Back to Part 1 of written works
Back to Part 2 of written works
Academic discussion_Lipid screening
While I appreciate Arman's view, I tend to agree with Naya.
Subsidized lipid screening will help a lot of [k1: style—use a more formal quantifier] many people and even lower [k3: inaccurate word choice—use “reduce” for expenditure] reduce future government spending on people's health [k3: inaccurate/less formal phrase] public healthcare.
Steve raised a relevant point about anxiety, that may be created [k5: syntax—no comma before a restrictive “that” clause; k3: lexical mistake—unnatural collocation with “anxiety”] that may be induced after these tests, but [k5: punctuation—comma needed before coordinating “but”] , but I still think that it would be better to know about one’s health than live in ignorance [k3: lexical mistake—unnatural phrasing for “чем жить в неведении”] than remain ignorant.
Maybe [k1: style—use “Perhaps” in formal writing] Perhaps you even do not [k4: incorrect word order in negation] do not even care about yourself but [k5: punctuation—comma before “but”] , but there are always people, [k5: syntax—unnecessary comma before a restrictive clause] who are important to you. // Even if personal health is not your priority, the well-being of significant others depends on your being informed.
If you want [k3: inaccurate word choice—intended meaning “care about”] care about them, it will be much easier if you know their problems. // If you care about them, knowing their health conditions enables timely support.
For example, my parents friend [k4: incorrect possessive] parents’ friend had a certain disease [k3: vague wording—be specific/neutral] a chronic condition that occurred when he was old [k3: unnatural phrasing] was diagnosed at an advanced age.
He went to a government clinic, and doctors cured him after a lot of [k1: formality—replace with a precise quantifier] numerous courses of treatment and medication. // He was treated at a public clinic and recovered after multiple treatment courses.
All this treatment was free, and it is easy to notice that a lot of [k1: formality] substantial public money . [k5: sentence fragment—missing predicate] was involved. // The publicly funded treatment entailed significant expenditure.
If he made a test [k3: unnatural collocation] had taken a test some years before [k3: better temporal phrasing] years earlier, this disease would be diagnosed [k4: wrong tense in 3rd conditional] would have been diagnosed earlier, and right diet [k4: missing article] the right diet would not let it get more dangerous [k3: unnatural phrasing] would have prevented it from progressing, but this man did not have [k4: tense consistency—past is fine, but consider cohesion with the conditional] had not had enough money to do it. // Earlier screening could have led to timely diagnosis, and appropriate diet might have halted progression.
If this testing was supported by government [k4: subjunctive—use “were” + add article] were supported by the government, he would likely do it [k4: wrong tense—should be past counterfactual] would likely have taken it, and not as much public money would be spent [k1: logic/style — government support is already public money; the intended meaning is that preventive subsidies cost less than late-stage treatment] the smaller cost of preventive testing would have replaced the much greater expense of treatment.
In conclusion, I think that subsidizing routine lipid screening will help everyone and save a lot of [k3: tautology/repetition—earlier “a lot of” used; prefer varied formal phrasing] significant public funds, but [k5: punctuation—comma splice risk; prefer a clearer linker] however, it does not mean that other lifestyle investments should not be made [k3: clumsy double negation] should be pursued as well. // Subsidizing routine lipid screening can benefit the population and reduce public expenditure; nevertheless, investments in healthy lifestyles should also continue.
TOEFL DEMO SPEAKING
1. I support the view that learning through online courses is not more effective than the learning[k4: wrong article]learning in the traditional classroom setting. I call this opinion[k3: inaccurate word choice]hold this opinion [Even if you said 'hold' the examiners may misunderstand your indistinct pronunciation the way AI did] because many subjects that you learn may require practical experience that you cannot get online This is not a convincing argument: online courses also include virtual labs, simulations, and interactive tools. What students actually lack is access to real laboratory equipment, physical manipulation of instruments, safety training, and hands-on tactile feedback.. For example, [...0.9s] in [...0.9s] physics, I always need to go to the lab and [...0.7s] try something that [k4: wrong zero article] the teacher told me about to understand to understand[k3: tautology/repetition] it. And the without[k4: wrong article + k4: incorrect word order]without practical experience, it will be much tougher for me to understand the subject.
