Parks— Part 1 採点レポート

提案: Câu trả lời thiếu rõ ràng, có nhiều lỗi ngữ pháp (thời, số, sở hữu), phát âm lỗi (part/park), và câu quá dài, lặp ý. Hãy mở đầu trực tiếp, dùng thì quá khứ đơn nhất quán, chia đúng số sở hữu (father/fathers), sửa từ vựng sai (candies, hide) và tách ý bằng câu ngắn. Thêm chi tiết cụ thể nhưng không quá dài (tối đa 4-5 câu).

例: Yes, I loved going to parks with my family when I was a child. We often played treasure-hunt games: my father would hide candies in the grass and my sisters and I would try to find them. It was very exciting and made weekends special for us.

提案: Câu trả lời trực tiếp nhưng có lỗi ngữ pháp (it seems, plural 'parks'), cấu trúc lặp 'cannot go to the park' nhiều lần. Hãy dùng linking words để liên kết lý do (because, so) và viết các câu ngắn gọn, rõ ràng, kèm ví dụ cụ thể về lý do bận rộn. Giữ dưới 5 câu.

例: Not really. I find parks a bit boring now because I usually prefer indoor activities. Also, I am very busy with school and homework, so I rarely have free time to visit a park.

提案: Ý tốt nhưng có lỗi ngữ pháp và dùng từ không chính xác (governments → government, will similar to). Cần dùng cấu trúc điều kiện chính xác (If the government built/ builds), sử dụng từ vựng chính xác (protect the environment, increase green space) và thêm một ví dụ cụ thể hoặc lợi ích. Giữ 2–4 câu.

例: Yes, I would. If the government built more parks, the city would have more green spaces and cleaner air. Parks also provide habitats for birds and make the neighbourhood more pleasant for residents.

提案: Trả lời thiếu mạch lạc và có nhiều lỗi thời gian (were/are), chủ ngữ-động từ, cấu trúc lặp và ý mâu thuẫn. Hãy trả lời trực tiếp: nêu quan điểm về tương lai (e.g. worry about loss of parks) rồi đưa ra mong muốn rõ ràng (muốn đến công viên cụ thể), sử dụng thì chính xác và câu ngắn gọn. Bổ sung ví dụ cụ thể về công viên muốn đến.

例: I am worried that there may be fewer parks in the future because of new construction. If more parks remain, I would like to visit national parks in the USA, such as Yellowstone, because of its beautiful landscapes and wildlife.

× Yes, I just child, I loved going to part with my family and I love playing games with my sisters and my father's because my father's will hide it candies into birds and gardens and grasses and I and my sister Renee will would find it. It is very funny.

✓ Yes, when I was a child, I loved going to parks with my family and playing games with my sisters and my father because my father used to hide candies in the bushes and grass and my sister Renee and I would find them. It was very fun.

The original sentence has multiple sentence structure and tense problems: missing subordinate clause marker ('when I was a child'), wrong nouns ('part' -> 'parks'), incorrect possessive use and repetition ('my father's'), incorrect modal/tense combinations ('will would'), incorrect object pronoun and placement ('it candies' -> 'them'), and awkward word order. Suggest breaking into shorter clauses, use past tense consistently for childhood habits (used to/would), use correct plural nouns and pronouns, and place adjectives/nouns in correct order. Example improvements: use 'when I was a child', 'parks', 'my father', 'used to hide', 'in the bushes and grass', 'my sister Renee and I', and 'It was very fun.'

× No, I don't like going to park now because it is seems too boring for me and not only that, I am busy and I cannot go to the park if I don't have any free time.

✓ No, I don't like going to the park now because it seems too boring for me. Also, I am busy and I cannot go to the park if I don't have any free time.

Errors include missing article before 'park' (should be 'the park') and extra auxiliary 'is' before 'seems' ('it is seems' -> 'it seems'). Also sentence run-on: split into two sentences. Suggest always use appropriate articles with countable nouns and avoid double auxiliaries. Use 'the park' and 'it seems'.

× I need to study all day at school and at home, therefore I cannot go to the park.

✓ I need to study all day at school and at home; therefore, I cannot go to the park.

Tense is acceptable but punctuation and linking are weak. Use a semicolon or period before 'therefore' and add a comma after it. This clarifies the relationship between the clauses. Maintain present simple to express current routine.

× Yes, I want the governments build more parks in my city because more parks will similar to will be similar to having many trees.

✓ Yes, I want the government to build more parks in my city because parks would be similar to having many trees.

Errors: wrong noun form 'governments' (should be 'government' singular), missing infinitive marker 'to' after 'want' ('want the government to build'), and redundant phrasing 'will similar to will be similar to'. Use 'would be similar to' or 'would mean having many trees'. Use singular 'government' when referring to the authority of the city.

× And I think that if government built many parks, they can protect the environment because there's a lot of trees that are growing in the parks.

✓ And I think that if the government built many parks, they could protect the environment because there would be a lot of trees growing in the parks.

Pronoun and article issues: 'government' needs the article 'the'. Conditional sentence requires past tense in the if-clause and conditional modal 'could' (second conditional). Use 'there would be' for hypothetical results and avoid 'a lot of trees that are growing' -> 'a lot of trees growing'.

× I think in the future there were there are not any parks anymore.

✓ I think in the future there may not be any parks left.

Original mixes past and present tenses ('were there are') and has awkward word order. Use modal 'may' or 'might' to express future possibility and 'be any parks left' to convey absence. Keep tense consistent for future speculation.

× Instead of that they were building a lot of construction site and a lot of cities.

✓ Instead, they will build many construction sites and many buildings in the cities.

Errors: 'Instead of that' is awkward; use 'Instead' or 'Instead of that, they are building'. 'They were building' mixes past progressive when meaning future trend; choose 'will build' or 'are building' depending on context. 'a lot of construction site' needs plural 'construction sites' and 'a lot of cities' is odd—likely meant 'many buildings' or 'expand the cities'. Ensure noun agreement and correct prepositions.

× That is the worst part. But if there are more parks in the future, I will go to the parks that is located in the USA.

✓ That is the worst part. But if there are more parks in the future, I will go to the park that is located in the USA.

Subject-verb agreement and article issues: 'parks that is' should be 'park that is' (singular subject 'park' requires 'is') or change to 'parks that are' for plural. Also 'the parks that is located in the USA' is awkward; likely the student means a specific park in the USA so use 'the park that is located in the USA.' Ensure subject and verb agree in number.