192 words. A map comparison has no numbers, so the marks come from covering every change accurately, grouping them sensibly (here: the centre and north first, then the south), the present perfect passive (has been flooded, have been removed) and precise compass language (in the north-east, on its northern shore).
IntroductionThe maps illustrate how the site of Brackenhill Quarry has changed since 1995.
OverviewOverall, the site has been transformed from an industrial area into one devoted to leisure and recreation. Almost all of the quarrying facilities have disappeared, whereas the railway, Brackley Road, the river and the row of cottages in the south-west have been retained.
Detail — the centre and the northThe most dramatic change has taken place in the centre, where the quarry pit has been flooded to create a lake, and a water-sports centre now stands on its northern shore. In the north-east, the stone-crushing works and the railway siding which served them have been removed; a visitor centre and café occupies this site, and a car park has been built beside Brackley Road. To the north-west, the spoil heaps have been replaced by woodland.
Detail — the south and the pathsThe haul road which linked the pit to the main road no longer exists, but a cycle path now circles the lake and continues south across the river by means of a new footbridge. Finally, the western part of the farmland in the south-east has been converted into a campsite, although the fields next to the road are still farmed.
Read these from the bottom up and watch what changes: a clear overview, every change covered accurately, compass directions instead of "top/left", the passive, and fewer errors. Every sample below is full length; an answer under 150 words loses marks for Task Achievement, however good the English is. 🔑 নিচ থেকে উপরে পড়ুন এবং লক্ষ্য করুন কী বদলায়: স্পষ্ট overview, প্রতিটি পরিবর্তন সঠিকভাবে, "top/left"-এর বদলে compass direction, passive, আর কম ভুল। এখানের প্রতিটি sample পূর্ণ দৈর্ঘ্যের; 150 শব্দের কম লিখলে ইংরেজি যত ভালোই হোক, Task Achievement-এ নম্বর কাটা যায়।
The two maps compare the Brackenhill Quarry site in 1995 with its current layout.
Overall, the site has changed from an industrial area into a leisure park, and most of the quarry buildings have been removed. However, the railway, the river, Brackley Road and the cottages have stayed the same.
The biggest change is in the middle of the site, where the old quarry pit has been filled with water and turned into a lake. A water-sports centre has been built on the north side of the lake. In the north-east, the stone-crushing works and the railway siding have disappeared, and there is now a visitor centre and café there, with a car park next to Brackley Road. The spoil heaps in the north-west have been covered with woodland.
The haul road has also gone, and a cycle path has been created around the lake, which crosses the river on a new footbridge. Finally, the western half of the farmland in the south-east has become a campsite, while the rest is still used for farming.
The maps show the changes to Brackenhill Quarry between 1995 and now.
Overall, the quarry has become a place for leisure activities and many of the old industrial features have gone, but some things like the railway, the river and the cottages did not change.
In 1995 there was a big quarry pit in the centre, but today it is a lake and there is a water-sports centre next to it. The stone-crushing works in the north-east was demolished and a visitor centre and café was built in its place. There is also a new car park near the road. The railway siding was removed as well. In the north-west, the spoil heaps were replaced by trees.
The haul road is not there any more and now there is a cycle path that goes round the lake and across the river over a new footbridge. In the south-east, a campsite has been built on part of the farmland. The cottages in the south-west are still there.
The two maps show Brackenhill Quarry in 1995 and today. There are a lot of changes in this place and it looks very different.
In 1995 there was a quarry pit in the middle and it was used for take stone. Now the pit is a lake and people can do water sports there. In the north-east there was a stone-crushing works and a siding, now there is a visitor centre and a cafe and also a car park. In the north-west there were spoil heaps but now there is a woodland.
The haul road is changed to a cycle path, it goes around the lake and there is a new footbridge on the river. Also there is a campsite in the south-east where was farmland before. The railway, the river and the road are same as before.
In conclusion, the quarry is now a place for tourists and it is more beautiful than before.
The map is about Brackenhill Quarry in 1995 and today. In general the place is change from a industry area to a park for relax, but the railway, the road and the river is same like before.