2. I personally prefer cooking and eating at home than[k4: wrong preposition]to eating out at restaurants on the[k4: wrong article]Ø weekdays. I hold this opinion for several reasons.Firstly[k5: syntax – missing space after full stop] Firstly, I love to cook, and [...1.4s] it is fun for me. For example, when my family have[k4: wrong subject–verb agreement- in TOEFL/AmE ‘family’ takes a singular verb]has dinner, I always try to cook for them if I have an ability[k3: unnatural collocation + k4: wrong article]the ability to do it, and I get a lot of joy from it. [...3.0s] Additionally, I do not have a lot of money to spend [...1.2s] on restaurants, so [...0.9s] I can't, I do not prefer to go to them.[k2: lack of coherence + k3: inaccurate wording] I cannot really afford to go there, so I prefer not to eat out often. For example, [...1.4s] last weekend I wanted to go to the[k4: wrong article]a restaurant, but I [...0.9s] understood that money that I have, that I can spend money that I have on something more valuable. [k2: lack of coherence + k3: redundancy/repetition] realised that the money I had could be spent on something more valuable.
3. As stated in the announcement, university, we will ban bicycle usage and [...0.8s] create the, um, [...1.4s] a bus that will help students to move [...0.8s] in the campus. [k2: lack of coherence + k3: inaccurate wording] the university will ban the use of bicycles on campus and expects students to use the free campus bus system to move around campus. Um, this is because bicycles [...1.3s] pose safety risk, risk[k3: tautology/repetition + k4: wrong article-- one specific type of risk → countable → requires an article] a safety risk for students. There are two reason, there are three reasons why woman[k4: wrong article]the woman objects to this decision.Firstly[k5: syntax – missing space after full stop] Firstly, she [...1.2s] states that buses are usually crowded and may be delayed, so this may lead to problems for students. Um, secondly, she [...1.8s] states that bicycles are not expensive and also eco friendly, and [...1.2s] buses will create a pollution[k4: wrong article]pollution. [...2.4s] Finally, she [...0.9s] states that the university should better Mark[k5: capitalization error]mark bike lanes and [...0.9s] make a speed limit[k3: unnatural collocation] introduce a speed limit for bikes, and it will [...2.3s] lower risk.
4. As stated in the announcement[k2: incorrect term – this is a reading passage, not an announcement] reading passage that reasons why buyers [...3.2s] do purchases even if prices go up. [k2: lack of coherence + k3: inaccurate wording] it explains why buyers continue to purchase goods even when prices go up. Firstly, [...3.1s] there is a [...1.0s] necessity over, [...0.7s] over product. [k3: unnatural collocation + k4: wrong word form] category of necessity goods. And the professor gives an example about [k3: lexical mistake – wrong preposition] an example of an[k4: wrong article]Ø oil, uh, that is necessary for you if you [...2.0s] have a house in the[k4: wrong article]a cold country, and you need to, to heat it. [...1.6s]Secondly, there, there is, [...1.2s] um, quality reason[k4: wrong article + k3: vague wording] a quality- or status-related reason. People think that [...2.1s] if price is higher than [...1.3s] quality is better to. [k5: syntax + k2: illogical linking] if the price is higher, the quality must be better too. The professor gives an an example about [k3: lexical mistake – wrong preposition] an example of a car. [...1.1s] Two same[k3: inaccurate word choice]identical cars, but [...0.6s] one have[k4: wrong subject–verb agreement]has a higher price, and you will think that this price leads to a better quality [k3: inaccurate verb; “lead to” expresses causation, but here the meaning is perceived equivalence or implication] this price indicates (or signals / means) better quality.
