Другими словами, читая последовательный текст, представитель приемной комиссии понимает, почему автор включил каждую мысль и не останавливается, недоумевая, зачем здесь тот или иной кусок. Одно должно вытекать из другого.
Экзаменаторы не тратят на проверку эссе много времени – ведь им платят не поминутно. Таким образом, (обратите внимание на вводное словосочетание) очень важно, чтобы они видели, что это действительно последовательное эссе.
Один из способов добиться последовательности – гарантировать, что вступительные слова и предложения абзацев связаны с тем, что было раньше. Если связи нет, то читателю придется затормозить и подумать, что имел в виду автор, а в этом случае плавное течение текста будет нарушено и последовательность пострадает.
В этом эссе должно быть не более 250 слов. Обычно оно состоит из вступления (один абзац), основной части (два абзаца), которая подтверждает заявленную точку зрения, и заключения (один абзац). Заключение должно сводить все предыдущие абзацы вместе. Абзац может состоять всего из трех предложений: идея и два-три предложения, которые ее развивают.
Пример эссе:
Вопрос: в офисах многих компаний теперь нельзя курить. В некоторых странах запрещено курение в общественных местах. Это хорошая идея, но она, в определенной мере, ограничивает нашу свободу. Согласны ли вы с этим?
Many people suffer from smokers, especially in public places such as offices, trains, planes, trade centres etc. That is why an ability to smoke cigarettes was banned by some officials and businesses. Whether it is the fact that a ban on smoking is necessary for societies or it will just limit people’s freedom creates a lot of discussions and debates. Personally, I completely agree that the ban on smoking is necessary but this decision should not take away people’s freedom.
On the one hand, according to last scientific researches a risk of being suffered from a smoke of cigarettes is very high because of non-smokers and smokers work closely together in any offices. In fact, non-smokers hard to breathe, because a lot of smoke surround them when smoke-people smoke within offices during a working day. They can catch different lung diseases or get even a cancer. In this case, the ban smoking in offices is vitally essential for non-smokers. Hence, it should be a total ban on smoking cigarettes in offices and other places like that, as some businesses say about, because it would be an extremely good protection for people who do not want to smoke and breathe the smoke from cigarettes.
One the other hand, such decision like a ban on smoking in all public places by government is not completely right because of it impacts on the people’s freedoms of choice in a democratic society. It would be better if government decides to create specific places for smokers in all public areas instead of to ban them to smoke everywhere. For instance, plenty of special zones were created in airports throughout our country. Thus, all smokers can be inside an airport and do not produce a risk of lung’s illnesses for the rest non-smokers people. Consequently, this example would be the best way which does not encroach on people’s freedoms at all.
As far as I am concerned, I agree with the ban on smoking cigarettes in all public places include any offices, but it should not be just the ban. It would be better if government decides to build different special areas for smokers or to do any events to encourage smokers to give up smoke.
Во-первых, здесь явно больше 250 слов, лимита, который требуется на экзаменах TOEFL iBT и IELTS. Во-вторых, автор эссе справился бы лучше, если бы изначально составил план.
Вступление: I agree with the ban on smoking in public places, but at the same time, this ban should not take away the peoples individual freedoms to choose to smoke or to choose not to smoke in public.
Основная часть: 1) Scientific research shows that an increase in health related risk factors is high among non – smokers due to second hand smokers.
A. Hard to breathe
B. Lung diseases
C. Cancer
2) Banning smoking in public places would be good protection for the people.
3) Banning smoking completely, would infringe on the people’s individual freedom of choice in democratic society.
A. Specific places for smokers in public areas
B. Ex. Special zones at airports
Заключение: By setting up special zones for smokers to smoke in public places, this would not encroach on people individual freedom of choice.
В-третьих, автору следует поработать над грамматикой. И наконец, не думаю, что ему удалось четко изложить свою мысль. Другими словами, одно предложение не вытекает из другого, и эссе не хватает последовательности.
Исправленное эссе
Many people suffer from smokers, especially in public enclosed places such as offices, trains, planes, trade centres etc. This is why smoking cigarettes was banned by some officials and businesses. Whether it is the fact that a ban on smoking is necessary for societies or it will just limit people’s freedom of choice, creates a lot of discussions and debates. I agree with the ban on smoking in public places, but at the same time, this ban should not take away the peoples individual freedoms to choose to smoke or to choose not to smoke in public.
On the one hand, scientific research shows that an increase in health related risk factors is high among non – smokers due to second hand smokers because of non-smokers and smokers working closely together in offices. In fact, non-smokers find it hard to breathe, because a of all the smoke that surrounds them during their work day. They can catch different lung diseases or even develop lung cancer. In this case, the banning smoking in offices is vitally essential for non-smokers. because it would be an extremely good protection for people who do not want to smoke or breathe the smoke from cigarettes.
One the other hand, banning smoking completely, would infringe on the people’s individual freedom of choice in democratic society. It would be better if the government created specific places for smokers in all public areas instead of to banning smoking everywhere. For instance, plenty of special zones were created in airports throughout our country. In this way, all smokers could be inside an airport and not increase the risk of lung illnesses due to second hand smoke. By setting up special zones for smokers to smoke in public places, this would not encroach on people individual freedom of choice.
In closing, while I may agree with the ban on smoking in the work place, I do not agree with the ban on smoking all together in public places. I believe the government should set up special zones from which smokers are separated from the non – smokers. In this way, all peoples have the individual right to choose whether they want to smoke or not thus limiting the government’s involvement in the people’s individual freedom of choice to choose to smoke or to choose not to smoke.
По материалам сайта: caring4you.net