In 1995 the quarry have a big pit and many machine for the stone. There is a works in the top of the map near the railway. There is spoil heaps on the left and farmland and some houses near the river. Today the pit is become a lake and the people can swimming and do sport in the lake. The works is not there, there is a visitor centre and cafe. Also there is many trees in the left side.
The road for the lorry is now cycle path. They make new bridge on the river for the bicycle. Half of the farm is now a camping, but some farm is still there. I think the new park is good for the people because they can relax there with family.
Tick each box you can honestly say is true of your answer. The four rows are the exact criteria an examiner uses — each is worth 25% of your Task 1 band. 🔑 আপনার উত্তরে যেটা সত্যি, শুধু সেই বক্সে টিক দিন। নিচের চারটি সারি পরীক্ষকের আসল criteria — প্রতিটি Task 1 band-এর 25%।
288 words. A to what extent question rewards a precise position stated early and held to the end. This essay partly accepts the opposing view (a concession), then explains why it still disagrees overall — the qualified position is what makes it Band 9, not a list of points on both sides.
Introduction & positionIt is sometimes claimed that once a discovery leaves the laboratory, the scientist behind it bears no responsibility for what others do with it. Although researchers clearly cannot be blamed for every misuse of their work, I largely disagree with this view, because scientists are often better placed than anyone to foresee the dangers of what they create.
Body 1 — the concessionThere is, admittedly, some force in the opposing argument. Knowledge is rarely developed with a single application in mind, and its consequences may take decades to emerge. The chemists who developed the first synthetic plastics, for instance, could hardly have predicted the scale of today's marine pollution. Holding individuals accountable for outcomes that nobody could reasonably have anticipated would be unfair, and it might well discourage valuable research.
Body 2 — foreseeable harmMany risks, however, are far from unforeseeable. Researchers who develop techniques for altering dangerous viruses understand much better than politicians or journalists how such methods could be turned into weapons. In these cases it seems reasonable to expect them to weigh the risks before publishing, to alert the relevant authorities and, where necessary, to withhold the most dangerous details. The fact that some journals and research institutions already review such work before it is released suggests that the profession itself recognises this duty.
Body 3 — what responsibility meansAccepting responsibility, moreover, does not mean accepting blame for every crime committed with a discovery. It means taking part in public debate about how new knowledge should be regulated, rather than leaving such decisions entirely to governments or companies whose interests may be narrower.
ConclusionIn conclusion, while scientists should not be condemned for misuses that no one could have predicted, I believe they share responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of their work and should help society to manage them.
Watch the climb: a clear position that stays the same from start to finish, ideas that are developed with explanation and an example (not just listed), natural paragraphing and linking, precise vocabulary and accurate complex sentences. All samples are full length; an essay under 250 words is penalised in Task Response. 🔑 উন্নতির ধাপ লক্ষ্য করুন: শুরু থেকে শেষ পর্যন্ত একই স্পষ্ট মত, প্রতিটি ভাবনা ব্যাখ্যা ও উদাহরণ দিয়ে developed (শুধু তালিকা নয়), স্বাভাবিক paragraphing ও linking, নির্দিষ্ট শব্দ, নির্ভুল complex sentence। সব sample পূর্ণ দৈর্ঘ্যের; 250 শব্দের কম হলে Task Response-এ নম্বর কাটা যায়।
Some people believe that scientists cannot be blamed for how other people use their discoveries. While I accept that this is true in some cases, I mostly disagree, because scientists often understand the risks of their work better than anyone else.
On the one hand, it is unfair to blame researchers for results that nobody could have expected. Most discoveries have many possible uses, and the harmful ones may only appear many years later. For example, the scientists who invented plastic could not have known that it would one day pollute the oceans. If scientists were held responsible for every possible misuse, many of them might stop doing useful research altogether.
On the other hand, some dangers are easy to predict. A scientist who finds a way to make a virus more infectious knows that this knowledge could be used to make a biological weapon. In such cases, I think the scientist has a duty to think carefully before publishing the results and to warn the government about the danger. Some scientific journals already check this type of research before publishing it, which shows that scientists themselves accept this responsibility.
