Hi guys, this is Fiona from IELTS Exam Training Courses and Members Academy.
In this lesson, I'm going to talk to you about something I did on a YouTube video yesterday.
I went through what is supposed to be a Band 9 essay online and I kind of pulled it apart.
I looked at the reasons why I don't think it is a Band 9 essay.
And in this podcast, I'm going to give you the nine reasons why it's not.
So if you'd prefer to watch that on YouTube, you can find my channel.
It's just Fiona Wattam.
And I'll put the link here and I will also put this in a blog so you can read it.
But the reason I did it was because we were doing the usual Friday feedback in the members' academy.
I had set a question and one of the members said, oh, I found a model online.
And when I looked at it, I just thought, well, that's not a model essay.
There's so much wrong with it.
And I really wanted to show you or help you recognise what could be wrong with these essays so that you don't copy them.
Basically,
And to just be really wary of where you're finding your models.
I think it's really good to read good model essays.
I think they really do guide you.
They help you learn about academic language and give you ideas and so on.
But just be really sure that they are from a trustworthy source.
And of course, you don't need to have band nine models.
You know, if you're not aiming for band nine, it's absolutely fine to read a band seven or a band eight model to get ideas as well.
But in terms of language, you've got to be really aware of what IELTS wants and what it doesn't want.
And what I found in this example yesterday was.
I'd say at least nine things that you can avoid.
And I'm going to give you a tip for each one and an alternative, so that you can learn from it and look out for it in the future.
So let's get started.
The first, let me tell you the question first.
Some people believe that charities should help people in need, no matter where those people are in the world.
Others feel that these organisations should only serve the people living in the country where they are based.
Discuss both sides and give your own view.
So it's pretty straightforward.
Discuss both sides.
So the both sides are why do people think we should keep the money in the country.
Why do people think that money should go to wherever in the world they need it?
And it really is a controversial subject.
It came up in the news recently with Britain cutting aid to overseas countries.
And some people thought that was terrible, immoral.
And some people said, well, there's people starving here and we need it.
And, you know, we've given the money from people here.
So, We should keep it in the country.
So it really is a controversial subject.
And let's look, first of all, at the line, the first line in the model answer.
Now, if you can remember what the original was and then listen to the first line, what do you notice about it?
Many personages express their opinion that charitable groups should help underprivileged people beyond national boundaries, whereas others put forward the view that they ought to help only those who live in their base countries.
You're probably thinking, hang on, that's exactly the same as the question.
And it is.
So a lot of people follow the advice that you should copy the question or write it in your own words.
My opinion is that that is okay if you're aiming below seven.
It's a very simple and basic strategy which could work, but it's for people who really can't do anything else.
So I don't recommend it if you're aiming for higher bands.
So my examiner brain was thinking, this is just copying the question.
So some people, many personages, and that's the other danger.
Personages is completely wrong word.
It doesn't mean people, it's an old-fashioned word.
It means characters in a book.
It's completely wrong.
But this person has just replaced the word and it's already signaling to me that this person doesn't have above a band seven level.
So some personages express their opinion sounds unnatural synonym for believe.
You can express an opinion, but not express their opinion in that way.
It's wrong.
And then it follows the structure.
They should help people.
Anyway, others put forward the view.
That's the synonym for others feel that. and so on.
It's really just copied.
Now, it's okay to do a simple version of this if the rest of your essay is amazing.
So my alternative to this could be some individuals think that charities should help only their own nations, but there is another school of thought that believes they should provide help globally.
Okay, it's a short Very simple introduction that does copy the question.
So just to repeat, I do not recommend that for higher levels, unless the rest of your essay is fantastic.
Otherwise, it's giving me the signal that.
You're below band seven and also it's dangerous.
It causes people to use words that are wrong.
So what would be a better option?
Well, you need to be specific to the question.
You need a general statement which puts the question or the issue in context.
So let's look at what the question is about.
How should we distribute charity?
So this is my first line.
The distribution of charity is often a matter of controversy.
That's it.
It's a general statement.
It's taken the heart of the issue the distribution of charity and it's made a general comment about that problem.
My students actually came up with similar things.
Listen to this.
It's better, actually.
How the funds of non-profits are allocated has recently become a much discussed topic.
It's perfect.
It's about how the funds are allocated, how they are distributed.
And it has become a much discussed topic indeed.
So perfect.
And the third example is this.
The ultimate goal of charities and how their resources are used has always been a matter of debate.
And that is true.
You know how the resources of the charities are used has always been a matter of controversy, of debate.
And I know.
I don't normally recommend saying things are a matter of controversy because usually they're not.
But here it's true.
It is a matter of controversy and it's the distribution which is the controversy.
So those are much better general background statements than trying to copy the question.
Although, as we'll see in the model, you can then follow it by referring to those two points of view, because you have to.
That's what the question is asking.
The next.
So that was number one.
Number two.
Unclear use of fact versus opinion.
So this model started the main question. paragraph by repeating what they said in the introduction.
They said for a start, charitable organisations should extend their activities to any nation and people in need.
So they put their first line as an opinion, which I don't think is a good idea.
