IELTSNetwork.com

Topic: A university plans to develop a new research center in your country. Some people want a center for business research. Other people want a center for research in agriculture (farming). Which of these two kinds of research centers do you recommend for your country? Use specific reasons in your recommendation.
Answer:
Business and agricultural production are essential factors for a developing country as Vietnam. Both of them have positive sides separately. These two kinds of research centers are useful to some certain extent as now will be discussed. However the most importance is the result of researching.
A business center may creat a lot good policies of commercial. A high efficiency in production mean nothing unless they could be sold completely, so that the rightful economic measures of the Government are very important. Besides that the economic information about foreign market could help the manufacturers have correct decisions in capacity and model of products. Finally, the accurately policies in micro and macro economic of Government will affect positively to the efficiency of national economic.
From the other side, Vietnam have 80 percent of population live on agricultural production so a center for research in agriculture could help millions farmers to improve their lives by increasing the volume and quanlity of their products in certain natural conditions. The modern biotechnology permits farmers plans a variety kinds of food. I belive that the productivity problems for technology deficiency is quite significant for a long time in my country. It causes poor output and quanlity of agricultural product, leading to weak competitive ability in international market for Vietnam. So, Vietnamese farmers were very miserable.
Although both of them are very important however at the moment, Vietnam have had a lot of economic university but a little about agriculture. There are many economic students can’t find job after graduated while there is a serious deficiency of biotechnology. If we had developed it since a long time ago, we could have acquired the great success. For those reason, I think that the Government should built a agriculture research center.
In conclusion, the Vietnam Government should improve the economic training quanlity and increase biotechnology development. Millions farmers will be benefit from these actions.

Hi quocdai,

A couple of thoughts:

quocdai wrote:Topic: A university plans to develop a new research center in your country. Some people want a center for business research. Other people want a center for research in agriculture (farming). Which of these two kinds of research centers do you recommend for your country? Use specific reasons in your recommendation.

Answer:
Business and agricultural production are essential factors for a developing country such as Vietnam. Although clear advantages would result from building a research center for either discipline, this essay will determine which area is most beneficial for Vietnam. This will be carried out by looking at the commercial and production effects each form of research would have. (<--The original wording of this introduction sets you up to write a discussion style of essay. I've maintained that intention in my edits here. However, keep in mind that these sorts of questions are most easily responded to using a straightforward argument essay structure.)

On the one hand, a business center would create (<--Consider changing "create" to "stimulate".) several healthy commercial policies. (<--Would "commercial growth" be a better way to frame this idea?) Highly efficient production means nothing unless coupled with the ability to attract international buyers. Thus, the rightful economic measures of the government are very important. (<--Tie this more closely to the idea of research and the role the research center will play.) Besides that (<--Take out "besides that".) the economic information about foreign markets could help Vietnamese manufacturers exercise correct (<--Would "effective" be a better word?) decisions in (<--Change "in" to "regarding".) capacity and model of products. (<--Change "model of products" to "product design".) Finally, the accurate policies in micro and macro economics of government will affect positively to the efficiency of national economic. (<--I'm not quite sure what the end of this sentence is supposed to mean. Perhaps you meant something like: "...will have a positive effect on the Vietnamese economy as a whole".)

(The above paragraph should derive a clear conclusion from the discussion it carries out. Something as simple as this would work well: "Thus, the merits of building a center for research into Vietnamese economic practices can be seen.")

On the other side of the equation, Vietnam have (<--"Vietnam have"? Don't let yourself make silly mistakes.) 80 percent of population live on agricultural production so a center for research in agriculture could help millions farmers to improve their lives by increasing the volume and quanlity of their products in certain natural conditions. (<--The second half of this sentence is very well constructed. The first half needs some altering, though: "On the other side of the equation, 80 percent of the Vietnamese people create livelihoods for themselves through farming, so a center for research into agricultural production would be a step towards improving the lives of millions of people.") The modern biotechnology permits farmers plans a variety kinds of food. (<--I'm not quite sure what this means.) I believe that the productivity problems for technology deficiency (<--Do you mean "...resulting from a deficiency in technology"?) has been quite significant for a long time in my country. It causes poor output and weak quality of agricultural products, leading to weak competitive ability in international markets for Vietnam. So, Vietnamese farmers were very miserable. (<--Were miserable? Does this mean they are not miserable today?)

(Again, please state exactly what it is you want the reader to draw from this paragraph. Perhaps: "As the above makes clear, the building of an agricultural research center could help to encourage tremendous improvement in livelihood among the Vietnamese people.")

Although both schools of thought are important, Vietnam have (<--Vietnam have?) had a lot of economic university but a little about agriculture. (<--Change this sentence to: "Although research into economic policies is important, Vietnam currently boasts several internationally recognized schools of economics.") There are many economic students can’t find job after graduated while there is a serious deficiency of biotechnology. (<--Add some cohesion to link this idea to the preceding sentence: "In fact, economics is such a popular discipline among university students that graduates are having a difficult time finding employment after finishing their studies. As the same phenomenon is far from true for the much needed graduates of agriculture-related disciplines, it is clear that the present situation in Vietnam has greater need for deeper studies in agricultural development.") If such studies had been put into place a long time ago, we could have acquired the great success. (<--Consider just removing this sentence. It does not add to your argument and acts as unfounded speculation.) For these reasons, I think that the Government (<--Why do you keep capitalizing "government"?) should build an agriculture research center.

In conclusion, the Vietnamese government should improve the economic training quanlity (<--This is the second time I've seen you mix the spellings of "quantity" and "quality" together.) and increase biotechnology development. Millions of farmers will be (<--Anytime you feel like writing "will be", remind yourself that the correct word is likely "would".) benefit from these actions.

I think you present some very sound examples in this piece. I also think the Support A --> Support B --> Explain which is better approach is logical, although I would have appreciated much clearer conclusive statements at the end of each of your supporting paragraphs.

Grammar is in need of improvement. There are mild coherence issues throughout the essay. These areas cause your reader to strain for understanding, and I worry this could impact your examiner's opinion of your ability to achieve the task.

Providing you with a suggested band is difficult, as I think the essay presents strong reasoning and does contain a solid structure that logically derives a conclusion. I'm going to say band 5.5. Because so much is held back by weak grammar (i.e. the effectiveness of your cohesive devices, the level of coherence, the lexical resource accuracy, ...), I feel you will prove to be a case of very rapid improvement given some grammatical polish.

Good luck!