо!

[Maimiti_Isabella]

здравствуйте, посмотрите пожалуйста,мое ессе, на какой примерно бал оно тянет, буду рада любым замечаниям
заранее спасибо!

5 to 5.5 seems quite feasible.

[Maimiti_Isabella]

На сколько баллов приблизительно потянет письмецо?

Difficult to say but I'd be looking at around 5.5

[Sveta08]

KalinkaMalinka, спасибо. огромное! очень подробно разобрали мою работу, буду учится дальше......хотя экзамен через 2 недели

[Sveta08]

здравствуйте, посмотрите пожалуйста "старое" эссе, я исправила его, надеюсь, что прогресс есть

Some people believe that visitors to other countries should follow local customs and behaviour differences. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Some people consider that foreign travellers have to follow traditions of host countries . Other think that countries should be opened for all cultures. In my opinion people have to respect traditions and cultures all nations and follow their own in their countries.

First of all each country has its own history, cultures and traditions. Every nations should value and keep them. People have to respect traditions of other country, especially , if they travel as foreign tourist. Moreover people should know traditions of other nations, in order to escape unpleasant situations in foreign countries. There are some examples , when foreign travellers come to the other country , they do not know how to behave in different situations. Also they can hurt local citizens, if they do something wrong. I can give an example, which shows how it is important to know traditional details of other nations. The accident happened in an Arabian country. Europeans didn’t know how to behave in a difficult, confusing situation with the Arabian women. They were killed by one citizen. He was not be judged , because according to the governmental law in his country, he did everything correctly.

Secondly it will be strange, if foreign travellers come to each country with their own cultures and traditions. All nations have their own mentality. Foreign people can never understand all details in cultural traditions, especially, if they do not live in this country. It will be chaos. For instance we live in our house. Suddenly stranger comes to us and starts establishing another rules, rebuilds our houses or behave in other ways, then we are used to. Nobody will not like it. So the same can be happened , if a local country is welcome for different traditions .

To summarize we are all people, we have to respect all cultures and traditions. It does not matter whether a person comes from Australia or Africa. I think , that we have to follow traditions at home. It will be incorrectly to demand from other people to follow them, if they do not even know them. Travellers have to learn some details about traditions of foreign countries, only if they do it, they will never turn out in strange situations.

[Sveta08]

Happy,

некорректное употребление (несочетание) некоторых слов вместе, в том числе слова-связки не на своих местах иногда

где слова связки не на своем месте? приведите пример пожалуйста тк я еще раз все просмотрела, да, сруктура, грамматика страдает, но слова связки как раз " в тему"

[Happy]

Happy,
где слова связки не на своем месте? приведите пример пожалуйста тк я еще раз все просмотрела, да, сруктура, грамматика страдает, но слова связки как раз " в тему"

После того как вы переписали сочинение они встали на свои места, так что вопрос снимается
Вообще, мне кажется, критиковать должны либо успешно сдавшие, либо живущие в англоязычных странах/работающие в иностранных компаниях. Поэтому временно воздерживаюсь от комментариев

[jenja]

здравствуйте, посмотрите пожалуйста "старое" эссе, я исправила его, надеюсь, что прогресс есть

374 words

Some people consider that foreign travellers have to follow traditions of host countries . Others think that countries should be opened for all cultures. In my opinion, people have to respect traditions and cultures of all nations and follow their own ones in their countries. Много одних и тех же фраз, причем похожишь на просто переписанный заголовок

First of all, each country has its own history, cultures and traditions. Every nations should value and keep them. People have to respect traditions of other country, especially , if they travel as a foreign tourist. Moreover, people should know traditions of other nations (удалена ,) in order to escape unpleasant situations in foreign countries. There are some examples (удалена ,) when foreign travellers come to the other country and/though/however they do not know how to behave in various situations. Also they can hurt local citizens (удалена ,) if they do something wrong. I can give an example, which shows how it is important to know traditional details of other nations. The accident happened in an Arabian country. Europeans didn’t know how to behave in a difficult, confusing situation with the Arabian women. They were killed by one citizen. He was not (удалено be) judged (удалена ,) because according to the governmental law in his country, he did everything correctly. Но так не пишут по-английски. Разбейте на простые предложения. -> He was not arrested/detained/sentenced/convicted due to/because of a law acquitted him from all charges/discharged him/proved him having acted correctly

Secondly (Где firstly?) it will be strange (удалена ,) if foreign travellers come to each country with their own cultures and traditions. All nations have their own mentality. Foreign people can never understand all details in cultural traditions, especially, if they do not live in this country. It will be chaos. For instance,we live in our house. Suddenly, stranger comes to us and starts establishing other rules, rebuilds our houses or behave in other ways (удалена ,) than we are used to. Nobody will удалено not like it. So, the same can удалено be happened(удалена ,) if a local country is welcome for different traditions .