It's not asking for your opinion yet.
It's asking for the two sides.
So the fact that it was repeated from the introduction is a no-no and i also didn't like for a start, which is wrong.
So i would avoid the use of should, unless you're giving your opinion, be careful about what is fact and what is opinion.
So it's better to say there are many reasons why charitable organizations should extend their activities to any nation.
That would be better.
Ideally, there are many reasons why people believe that charitable organisations, blah, blah, blah.
Because that is what the question asks.
Why do people think this?
It says discuss both views.
So topic sentence, there are many reasons why people think this.
Firstly, so not for a start, that's spoken.
Firstly.
And then the next suggestion I have comes into point number three or later.
Firstly, it could help build better relations and help remove obstacles in the way of world peace.
Now, that's not my thought.
That comes from what the next line was.
And this is point number three, is generalising.
The problem with task two is that people tend to generalise and use these sweeping statements that are not true.
So the next line in the model was this.
This is because it will help build harmonious relations between nations and thereby remove obstacles in the way of world peace.
So that is a generalisation.
Just by giving charity to other people, it doesn't mean that you'll get world peace.
There's too much of a leap between those things.
And there's no evidence for that.
Can you give me an example of a country that helped another country in this brought about world peace?
I certainly can't.
But if you can, great.
Write your example.
Give evidence to support that point.
So instead of making something very general, you could use hedging.
So as I said, firstly, it could help build better relations.
Better is a comparison.
So it won't build perfect relations, but it could help build better relations.
The next generalization, they say, by helping them, donor groups can serve humanity in a better way.
So the problem within a better way, serving humanity in a better way, is that it's not clear.
It's too general.
So always focus on very specific outcomes.
So you could say that more people could be helped.
I think that is the point, that by sending money to more countries, more people could be helped.
That's the outcome.
That is a lot more specific than serving humanity in a better way.
Humanity is the whole world, isn't it?
Another option the aid will go to where it is most needed, which is a very strong argument, or those in urgent need can be better targeted.
So instead of giving the money to like, building a park in your own town, then those who really urgently need that money can be better targeted.
If you send that money abroad, it could be an outcome.
Number four, I've already mentioned, is that there's not enough evidence or examples, and that example that it will help remove obstacles in the way of world peace.
I'd like to see how that could be possible and if it is then just explain.
Point number five says moreover, by providing aid, these organisations can expand their wings towards the most needed ones.
What do you think could be wrong with that?
I would say moreover is a mechanical linking word.
So people give you lists of linking words.
It doesn't mean you have to use them all in one essay.
This particular essay had a linking word at the start of every line.
Moreover, furthermore, in addition, what's more?
And it made that linking very, very mechanical.
And also, I could, you know, linking is not just putting words at the start.
Linking comes within the sentences.
I have a video on this all about cohesion and coherence.
And you can see where this person does not have the inside linking.
So they said they can expand their wings towards the most needed.
One's ones refers what?
To what it's?
It's unclear.
Most needed countries uh people charities uh, what does it refer to?
It's just not clear.
So that's a kind of internal linking um mechanism.
That is just as important as these very obvious linking words.
Was there anything else wrong with that line?
Possibly you might have noticed they can expand their wings.
And that brings us to point six, the use and misuse of idiomatic language.
Generally, I would say don't use idiomatic language.
It can work if you get it right.
The dangers.
Idiomatic language is that if you get one small thing wrong, it ruins the whole idiom.
So this person said spread, expand their wings.
But the the collocation is that you spread your wings, so already it's.
It looked a bit odd and that comes in the next line as well, where they talk about that it could line your pocket, which means to earn money using dishonest or illegal methods.
So a better way of saying this is that aid should be carefully managed to ensure that it reaches the people who need it and does not get wasted or find its way into the pockets of corrupt politicians.
So that brings us to actually another one later, where we talk about avoiding and being too judgmental about other countries and what they do with the money.
So this person suggested that other countries could lie in their pocket.
But I'm suggesting that you should be careful about what you say.
And I'll come back to that later.
Number seven I've mentioned before is that there are no outcomes.
So listen to this and tell me what you think.
It starts with yet another linking word.
Furthermore, charitable organisations should assist developing nations in the time of natural calamity or disaster.
For instance, after the devastating earthquake in Nepal, many international aid agencies scrambled to deliver financial assistance and supplies, which was much needed by those people.
Now, where's the outcome of what they did?
I know it was much needed.
Obviously, you've said it was a devastating earthquake.
So that's a fact.
But what was the outcome?
What was the benefit of them doing this?
Bring it back to the question.
The question is, should we send money abroad?
You're saying yes.
Of course, the people needed it.
But what benefit came from this?
So, for example, you could say which meant that more people survived, or which resulted in more lives being saved.
Or if it had not been for them, more people would have died.
Lovely third conditional there.
It's the last lesson of my conditional boot camp where you use this expression.
If it had not been for them, more people would have died.
So that is a very specific outcome relating to the point that we should send money overseas.
Moving on to number eight, there are unrealistic outcomes.
And this is connected to generalisations and connected to a lack of hedging.
So we've got another linking word to start.
