require critical comments and a possible IELTS score. I am aiming at a band 9 in writing. where do I currently stand?

[chang]

Should wealthy nations be required to share their wealth among poorer nations by providing such things as food and education? Or is it the responsibility of the governments of poorer nations to look after their citizens themselves?

The world economy is a complex juxtaposition of developed nations with futuristic ideology and the third world nations trapped in the medieval age. The necessity to bridge the gap between the two has aroused a controversial debate between sharing of wealth by the power laden countries and the governments of economically backward nations strategizing methods to become self-sufficient. An analysis of both sides of the coin will clarify the picture.
It is regarded as a moral obligation to help the weak which propagates the idea to offer financial assistance. Countries like Vietnam have been able to successfully make improvisations in its economy after years of external existence. Ethical reasons aside, industrialized countries cannot afford to let one section of the world stagnate in infrastructure and economy as it could ricochet back in forms like terrorism or spread of contagious diseases. One recalls the damages to the twin towers of the World Trade Centre, the kidnappings by Somalian pirates and the deadly SARS virus that intimidated the world.
However, most often than not, the money donated by developed nations is consumed by the corruption of the politicians of underprivileged nations. Conversely, even if the money is utilized for food and infrastructure development, it often culminates to the governments of such nations to become over-dependent on external assistance and encourages them to become lazy and ignore their own responsibilities. Even after receiving years of financial aid, countries like Afghanistan and some African nations are still relegated to the bottom of the economic charts.
Nevertheless, the governments of economically backward countries should show accountability after being trusted and elected by their people. History suggests that when governments start to strategize the economic future of their country, such nations taste prosperity. The efforts of the Chinese government to improve its economy has transformed China to a dictator of corporate expansion plans worldwide while Singapore ensured that it rocketed from one of the poorest countries in the 1960s to second on the list of the 2015 economic freedom index.
In conclusion, it would be prudent for governments of underprivileged countries to strategize infrastructure and economic development plans while it more fortunate counterparts can ensure aids during serious crisis and natural calamities.

[sebastian]

Really good in general and well structured. Some nitpicks:

Countries like Vietnam have been able to successfully make improvisations in its economy

Plural vs singular disagreement, wrong word (it should be 'improvements').

most often than not

Should be 'more'. It's a fixed expression.

... the money donated by developed nations ... of underprivileged nations.

Bit redundant to use the same word twice in such a relatively short fragment. You could replace either occurrence by a contextual synonym (countries, territories, sovereignities, governments, economies).

governments start to strategize the economic future of their country

Plural vs singular.

The efforts of the Chinese government to improve its economy has transformed China

Plural vs singular.

to a dictator of corporate expansion plans worldwide

Wrong word for that context. A better option could be 'leader'.

[chang]

Oh wow! they are glaring errors I didn't realize. I shall pay careful attention to my singular/plural status henceforth. I really appreciate your comments because by myself I realized I wasn't making any improvements at all.

[sebastian]

I wouldn't say they're glaring, since they don't really dilute the message (besides the wrong-word ones perhaps, but even then most people would know what you meant anyway), but obviously it's a lot better if you can address them before the test (and, nevermind the test, just for life itself).

Your writing is quite good so I wouldn't worry too much anyway. If you don't mind a few follow-up questions:

* When are you sitting the test and what's your desired/needed band?
* How's your time management? How long does it take you to write an essay like this one (and the other one I critiqued)?

All the best!




Seb

[chang]

I am taking the test on 18th feb, 2016. It's about two weeks since I am practicing. I need a minimum band score of only 6, however since I am applying for Canadian PR, the higher I score on my IELTS the higher is my CRS score. So I am aiming for a band of 8.5-9.0

Moreover, its been about twenty years since I've written essays in school and I'm not someone who usually works hard for exams. however, this time I've decided that if I have the ability to score 9.0 in all the modules then that's what I should aim for.