5. The professor tells how [...1.4s] Venus flytrap and the pitcher plant [...1.1s] work, and [...1.2s] how [...0.8s] they obtain nutrients. [...0.7s] to begin with, he tells about Venus Flytrap [...1.3s] that have[k4: wrong subject–verb agreement]has leaves with the trigger hairs. And when insect touch[k4: incorrect number form + k4: wrong subject–verb agreement] an insect touches these hairs, [...1.0s] two times, motor cells shift [k4: incorrect word order] the motor cells shift twice and trap an insect. And [...1.9s] then the Venus trap ...?.... a great digestive juices [k4: wrong verb form + k3: inaccurate wording] Venus flytrap releases strong digestive juices to [...1.1s] destroy a prey[k3: unnatural collocation + k4: wrong article] digest the prey and [...1.3s] make an nutrients from it. [k3: inaccurate word choice + k4: wrong article + k4: incorrect number form] absorb nutrients from it. [...2.4s]Then he, next, he [...1.1s] speaks about the [...0.9s] picture blend [k5: wrong spelling + k3: inaccurate word choice] pitcher plant, and [...1.4s] tells how [...1.5s] insects [...3.6s] goes into eat. [k4: wrong verb form + k4: incorrect form of verbal] go into it to feed. And [...1.4s] then they, [...2.7s] they're trapped in the pool [...1.5s] with the liquid that destroyed[k4: wrong tense]destroys them, and [...0.8s] by that plan to get an nutrient top take. [k2: lack of coherence + k3: inaccurate wording] in this way the plant gets the nutrients it needs.
Estimated TOEFL iBT Speaking Scores (ETS-style Rubric)
Note: Scores are estimated on the 0–4 ETS scale for each response. Subscores for Delivery, Language Use, and Topic Development are indicative; ETS reports only a single holistic score per task.
1. Independent Speaking – Online vs. Classroom
| Criterion | Score (0–4) | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Delivery | 3 | Generally clear and easy to follow. Minor hesitation and repetition (“to understand to understand”), but no serious strain for the listener. |
| Language Use | 2 | Good range for this level, but noticeable grammar and phrasing issues: articles (“the learning”), word choice (“call this opinion”), and some awkward structures. Errors sometimes distract, but meaning remains clear. |
| Topic Development | 3 | Clear position, one main reason (need for practical / lab experience) with a specific example from physics. Argument is somewhat oversimplified, but still coherent and relevant. |
| Overall estimated score | 3 / 4 | Meets the general description of a “3”: mostly clear, generally well developed, with noticeable but not debilitating language problems. |
2. Independent Speaking – Eating at Home vs. Restaurants
| Criterion | Score (0–4) | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Delivery | 3 | Speech is quite fluent overall. Some false starts and self-repairs (“I can't, I do not prefer…”), but listener can follow without difficulty. |
| Language Use | 2 | Errors with articles and structures (“than eating out”, “have dinner”, “an ability”) and awkward phrasing, especially in the money example. Grammar is imperfect but control is sufficient to convey ideas. |
| Topic Development | 3 | Clear preference with two distinct reasons (enjoyment of cooking + saving money), each supported by a relevant example. Some redundancy and clumsy phrasing, but the response is organized and on-topic. |
| Overall estimated score | 3 / 4 | Comparable to Answer 1: a solid “3”, with adequate development and comprehensibility despite persistent language issues. |
3. Integrated Speaking 2 – Campus Bicycles vs. Bus System
| Criterion | Score (0–4) | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Delivery | 2 | Noticeable hesitations, fillers (“um”), and some choppy rhythm. Still understandable, but less smooth and confident than a “3”. |
| Language Use | 2 | Frequent grammar issues (“create the, a bus”, “safety risk, risk”, “There are two reason, there are three reasons”, “woman objects”). Errors are noticeable but do not completely block meaning. |
| Topic Development | 2 | Captures the basic idea (ban on bicycles; woman objects because buses are crowded, bikes cheap and eco-friendly, better to mark bike lanes), but includes inaccuracies (as if the bus is “created” now) and some confusion about the announcement. Summary is partial and not fully precise. |
| Overall estimated score | 2 / 4 | Fits a “fair” response: meaning is mostly clear, but with clear weaknesses in both language control and accurate, well-organized summary of the listening. |
4. Integrated Speaking 3 – Necessity Goods & Veblen Goods
| Criterion | Score (0–4) | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Delivery | 2 | Frequent pauses and self-corrections; rhythm is somewhat broken, though the listener can follow with some effort. |
| Language Use | 2 | Noticeable grammatical and lexical problems (“announcement” for reading passage, “necessity over product”, “quality reason”, “price is higher than quality is better to”). Vocabulary is sometimes too vague or incorrect for the economic content. |
| Topic Development | 2 | Shows understanding of the two categories (necessity goods and Veblen goods) and gives both examples (heating oil; more expensive car perceived as better). However, definitions are incomplete and not clearly contrasted; connection between reading and lecture is only roughly expressed. |
