Parks— Part 1 Report

Suggestion: Your answer is clear and relevant, but make it more concise and natural. Start with a direct topic sentence, then add one or two specific supporting details. Use past tense consistently and avoid repeating words (e.g., “parks” twice).

Example: Yes, I loved going to parks as a child because they were relaxing and fun. For example, I used to spend hours on the slides and swings, and I often met friends there for games and picnics.

Suggestion: Your meaning is clear but the grammar and phrasing need improvement. Use a direct topic sentence and correct tense/forms ('I'm not keen on going' or 'I don’t go to parks much anymore'). Add a brief reason with a linking word to improve coherence.

Example: Not really — I don’t go to parks much anymore because I prefer indoor activities like reading or going to the gym. Therefore, I usually spend my free time inside rather than outdoors.

Suggestion: Good direct answer with a clear reason and example. Improve naturalness by tightening phrasing and using linking words (e.g., 'because' and 'for instance'). Replace awkward phrases ('in my place') and use more precise vocabulary ('green spaces').

Example: Yes, I would. I think Manila needs more parks because there are not enough green spaces and trees. For instance, the city is dominated by buildings, heavy traffic and shopping malls, so more parks would improve air quality and offer recreational areas.

Suggestion: Nice description and clear enthusiasm. Improve by correcting small grammar errors, reducing repetition, and linking ideas smoothly. Keep it within a few sentences and add a concise reason why it appeals to you.

Example: Yes — I’d love to visit Stanley Park in Vancouver because it has extensive forests and stunning views of the ocean and skyline. It looks like an ideal spot for a picnic and a peaceful walk, which is why I find it so appealing.

× Yes, I did like going to the parks as a child because it is relaxing and enjoyable.

✓ Yes, I did like going to parks as a child because they were relaxing and enjoyable.

The original uses the definite article 'the' unnecessarily with 'parks' when speaking generally (article error). Also tense and agreement: the student refers to past habitual experience, so plural subject 'parks' should take plural predicate 'they were' rather than singular 'it is'. Suggest: remove 'the' for general reference and match past tense and plural agreement: 'parks... they were'.

× For example, I often spend hours playing on the slides, swinging on the swings and playing on the seesaw.

✓ For example, I often spent hours playing on the slides, swinging on the swings, and playing on the seesaw.

The question asked about childhood (past), so present tense 'spend' is inconsistent (present tense issue). Change to past simple 'spent' to match the time frame. Also add Oxford comma for clarity.

× Currently not anymore since I'm not keen to going to the park and I prefer going indoors.

✓ Not anymore, because I'm not keen on going to the park and I prefer going indoors.

Several issues: 'Currently not anymore' is awkward and tense/wording error—use 'Not anymore' or 'I don't anymore'. The phrase 'keen to going' uses incorrect preposition and verb form: should be 'keen on going' (incorrect use of prepositions and verb + -ing form). However per instruction only correct items matching list; main issue is present tense/context and preposition—here corrected to present simple with 'keen on going'. Suggest using 'I'm not keen on going to the park.'

× Yes, I would really like to see more parks in my city because in my place Manila, there is not enough trees and nature there.

✓ Yes, I would really like to see more parks in my city because in my hometown, Manila, there are not enough trees and not much nature.

Multiple errors: 'in my place Manila' is unnatural—use 'in my hometown, Manila'. 'There is not enough trees' is an article/subject-verb agreement error: with plural 'trees' use 'are not enough trees' or better 'there are not enough trees'. Also 'nature there' is awkward; use 'not much nature'. Suggest revising phrasing for naturalness and correct subject-verb agreement.

× For example, Manila is usually a city that is known for buildings, traffic and malls.

✓ For example, Manila is usually known for its buildings, traffic, and malls.

Redundant 'a city that is known' is wordy; more natural 'is usually known for'. Also possessive 'its buildings' clarifies ownership. Comma use improved. This fixes style and plurality alignment.

× Yes, there is one part that I really want to go to and that is in Stanley Park.

✓ Yes, there is one park that I really want to go to, and that is Stanley Park.

'One part' is incorrect word choice (semantic error); intended word is 'park' (singular/plural/word choice). Also 'that is in Stanley Park' is redundant—simpler 'that is Stanley Park.' Suggest: 'one park... Stanley Park.'

× Stanley Park is a place in Vancouver where you get to see a lot of trees, you can see the ocean as well as the city and that you can also have a picnic there.

✓ Stanley Park is a place in Vancouver where you can see a lot of trees, the ocean, and the city, and you can also have a picnic there.

The original sentence is a run-on with awkward constructions like 'where you get to see' mixed with 'you can see' and 'that you can also have' (incorrect use of present participle structure and sentence structure errors). Simplify to parallel 'you can see' for clarity and correct clause connectors. Also combine items in a clear list.

× So it is breathtaking and relaxing.

✓ So it is breathtaking and relaxing.

This sentence is grammatically acceptable, but ensure tense consistency: when describing the park generally, present simple 'is' is fine. No correction needed beyond confirming tense fits general statement.