« IELTS Listening: check your spelling | Main | IELTS Writing Task 1: the 'word choice' skill »

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Hi simon, thank you for guiding ielts aspirants in such a nice way. Kindly spare some time to answer my question
Are grammatically wrong or wrong spelled words are counted in total word count in IELTS writing?

Abhinav

"Write at least 250 words": this says nothing about excluding mis-spelt or ungrammatical words.

One of the most controversial issues today relates to gene manipulation. On one side of the argument are those who think that biotechnology is beneficial for the society, while others assume that it puts danger on human lives as well as living creatures. In this essay, I will consider both sides of the argument and then give my own opinion on the matter.

Supporters of biogenetics may argue that using this technology people will be able to treat different genetic diseases, which were considered incurable and fatal. Especially, if a woman had wrong genes and all her future children would be born with illness. Thus, genetic engineering will give a chance for those women to become mothers one day. In addition, biotechnology is widely spread in agriculture; using biotech humans are able to create crops that are able to endure the low temperature or resistant to insects or diseases.

However, opponents of the technology are afraid of negative consequences such as unpredictable side effects of gene manipulation. For instance, during conducting some genetic experiments on rats, along with targeted results scientists have discovered increased level of anger among experimental rats. Therefore, nobody really knows which kind of problems meddling with genes may create and it will be thoughtless to give the carte blanche to biogenetics without considering all harmful effects. Additionally, it As well as this, even genetically modified plants cannot be seen as safe for human beings for the reason that they may cause severe allergy reactions.

In conclusion, both sides have their merits, on balance however, I believe that dangerous side effects of genetic engineering cannot be neglected and the governments should be very careful with permitting using it for the masses, while laboratory studies should be continued.

Sorry, I've made a mistake in the second part. It should be "As well as this,..."

Genetic engineering is a key area of modern scientific research, with broad implications in all spheres of life. While it raises concerns related to the existence of life on the planet, I believe that its judicious and controlled use can endow humans with a range of benefits.
Genetic engineering presents the possibility of a lot of advantages, and solutions to many problems in the society. Firstly, the global food shortage due to ever growing populations will be a thing of the past because GMO crops have led to a significant rise in crop production, which can effectively meet the requisite level. Secondly, the plants thus produced are hardly attacked by any pests and insects, since the gene changes induced in them have resulted in increased resistance to these disease causing elements. Finally, with the usage of gene therapy, those genetic disorders could be cured about whom the medical community was clueless. For example, ailments like fragile X syndrome and cystic fibrosis could be treated by this procedure.
The apprehensions regarding genetic engineering are primarily due to its potentially irreversible impact on two factors, namely food production and cloning of humans. Genetic engineering is believed to increase the crop yields and their pest resistance is achieved by altering gene structures or introducing artificial genes. However, its feared that the crops thus produced have diminished nutrient profile, and there is no knowhow about their long term effect on human physiology. The second factor worrying some is the cloning of humans might result in intellectual beings with greater survival instincts, whose behavioural and moral tendencies are completely unknown. Their arrival could result in completely wiping out the existing human race. However, the above drawbacks can be taken care of by the authorities if they are sensitive and cautious. The governments should closely monitor and regulate the extent of research done by rationally assessing the consequences, and thereby enacting laws to ensure the safety and well being of the people.
In conclusion, just like every new research, genetic engineering seems to have a lot of advantages, and some potential threats which can be made redundant by suitable intervention by governments.

Mirabella

"most controversial issues today": yes, it is an issue, but is it really among the most controversial?

"biotechnology" is a much broader term than "genetic engineering".

"the society": if you mean society in general then no article is required.

"it puts danger on" -> endangers.

"human lives as well as living creatures": are we not living creatures too?

It would be better to foreshadow your own opinion in the introduction: cf "presents a clear position throughout the response" per marking guidelines.

I actually had to google "biogenetics" vs "gene manipulation" vs "genetic engineering" to check these all meant exactly the same thing: all power to you, they do. But it made it harder for the uninitiated reader to follow when you keep switching terminology.