| Overall estimated score | 2 / 4 | Content is basically there but not well articulated. Fits a “2”: limited but not minimal topic development, with clear language weaknesses. |
5. Integrated Speaking 4 – Venus Flytrap & Pitcher Plant
| Criterion | Score (0–4) | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Delivery | 2 | Many pauses, self-corrections, and broken phrases (“that have leaves…”, “picture blend”, “goes into eat”). Listener understanding requires some effort, though the main line of meaning is still recoverable. |
| Language Use | 2 | Frequent grammatical and lexical errors: subject–verb agreement (“have leaves”, “insect touch”), word choice (“destroy a prey”), wrong terms (“picture blend”), and awkward structures (“by that plan to get an nutrient”). Control is limited but not at the level of breakdown. |
| Topic Development | 2 | Both plants are mentioned, and key mechanisms are roughly covered: trigger hairs and digestive juices for Venus flytrap; insects falling into liquid in the pitcher plant. However, sequencing is messy, some steps are unclear or missing, and scientific explanation is not fully accurate. |
| Overall estimated score | 2 / 4 | Represents a “fair” response: the gist of the lecture is conveyed but with limited control of language and organization. |
TOEFL integrated writing_children's play groups
The text under analysis [k3: As I have recently found out, TOEFL style guides and ETS's examiners recommend more straightforward openings!] being analyzedThe text describes [k4: wrong verb form – subject is “text”] describes how children in Western and non-Western society [k4: incorrect number form] societies form play groups and positive outcome [k4: wrong article + k3: unnatural collocation] a positive outcome from it.[k2: paragraphing needed]
The author states that children in the non-Western [k4: wrong article] non-Western countries are most of the time in the mix-aged society [k3: unnatural collocation] mixed-age groups, where people’s age differs [k3: imprecise wording – “ranges” is more appropriate] ranges from late infancy to early adolescence. By this communication older [k3: imprecise – specify “older children”] older children practice teaching those who are younger and they learn [k2: incorrect subject reference] the latter learn language and other practical surviving skills [k3: unnatural collocation] survival skills by observing and imitating elders.[k2: paragraphing needed]// Through such interaction, older children practice teaching younger ones, while the latter acquire language and basic survival skills by imitation. In the West [k5: syntax – missing comma after introductory phrase] In the West, children most of the time deal with people their age and by that [k3: unnatural expression] as a result they develop skill [k4: incorrect number form] skills of teamwork and solve [k4: wrong verb form – should be infinitive + 'learn'] learn to solve their problems without parents. Also [k5: syntax – missing comma after introductory connector] Also, they socialize easier [k4: incorrect adverbial form] socialize more easily because they are equals and rivals to each other.// In Western societies, children usually interact with peers, which helps them develop teamwork skills and solve problems independently.[k2: paragraphing needed]
The lecturer contradicts the reading’s claim that there is only positive outcome [k4: wrong article + k3: unnatural collocation] a positive outcome from these groups.As an example [k5: syntax – missing comma after an introductory phrase] As an example, she tells [k3: wrong verb choice for academic style] she describes an experiment where children were divided into two groups to test how they will react [k4: wrong tense] to test how they would react. Firstly [k3: inappropriate connector – logical sequencing instead of chronological sequencing] At first, they started to insult each other and gave their groups different names. Then after tasks where [k4: wrong relative pronoun] in which these groups where [k4: wrong spelling / incorrect form “were”] were competing with each other, their relations ship [k5: wrong spelling] relationship made even worse [k3: unnatural phrasing] became even worse// At the beginning, the children began insulting one another and creating separate group identities, and after completing a series of competitive tasks, the conflict between the groups intensified even further.. Finally, when they were formed in one group again [k3: unnatural collocation] were put into one group again and solve [k4: wrong tense] solved some problems together, they started to respect each other again.[k2: paragraphing needed]
By this example speaker [k5: missing comma after introductory phrase + k4: wrong article] , speaker [k4: wrong article] the speaker states that relationship between and in child groups [k3: unclear / unnatural phrasing] relationships both between and within child groups may be not as beneficial [k3: unnatural phrasing] not be as beneficial as the writer states and competition comes more naturally than cooperation [k2: illogical generalization – oversimplified] competition may emerge more readily than cooperation.// The speaker uses this case to illustrate that cooperation among children is not guaranteed and may be influenced by situational factors such as competition, thereby refuting the reading passage’s assertion that group interaction has generally positive effects on children’s social behavior.