What is more, domestic charities eradicate poverty, which will in turn drop crime rate in their neighbourhood.
What do you think about that now that you've heard the rest?
Charities eradicate poverty.
I, i disagree.
There's no sign of poverty being eradicated by charity, and this will drop the crime rate in their neighborhood again.
I, i disagree.
You know about the connection.
So you have to just be careful.
You have to hedge.
What you could say is this Instead of saying what is more, it's better to say another positive outcome of allocating funds to help those living below the poverty line in one's own country is that crime rates might fall.
Might.
We don't know.
They could.
It could be a positive outcome.
But again bring it back to the question leading to a better living environment for the people who have donated to local charities.
So basically, if you've given to your country's charities, then that might help your neighbourhood.
So it could be one reason in favour of keeping the money in your own country.
You can agree or disagree with that.
Number nine, I talked before about this thing accusing people of lining their own pockets.
This is a little judgmental.
Judgmental means being overly critical of others, being too critical and quick to judge.
So this model said this.
Secondly, vested interest groups of recipient countries are highly likely to pour money into their pocket.
I thought that was strange because that seems a little unfair to assume that people will steal your money.
And they say as a result, the goal of providing assistance cannot be achieved.
What I thought was better is to simply give your opinion.
Aid should be carefully managed in order to ensure that it reaches the people who need it and does not get wasted or find its way into the pockets of corrupt politicians.
Okay, you might say that's a little unfair about politicians, but again I'm saying it might find its way.
I'm not saying that it's highly likely that it will.
Finally, this is a number 10 actually, is how you can use conditionals for your specific outcomes.
So instead of saying, as a result, the goal of providing assistance cannot be achieved, it's better to say if this happens, the goal of providing assistance may not be achieved.
So using a conditional combined with a hedging example.
So instead of saying will not be achieved, it's better to say may or might not be achieved.
So to summarise those 10 points, actually there were in the end was, were was.
Number one was avoid rewriting the question.
Number two, be clear about what is fact and what is opinion.
Number three, avoid making generalisations.
Number four, Give evidence.
If you make a generalisation, give evidence to support it.
Avoid mechanical linking words, these lists of moreover, furthermore, what is more.
Avoid idiomatic language.
Make sure you include specific outcomes. relate back to the question that is being asked.
So if it's asking you to compare two things, then your outcome has to relate to whether this was a positive or a negative, depending on which one you're discussing.
Be careful number eight of unrealistic outcomes and a lack of hedging.
So try to talk in terms of what might happen or could happen.
Number nine, avoid being judgmental.
Don't be overcritical and assuming too much or assuming badly of people.
And then number 10.
Try to use conditionals for your outcomes.
Combined again with the language of hedging
That's it.
I'm now going to read a possible answer.
I want to say a model answer, but it's a possible answer.
So here goes.
This is the introduction.
The distribution of charity is often a matter of controversy.
Many argue in favour of cutting overseas aid budgets, claiming that the money is required to cover expenditure at home.
However, Opponents of such a policy think it is immoral to deprive poor and needy people of necessary financial support.
This essay will consider both opinions and conclude that charity should be shared among all deserving causes.
That's the introduction.
First point.
Individual nations which have suffered economically have responsibilities to their own citizens.
The effects of the COVID pandemic, for example, have had such devastating effects on the national economy that the government has little choice but to give priority to its own people.
And each nation reserves the right to adjust its contribution in the light of changing circumstances.
Cutting the aid budget this year however does not mean that this cannot be reversed.
In better times ahead.
The government could increase the amount it gives to other countries in accordance with its economic needs.
Next paragraph.
No matter where it comes from.
The most important factor is that all aid is carefully managed to ensure that it reaches the people who need it and does not get wasted or find its way into the pockets of corrupt politicians.
Providing this happens, the long-term benefits of supporting poorer countries will be felt across the world.
Richer countries can easily afford to donate money to international causes without suffering significantly.
And if countries can be helped out of poverty, there is less chance of them being vulnerable to disease and war.
Eradicating these destructive effects could mean a safer and happier world for all.
In conclusion, i would argue that aid should be given whenever it can be afforded, because the global beneficiaries of well-managed, targeted aid has positive repercussions for the whole of humanity.
So that's one model.
That's a very um opinionated model.
The writer decided from the start that they think that charity should be shared among anyone who needs it.
And it gave two paragraphs with each point saying why they need it.
And they also showed the other side about why, especially in these circumstances with COVID, nations reserve the right to keep the money for themselves.
But that doesn't mean that in better times that they won't go back to helping others.
So this was just one example.
In the academy we wrote about 10 12 examples what I consider to be models.
Once we'd worked on them and made them fit the pattern and taken out, stripped them of all of this unnecessary language that I've talked about in the podcast today,
So thank you very, very much for listening.
I will try to get this onto my website as soon as possible.
Also do remember that it is on YouTube so you can go and you can go and read it there and see those videos.
Three websites that I examine to look at what's good and what's bad about their model essays
Let me know if you have any questions or any requests.
I'm looking forward to hearing from you.
That's all from me.
Bye for now.
Bye bye.