To summarize, we are all people, we have to respect all cultures and traditions. It does not matter whether a person comes from Australia or Africa. I think (удалена ,) that we have to follow traditions at home. It will be incorrectly to demand from other people to follow them (удалена ,) if they do not even know them. Travellers have to learn some details about traditions of foreign countries, only if they do it, they will never turn out in strange situations.

Что хотелось бы добавить:
1) прогресс - на лицо, ошибок меньше, НО имхо многие предложения - не английские + нечеткая стируктура эссе (не выглядит как эссе).
2) ВВодные слова, слова-связки - излагайте мысли последовательно, желательно разделяйте мысль+supporting points на абзацы, абзац начинайте вводной фразы/слова - причем не First of all, secondly - ибо нет тут списка. Then, also, additionally, what is more, moreover, interestingly enough, another point to support my belief/opinion. Firstly, secondly (thirdly - уже моветон) хороши, когда перечисляете процесс и т.п.
3) Если у вас насколько предложений в одном - обратите внимание на пунтктуациию - она в англиц. не такая как в русском или немецком. Обратите внимание на союзы.
4) Вы почти всегда говорите одни и теже фразы, причем иногда теми же словами - people have to, people should, nations have ...
5) пример от себя - хорошо, но требует обработки. Вообще много предложений напрямую переведенных толи с русского, толи еще с какого
6) conclusion у вас - не концовка, а обсуждение второго мнения, о чем просят в задании (за и против). В концовке надо кратко вспомнить оба мнения и подвести резюме.
В целом - есть шанс за оставшееся время подтянуть эссе на лучшие баллы - если справитесь со структурой (абзацы, точки зрения, доказательства, вводные слова).

[natalya_ielts]

посмотрите, пожалуйста, и мое эссе

The threat of nuclear weapons maintains world peace.
Nuclear power provides cheap and clean energy.
The benefits of nuclear technology far outweigh the disadvantages.
Do agree or disagree?


This essay will be dedicated to the matter of nuclear technology. There are several ways of the use ones. The first is producing military goods from this, and the second is generating energy. Generally, I think that there are more advantages of the use nuclear technology than disadvantages.

First of all, it is necessary to say that nations always fought each other during all the history and always found the most effective means of attacks. So, people have invented nuclear weapons. That will devastate all people and environment if it is used. And people have become to fear possible consequences of nuclear weapons. In order to avoid the mass destruction governments become to collaborate with each other and maintain the global peace.

Besides that, nuclear technology can be used to power energy. It is too cheaper than producing energy from fossil fuels. In addition there some advantages of nuclear energy such as diminishing of consumption of fossil fuels as everybody knows are being ended. Also, the soil will not be depleted, and the environment will not be polluted. I think these are the most vital advantages of nuclear technology.

As sources of fossil fuels are being depleted now and we need to produce more nuclear power, I think it is necessary to dwindle financing of production military goods from nuclear energy, and invest these funds for powering of nuclear energy.

In my opinion nuclear technology is more positive and because of depletion of traditional sources of energy nations will spend more money for nuclear energy and less ones for nuclear weapons. Therefore, in the future, production of cheap and clean energy will become the foundation of world peace.

279 words.

[Lavrentiy]

The threat of nuclear weapons maintains world peace.
[B][FONT=279 words.[/FONT]

The threat of nuclear weapons maintains world peace.
Nuclear power provides cheap and clean energy.
The benefits of nuclear technology far outweigh the disadvantages.
Do agree or disagree?


This essay will be dedicated to the matter of nuclear technology. There are several ways of (1) the use ones. The first (2) is producing military goods from (3) this, and the second is generating energy. Generally, I think that there are more advantages (4) of the use nuclear technology than disadvantages.