| Score | Content & Key Points from Lecture | Connections to Reading | Organization & Coherence | Language Control (Grammar, Vocabulary, Style) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall: 3/5 |
|
Simply put: ✔️ You do: Indicate disagreement (“lecturer contradicts…”) Link the experiment to the reading’s claim ✘ But: Connections are too general (e.g. discussion of Western vs non-Western play groups is not tied back to the lecturer) You do not make the one-to-one mapping ETS expects: Reading: mixed-age groups help children learn Lecture: conflict proves groups can be harmful You don't mention that the experiment is used to refute the reading’s assumption of natural cooperation. |
|
|
Academic discussion
While I appreciate Kelly's and Paul's views, I personally think that these effects may take place but not significant [k4: incorrect clause structure – missing verb] but are not significant. // Although these effects exist, I believe their overall impact is rather limited.
Kelly raised a relevant topic about lack of moving [k3: unnatural collocation] lack of physical activity, it can easily be solved [k5: run-on sentence – requires separation or conjunction] and this issue can easily be addressed by doing even small exercises while you see adverts [k4: incorrect construction + k3: unnatural phrasing] while watching advertisements, for example. If children have weight problem [k4: wrong article + k3: unnatural collocation] an overweight problem, it is their parents, who do not keep an eye on them enough [k4: incorrect clause structure + k3: vague meaning] this may indicate insufficient parental supervision. // If children struggle with weight issues, it often reflects the need for more consistent parental guidance regarding lifestyle habits.
Paul told about experience that television gives to people [k3: unnatural phrasing + k4: wrong verb choice] talked about the experiences television can provide, but I cannot say that it is really so [k3: vague phrasing] this is generally the case. Most of the people [k4: wrong article – zero article required] people watch television mainly for entertainment rather than to learn something new. // In reality, viewers usually rely on television as a source of relaxation, not as a tool for gaining new knowledge.
I would say that in our lives television is a way to relax. When you turn on the TV, most of the time you stop thinking about your problems and just watch what is going on the screen [k3: imprecise / unnatural phrasing] you usually stop thinking about your problems and simply focus on what is happening on the screen. // Turning on the television often allows you to detach from daily concerns and concentrate solely on the content being shown.
| Score (0–5) |
Content & Relevance | Elaboration & Development | Language Use (Grammar & Vocabulary) | Clarity & Organization |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3/5 |
|
|
|
|
Your current idea (Level 3 – brief, general)
If children have a weight problem, this may indicate insufficient parental supervision.
Why it’s Level 3:
- No example
- No explanation of why
- No concrete detail
- General, not personalized
Improved version (Level 4–5 – well-elaborated)
For instance, if a child begins gaining weight because they spend several hours in front of the TV each day, it usually suggests that parents may not be monitoring screen time or encouraging healthier routines. Even small interventions—like setting limits or scheduling active breaks—could prevent the issue from appearing in the first place.
✔ Why this is Level 5
- Provides a specific scenario
- Explains how the problem emerges
- Gives logical cause–effect reasoning
- Suggests practical implications
.Your current idea (Level 3 – minimal)
It can be solved by doing small exercises while watching advertisements.