It takes me about 60-65mins to write these essays. the ones I was writing in 40mins were not very good (in terms of lexical resources. It takes me time to come up with synonyms as I hardly ever get to speak good English with the people I communicate with on a daily basis). And on one of the online tutorials I heard that it is better to first achieve your band score and then start cutting down on time. So I am waiting for someone to assess my essays and tell me I've reached a 9 so I can start reducing the time I take.

Actually the mistakes now glare at me after you pointed them out. and they are really silly mistakes I am making too often and need to really ensure I don't repeat them.

[sebastian]

That seems like an interesting approach, indeed. I admit I've always been doing it the other way around with the people I coach, so perhaps I should try your suggestion next time.

[chang]

i really have no idea what's the best approach. i think this way i get to write better essays and my mind will start getting accustomed to the pattern of writing and drawing out those vocabulary skills as a habit which will automatically cut down time. dunno whether it will work but its worth a shot.

[Cliff.IELTS.Examiner]

At the moment Chang, this part 2 would likely get you a 6.5 overall, perhaps a seven. Task response is hard. You make many good arguments, but your position is not altogether clear. To make 7, or more, you must present a “clear position throughout the response”. In this case, the band 6 descriptor fits better; the position is relevant to the prompt.
Coherence and cohesion might make 7.

A big letdown, which might surprise you, is lexical resources. You show a very wide range of high-level vocabulary, but many words are imprecisely or inappropriately used. The paper sounds a lot better than it is. Here are some examples of incorrectly or imprecisely used vocabulary.

"Aroused" is the wrong word. You can’t arouse an idea, or any inanimate object. You can arouse a person, or arouse a feeling in a person. Engendered, or sparked, or prompted would be more precise.

"Controversial debate" is ambiguous. The debate itself is not controversial, the issue is. The debate may be heated, vigorous, or contentious, but not itself controversial, unless the very existence of the debate is a matter of debate.

"Power laden" is imprecise usage. Laden implies a burden, a load, and it is usually used of cargo, things, not power. It is often used negatively. An economy might be, for example, debt laden. It would be unusual, unless used ironically, to say, for example, that Bill Gates is “wealth laden”.

"Improvisations" sounds wrong her. Did you mean “improvements”? To improvise is to create a temporary work-around to a problem. If your boat’s sail ripped, you might improvise with a bed sheet.

"Damages to the Trade Towers" is wrong usage on two levels: damage cannot be pluralised. If it is, you get a different meaning, to do with financial penalties as in “the victim was awarded 2 million in damages.”

There are many more, but this is more than enough to invoke the band 6 criterion: “wider range of vocabulary but higher degrees of inaccuracy…”

Grammar, there are quite a few errors. On the positive side, you have a great range of sentence structures, which is half the battle. The error count is high however, and some systemic errors, errors of the same type repeated. These keeps you out of the 8 band, although I think you would get 7.

… even if the money is utilised for food and infrastructure development, it often culminates to the governments of such nations to become over-dependent on external assistance and encourages them to become lazy and ignore their own responsibilities.

Should be “culminates in”

Hence efforts of the Chinese government to improve its economy has transformed

Shows a subject verb-error, and you have several examples of this error, making it “systemic” and therefore restricting you to band 7.

I see that others have pointed out more errors so I won’t show more here.


Good luck. I 9.0 is very hard to achieve, even for a native speaker.



6-7-6-7 = 6.5

[chang]

thank you Cliff for the analysis. I was writing essays regularly however had no clue whether I was improving or not or whether it was the right way of writing. I will take care in future with my words.

is it compulsory to state which side of the argument I am supporting in the introduction itself? I thought I could have a non-biased discussion of both sides and then place my opinion in the end. is this wrong?

[Cliff.IELTS.Examiner]

That depends on the wording of the question. In this case the question begins with "should", which implies that in addition to discussing both views, you should make some sort of judgement.