First of all, it is necessary to say that nations always fought each other during all the history and always found the most effective means of (5) attacks. So, people have invented nuclear weapons. (6) That (7) will devastate all people and environment if ( it is used. And people have (9) become to fear (10) possible consequences of nuclear weapons. In order to avoid the mass destruction governments (11) become to collaborate with each other and maintain the global peace.

Besides that, nuclear technology can be used to (12) power energy. (13) It is (14) too cheaper than producing energy from fossil fuels. In addition there (15) some advantages of nuclear energy such as (16) diminishing of consumption of fossil fuels (17) as everybody knows are being ended. Also, the soil (1will not be depleted, and the environment (19) will not be polluted. I think these are the most vital advantages of nuclear technology.

As sources of fossil fuels are being depleted now and we need to produce more nuclear power, I think it is necessary to (20) dwindle (21) financing of production (22) military goods from nuclear energy, and invest these funds (23) for (24) powering of nuclear energy.

In my opinion nuclear technology is more positive and because (25) of (26) depletion of traditional sources of (27) energy nations will spend more money (2 for nuclear energy and less (29) ones (30) for nuclear weapons. Therefore, in the future, production of cheap and clean energy will become the foundation of world peace.

(1) several ways of its use
(2) the first one is
(3) from it
(4) in the use
(5) means of making war (?)
(6) those (?) bad English
(7) would (?) – to make it sound more hypothetical
( if they were used / if they were to be used
(9) have come to fear
(10) the (?)
(11) began to collaborate
(12) to produce energy (?) very bad English
(13) this is
(14) much cheaper
(15) there ARE
(16) the (?)
(17) SENTENCE UNCLEAR
(1 and (19) “would” in either case
(20) reduce or decrease – not “dwindle”
(21) the (?)
(22) production OF
(23) into, a ne “for”
(24) chto znachit “to power energy”?? na kakom jeto jazyke? ja sdajus’! oshibka vrtoroj raz. Ili u vas elektonnyj perevodchik?
(25) jeto nazyvaetsja russkij roditel’nyj padezh (o kotorom vy ne slyhali): of…of…of…of…of…of... Nado perepisat’ “po-anglijski”
(26) the (?)
(27) energy nations – ne govorjat. Gde vy eto vzjali? Elektronnyj perevodchik?
(2 on, a ne “for”
(29) ones – ne nado
(30) smotri (2

Uvy, nadezhdy net. Ob ekzamene i dumat’ zabud’te. U vas net azov.

[lx]

Сдаю уже третий раз, и только в первый раз получил 7. Остальноые сдачи - в подписи.

Что-то надо менять в писанине, а что - не пойму. Покритикуйте, пожалуйста, моё эссе. Спасибо!

Women's role as police officers. Although there are more and more women police officers, in reality, are they really suitable for this job? Do you agree or disagree?



I would rather disagree with the idea that women should work equally with men in the police. Most of police work involves violence and hard physical excercise. However, I also admit that women can successfully work in the police in the areas that could hardly be risky for them. This essay will analyze the given topic and provide arguments in favour of a balanced approach to women's role in the police.

There is no doubt that police work on the street may be stressful and even dangerous. Police officers encounter criminals, aggressive drunk youth and simply rude citizens while patrolling the city streets. As a result, any clash with those people could harm not only psychological but also physical health, wich is both unacceptable. This was proven by the National Survey of people working in the police force: over 60 percent of females felt stress and physical abuse while working on the streets. Males, in comparison, gave a less worrying number: 30 percent. Therefore, we can assume that police work is unsuitable for the majority of women simply because of their psychotype and exaggarated reaction on stressful situations.


On the other hand, women feel more comfortable and secure while working in the office. Thus, women are more productive and efficient on positions like Psychologist, Human Resource Manager or Office Manager. It is a well known fact that the overwhelming majority of secretaries are women and they perform much better then men on that job.

To conclude, I would like to stress the point that we should take a balanced approach to positions women work on in the police. It would be beneficial for all to have some restrictions for both genders depending on different risk factors and abilities.

289 words, 35 min

[vnikitin]

Что-то надо менять в писанине, а что - не пойму. Покритикуйте, пожалуйста, моё эссе. Спасибо!

Позвольте и мне покритиковать со своим райтингом 5.5 )))
На мой взгляд, у Вас отличный словарный запас и хорошая грамматика (по крайней мере, тут я не учитель), но вот структура....