"Supporters of biogenetics may argue that [comma] using this technology [comma-adverbial gerund clause] people will be able to treat different genetic diseases, which were [once OR are currently] considered incurable and fatal. Especially [Word choice error -> in particular], if a woman had [carried] wrong [wrong? Surely you mean "bad" or 'flawed' or 'genes with unwanted hereditary consequences' ] genes and all her future children would be born with illness. [Not actually a complete sentence.] Thus, genetic engineering will give a chance [may increase the chances/provide the opportunity] for those women to become mothers one day. In addition, biotechnology is widely spread [widespread] in agriculture; using biotech [comma] humans are able to create crops that are able to endure the [in general -> no article] low temperature or [are] resistant to insects or diseases."

Mirabella
"However, opponents of the technology ": oh dear, I'm lost again: which technology are we talking about now? I know people tell you to paraphrase, but not at the expense of cohesion. I would suggest repeating "genetic engineering" toward the beginning of each paragraph, and referring back to it as needed with "this technology". The meaning would then be clearer.

" during conducting" -> while conducting

-> discovered an increased level of anger

-> give carte blanche [no article]

"for the reason that" -> as/because

-> merits: on balance however, [punctuation]

-> the dangerous side effects [article]

-> permitting its use

@zsofi Thank you for your corrections and valuable advices. I really appreciate it.

Mirabella
Good. BTW "advice" is very rarely plural in modern English, usually only in the phrase "delivery advices" (consignment notes). The same applies to "information", "furniture", "equipment","research", "evidence", "work".

muskan
[356 words in forty minutes might be overly ambitious.][]

Genetic engineering is a key [Yes an important area; but I would suggest the key areas at present are to do with climate change, overpopulation, nuclear risks, plastic pollution and loss of biodiversity.] area of modern scientific research, with broad implications in [for] all spheres of life [nice phrase but what exactly does it mean in this context? Will genetic engineering affect dentistry, woodworking, and diamond jewelry? I think not.]. While it [What? Genetic engineering? ] raises concerns related to the existence [survival?] of life on the planet, I believe that its judicious and controlled use can endow [bring?] humans ['humans' as opposed to other species?] with a range of benefits.

Genetic engineering presents the possibility of a lot of advantages, and solutions to many problems in the [Which society? If general-> no article here] society. Firstly, the global food shortage due to ever growing populations will be a thing of the past because GMO crops have led to a significant rise in crop production, which can effectively meet the requisite level [I would challenge that.]. Secondly, the plants thus produced are hardly attacked by any pests and insects, since the gene changes induced in them have resulted in increased resistance to these disease causing elements.[I thought GMO crops were resistant to the pesticides produced by Monsanto.] Finally, with the usage of gene therapy, those genetic disorders could be cured about whom [-> about which] the medical community was clueless. For example, ailments like fragile X syndrome and cystic fibrosis could be treated by this procedure.

The apprehensions regarding genetic engineering are primarily due to its potentially irreversible impact on two factors, namely food production and cloning of humans. Genetic engineering is believed to increase the crop yields[comma] and their pest resistance is achieved by altering gene structures or introducing artificial genes. However, its [-> it is ] feared that the crops thus produced have diminished nutrient profile, and there is no knowhow [know-how] about their long term effect on human physiology. The second factor worrying some is the cloning of humans might result in intellectual beings with greater survival instincts, whose behavioural and moral tendencies are completely unknown. Their arrival could result in completely wiping out the existing human race.[Perhaps the human species will already be largely extinct as a result of climate change .] However, the above drawbacks can be taken care of by the authorities if they are sensitive and cautious. The governments [IN GENERAL -> no article] should closely monitor and regulate the extent of research done by rationally assessing the consequences, and thereby enacting laws to ensure the safety and well being [well-being] of the people [Which people. If people IN GENERAL -> no article].

I would shorten, and try to make the points more crisp and concise.

Hi kocogh

Thanks for taking time for this detailed analysis.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)