Why it’s Level 3
- Idea is correct but underdeveloped
- Lacks specifics or explanation
- Doesn’t illustrate feasibility
⭐ Improved (Level 4–5 – concrete & persuasive)
For instance, even short commercial breaks offer enough time for stretching, walking in place, or simple body-weight exercises. These small habits accumulate over time and can significantly reduce the negative effects of sitting.
Why this is Level 5
- Concrete examples
- Explains why the idea is realistic
- Shows logical benefits
Think how you will elaborate this idea:
Television is a way to relax. You stop thinking about your problems.
Academic discussion_lipid screening
While I appreciate Arman's view, I agree with Naya. Subsidized lipid screening will help many people and even lower future government spending on people's health [k3: vague/unnatural phrasing] public health costs. // I believe subsidizing lipid testing would reduce long-term healthcare expenses and make preventive care more accessible.
Steve raised a relevant point about anxiety, that may be created after this tests [k4: wrong punctuation + k4: incorrect number form + k3: unnatural phrasing] the anxiety that may arise after these tests, but I still think that it is better to know about your health than live in ignorance [k3: too informal for academic style] remain unaware of potential risks. Maybe you even do not care about yourself [k3: unnatural phrasing] someone may not be particularly concerned about their own health, but there are always people , who [k5: incorrect comma before restrictive clause] who are important to you. If you want them, it will be much easier if you know their problems. [k2: unclear meaning + k3: unnatural phrasing] If you truly care about them, understanding their health issues makes supporting them much easier. // Knowing about potential health risks allows people to protect not only themselves but also the loved ones who depend on them.
For example, my parents' friend had a certain disease that occurred when he was old. [k3: vague wording + k3: unnatural phrasing] friend developed a serious illness later in life. He went to a government clinic and doctors cured him after a lot of therapies and drugs [k3: informal/vague phrasing] multiple rounds of treatment and medication. All of this treatment was free, and it is easy to notice that a lot of public money [k3: vague phrasing] substantial public funding was required. // His treatment was entirely government-funded, which placed a considerable financial burden on the public healthcare system.
If he made a test [k3: unnatural collocation] had taken a test some years earlier, this disease would have been diagnosed sooner, and right diet [k4: wrong article] the right diet would not have let it get more dangerous [k3: imprecise phrasing] progress to a more severe stage, but this man did not have enough money to do it. If this testing was supported [k4: wrong tense – use conditional perfect] had been supported by the government, he would likely have done it, and not as much public money would have been spent. // Earlier testing could have prevented the need for expensive treatment, showing how subsidized screening reduces long-term government spending.
In conclusion, I think that subsidizing routine lipid screening will help everyone and save a lot of public money, but it does not mean that other lifestyle investments should not be made. [k3: vague phrasing] although it should be complemented by broader investments in healthy lifestyle initiatives. // While subsidized screening can significantly reduce healthcare costs, it should be part of a wider strategy that promotes healthy habits and early prevention.
Final Overall Score: 3/5
✔ Strengths
- Relevant, clear position
- Good real-life example
- Meaning always understandable
- Connects to both classmates
✘ Weaknesses preventing 4–5
- Some grammatical errors
- Several unnatural or vague expressions
- Examples and reasoning need deeper development
- Logical connections could be more explicit
- Organization sometimes choppy
Your raw scores
| Exam Part | Raw Score | Breakdown (if applicable) |
|---|---|---|
| Reading | 16 / 22 | Text 1: 8/11 Text 2: 8/11 |
| Listening | 19 / 22 | Listening 1: 5/6 Listening 2: 4/6 Listening 3: 10/10 |
| Writing | 5.5 / 10 | Integrated: 2.5/5 Academic Discussion: 3/5 |
| Speaking | 9 / 16 | Speaking 1: 3/4 Speaking 2: 2/4 Speaking 3: 2/4 Speaking 4: 2/4 |
Your estimated scaled scores
| Exam Part | Scaled Score (0–30) |
|---|---|
| Reading | 22 |
| Listening | 26 |
| Speaking | 18 |
| Writing | 18 |
| Total Estimated Score | 84 / 120 |