In addition, being responsible does not mean being punished for other people's crimes. It means that scientists should take part in discussions about how their discoveries are controlled, instead of leaving these decisions only to politicians and businesses. After all, they are the people who understand the technology best.
In conclusion, although scientists should not be blamed for harm that could not be foreseen, I believe they are partly responsible for the predictable results of their discoveries.
Nowadays science develops very fast and new discoveries can be used in good and bad ways. Some people think scientists are not responsible for how their discoveries are used. I partly agree with this, but I think in many cases scientists should be responsible.
Firstly, scientists cannot know all the future uses of their work. When a new technology is invented, it can be used for many things, and some of these uses only appear after a long time. For instance, when plastic was invented, nobody thought it would cause serious pollution in the sea. So it would not be fair to blame the inventors for this problem.
However, sometimes scientists know that their discovery is dangerous. For example, if a scientist creates a new chemical that can kill many people, he knows it can be used as a weapon. In this situation he should be careful and maybe he should not publish all the information. He should also tell the government so that they can make rules to control it. This happened in the past with some dangerous chemicals that were used in wars.
Furthermore, scientists are experts, so they should help the public and the government to understand new technology. If they do not take part, decisions will be made by people who do not understand the risks, and the result can be bad for everyone.
In conclusion, I believe that scientists are not responsible for everything, but they should be responsible when they can predict that their discovery will be used in a harmful way.
In today's world science is very important for our life. There are many discoveries every year. Some people say scientists are not responsible for the use of their discoveries. In this essay I will discuss this topic and give my opinion.
Some people think that scientists are not responsible. This is because scientists only make the discovery and other people use it. For example, a scientist can invent a medicine but a bad person can use it to hurt somebody. In this case it is not the mistake of the scientist, it is the mistake of the bad person. Also, scientists cannot know the future, so they cannot know what will happen with their discovery.
On the other hand, some people think that scientists are responsible. Scientists are very clever people and they know about their work more than other people. If they make a dangerous thing, like a bomb, they know that it can kill people. So they must be careful and they must think about the bad result before they make it. For example, the scientists who made the atom bomb knew that it was very dangerous.
In my opinion, scientists are responsible in some situations but not in all situations. If the discovery is very dangerous, the scientist must think about it. But if the discovery is good and other people use it in bad way, it is not his fault.
In conclusion, there are advantages and disadvantages of this topic. Scientists are sometimes responsible and sometimes not responsible for their discoveries.
Science is very important in the modern life and scientist make many discovery. Some people say scientist is not responsible for how other people use the discovery. I am partly agree with this opinion, because it depend on the discovery.
First, scientist is not responsible because they make discovery for help the people. For example the internet is very good discovery and now every people can use internet for study and work. But some people use internet for bad thing like cheating and fake news. This is not the scientist fault, because he can not know what people will do in the future. Also mobile phone is good but the children use it too much and they can not study. The scientist did not want this happen.
Second, some time scientist is responsible. If scientist make a bomb he know the bomb will kill people. So he is responsible. For example in the war many people die because of bomb and gun, and the scientist who make it know this. Also if scientist make a dangerous virus in the lab, he must keep it safe and not give the information to everybody.
Also, the government must control the scientist and the company. Many company only want money and they do not care the people. The government must make strong law for the dangerous research.
In conclusion, scientist is sometime responsible and sometime not responsible. It depend on the discovery. If the scientist know it is dangerous he must be careful, but if he don't know, it is not his fault.
Tick each box you can honestly say is true of your essay. These four rows are the examiner's criteria — each worth 25% of your Task 2 band. Task 2 counts twice as much as Task 1 in your overall Writing score. 🔑 আপনার essay-তে যেটা সত্যি, শুধু সেই বক্সে টিক দিন। এই চারটি সারি পরীক্ষকের criteria — প্রতিটি 25%। সামগ্রিক Writing স্কোরে Task 2-এর ওজন Task 1-এর দ্বিগুণ।