Question: In the future, nobody will buy printed newspapers or books because they will be able to re...
The essay effectively addresses the prompt by presenting a clear position on the statement. The writer disagrees with the notion that printed newspapers and books will become obsolete due to the availability of free online content. The response provides a balanced discussion, acknowledging the advantages of digital media while also highlighting the enduring appeal of printed materials. The essay includes relevant examples and explanations to support the main points, demonstrating a good understanding of the topic.
The essay is well-organized, with a clear introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. Each paragraph has a distinct focus, contributing to the overall coherence of the response. The use of linking words and phrases, such as "on the one hand," "in addition," and "moreover," helps to guide the reader through the argument and connect ideas logically. However, there are minor issues with cohesion, such as the abrupt transition between the advantages of digital media and the drawbacks of printed materials. A smoother transition could enhance the flow of the essay.
The essay demonstrates a good range of vocabulary, with appropriate use of terms related to the topic, such as "digitalized books," "reading assistant software," and "artificial intelligence-driven applications." The writer also uses a variety of expressions to convey ideas, such as "enhanced availability," "literate enthusiasts," and "sophisticated visual memory." However, there are a few spelling errors, such as "newspapaers" instead of "newspapers" and "cetain" instead of "certain," which should be corrected to improve lexical accuracy.
The essay displays a good command of grammatical structures, with a variety of sentence types used effectively. The writer employs complex sentences to convey detailed ideas, such as "although reading online books may appear to be completed within a shorter timeframe, it can result in several adverse health consequences over time." There are minor grammatical errors, such as "much convenient" instead of "more convenient," and "underlinning" instead of "underlining," which should be addressed to enhance grammatical accuracy.
Overall, the essay presents a well-reasoned argument with a clear stance, supported by relevant points and examples. With minor improvements in cohesion and accuracy, the response would be even more effective.