1. Ну зачем же вот так в первом предложении сразу начинать с себя?
Можно это переписать под общую гребенку, как они требуют. И, как я читала, лучше о себе и своем мнение вспоминать только в конклюжине.

Nowadays, it is mostly believed that women should work equally with men in the police. Most of police work involves violence and hard physical excercise. However, other are of the opinion that women can successfully work in the police in the areas that could hardly be risky for them. In this essay arguments in favour of a balanced approach to women's role in the police will be provided and my own opinion will be given.

Еще в глаза бросается разница в размере - вступление по размеру отличное, потом весьма длинный абзац, а вот потом очень короткий - то есть, Вы одно мнение, как бы, хорошо аргументировали, а второе только немного, и заключение, на мой взгляд, маловато.

Вы смотрели Райана? Там очень четко показана не только структура, а еще и принцип написания - так, что всегда получается достаточное количество слов и почти равное количество идей и предложений в каждом абзаце.

В любом случае, это мое субъективное )))
И, судя по оценкам, я не пример для подражания )))
Удачи Вам

[Sveta08]

посмотрите, пожалуйста, очередное "творение", буду признательна вашим комментариямп

SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE that computers are more a hindrance than a help in today´s world. Others feel that they are such indispensable tools that they would not be able to live or work without them. In what ways are computers a hindrance? What is your opinion?
Some people think that computers are useless things today Others consider , that they are essential part of their life. I share the second point of view and believe that computers the most necessary thing in the world.

Firstly, we live in the century of high technology . All our life depends on computers. Nowadays we can do the majority of things at home with the help of computers. For instance we can do different payments at home using the internet. Moreover, we can chat with friends , relatives, who live in thousand kilometres from us. It is possible to get a distant education. For example people live in a village, they do not have an opportunity to go somewhere for studying. It is also easy for working people , because it is not necessary to go everyday to the university. They can do their work at any time.

Secondly, most people think that it would be not able to live or work without computers. Our society would be never develop without computers. It is impossible to imaging , that people would not fly to the space. Scientists would not do various investigations. Different spheres of our world develop due to computers, for example, medicine. Today doctors examine their patients with the help of the computers, also they can see how a baby develop before its birth. They cam prevent different diseases , when they are still on the early level of their development. So, computers are very useful things in our world.

However, there are some disadvantages . People spend too much time with computers. Social relations are destroyed. We write an email to a friend instead of calling him. Employees complain, that their workers in the office talk with each other very rarely. Sometimes they do not even recognize their colleges , because they communicate only per the internet. Moreover children became dependent on computers. They prefer stay at home and play computer games, then to meet friends.

In conclusion, I think computers are very beneficial thing. It is very convenient to do the most things at home. Our society go further in its development due to computers. However, we should remember , that computers are only machine. They can not replace a person. We have to manage them, but not they us.

[Sveta08]

jenja,спасибо, вам огромное, буду исправляться

[Maimiti_Isabella]

Сдаю уже третий раз, и только в первый раз получил 7. Остальноые сдачи - в подписи.

Eсли Вам нужна 7, то напишите мне в ЛС, там и 'поговорим'.

Для 'затравки'. Ваше Introduction - оценка сразу будет снижена, так как Introduction фактически нет.

[natalya_ielts]

The threat of nuclear weapons maintains world peace.
Nuclear power provides cheap and clean energy.
The benefits of nuclear technology far outweigh the disadvantages.
Do agree or disagree?


This essay will be dedicated to the matter of nuclear technology. There are several ways of (1) the use ones. The first (2) is producing military goods from (3) this, and the second is generating energy. Generally, I think that there are more advantages (4) of the use nuclear technology than disadvantages.

First of all, it is necessary to say that nations always fought each other during all the history and always found the most effective means of (5) attacks. So, people have invented nuclear weapons. (6) That (7) will devastate all people and environment if ( it is used. And people have (9) become to fear (10) possible consequences of nuclear weapons. In order to avoid the mass destruction governments (11) become to collaborate with each other and maintain the global peace.

Besides that, nuclear technology can be used to (12) power energy. (13) It is (14) too cheaper than producing energy from fossil fuels. In addition there (15) some advantages of nuclear energy such as (16) diminishing of consumption of fossil fuels (17) as everybody knows are being ended. Also, the soil (1will not be depleted, and the environment (19) will not be polluted. I think these are the most vital advantages of nuclear technology.

As sources of fossil fuels are being depleted now and we need to produce more nuclear power, I think it is necessary to (20) dwindle (21) financing of production (22) military goods from nuclear energy, and invest these funds (23) for (24) powering of nuclear energy.

In my opinion nuclear technology is more positive and because (25) of (26) depletion of traditional sources of (27) energy nations will spend more money (2 for nuclear energy and less (29) ones (30) for nuclear weapons. Therefore, in the future, production of cheap and clean energy will become the foundation of world peace.

(1) several ways of its use
(2) the first one is
(3) from it
(4) in the use
(5) means of making war (?)
(6) those (?) bad English
(7) would (?) – to make it sound more hypothetical
( if they were used / if they were to be used
(9) have come to fear
(10) the (?)
(11) began to collaborate
(12) to produce energy (?) very bad English
(13) this is
(14) much cheaper
(15) there ARE
(16) the (?)
(17) SENTENCE UNCLEAR
(1 and (19) “would” in either case
(20) reduce or decrease – not “dwindle”
(21) the (?)
(22) production OF
(23) into, a ne “for”
(24) chto znachit “to power energy”?? na kakom jeto jazyke? ja sdajus’! oshibka vrtoroj raz. Ili u vas elektonnyj perevodchik?
(25) jeto nazyvaetsja russkij roditel’nyj padezh (o kotorom vy ne slyhali): of…of…of…of…of…of... Nado perepisat’ “po-anglijski”
(26) the (?)
(27) energy nations – ne govorjat. Gde vy eto vzjali? Elektronnyj perevodchik?
(2 on, a ne “for”
(29) ones – ne nado
(30) smotri (2

Uvy, nadezhdy net. Ob ekzamene i dumat’ zabud’te. U vas net azov.

Lavrentiy, спасибо за критику.
Неужели все так плохо?

Это мое первое самостоятельное эссе, написанное где-то за 50 минут, без словарей и поглядок. Посмотрела сейчас - да есть откровенные косяки, но есть и ценные замечания с Вашей стороны, за что опять-таки спасибо.

В общем, по порядку.

(1)(2) надо повторить использование one
(3) тоже самое касается it и this, если честно я до сих пор не понимаю между ними разницы (первое вроде как - "это", второе - "этот")
(4) а почему in? я посмотрела словарь - там либо of/to/over используют. может логичнее написать there are more advantages than disadvantages to the use nuclear technology
(5) писала без словаря, поэтому слово не могла вспомнить, хотела написать defence
(6) вижу ошибку
(7) согласна
( мн. число вижу, согласоваие времен тоже
(9) сейчас смотрю, и не могу понять, что хотела написать, скорее всего have to become (или come?) to fear - должны стать бояться
(10) зачем? там же множественное число дальше
(11) согласна
(12) здесь меня видимо переклинило, скорее всего хотела написать can be used to produce energy to power electricity
(13) тоже самое, что в (3), опять-таки разницы не чувствую
(14) согласна
(15) видимо просто пропустила
(16) зачем артикль?
(17) здесь я хотела написать that as are generally known... не пойдет так?
(1, (19) согласна
(20) a dwindle никак не пойдет, тоже вроде сокращать?
(21) зачем артикль?
(22) согласна
(23) согласна
(24) опять-таки переклинило и нет у меня переводчика, я практически всегда пользуюсь англо-английским словарем
(25) почему не слышала? слышала... а если я перепишу предложение, так понятнее будет: In my opinion nuclear technology is more positive and so nations would spend more money on nuclear energy and less on nuclear weapons because of (из-за) the(?) depletion of traditional sources of energy
(26) зачем опять-таки артикль?

в общем, примерно понятно, что надо работать над построением предложений, повторить разницу между it и this, артикли, выучить prepositions

есть раз спасибо, что уделили столько внимания моему эссе.
но неужели все совсем плохо? и надежды нет совсем?

еще хотела спросить насчет структуры? насколько она соответствует эссе? в 1 абзаце я кратко описала проблему и свое мнение, что преимуществ все-таки больше. во 2-м- описала преимущества использования ядерного оружия. в 3-м преимущества ядерной энергии. в 4-м - то,что это все хорошо, но тем не менее энергия важнее, надо тратиться меньше на оружие. в 5-м мое мнение, что несмотря на преимущества оружия, его будут производить меньше в будущем... насколько такая структура правильна?

всем спасибо!