Joy English · 레벨 C1 · IELTS 유형joy-english.com

IELTS 스타일 쓰기: 교육에 관한 Task 2 에세이

이름:날짜:

IELTS Academic Task 2 스타일의 독립 연습이며 공식 시험이 아닙니다: 모범 에세이를 공부하고, 응집성과 완곡 표현(hedging)을 연습한 다음, 직접 써 봅니다.

응집성, 문체, 완곡 표현

에세이의 각 문장을 완성하거나 개선하기에 가장 알맞은 선택지를 고르십시오.

___ these qualities will become more valuable, technical knowledge cannot safely be ignored.
- a) While
- b) Because
- c) Unless
- d) So
Choose the most carefully hedged sentence.
- a) Technical skills will definitely become less important.
- b) Technical skills are certainly going to disappear.
- c) Technical skills might well become less important in the long run.
- d) Technical skills must become less important.
Rule-based tasks are easy to automate. ___, creative work is far harder for machines to imitate.
- a) As a result
- b) Similarly
- c) By contrast
- d) For this reason
Which sentence is most suitable for a formal essay?
- a) Kids today are glued to their phones, which is rubbish.
- b) Everybody knows screens ruin children's brains.
- c) Screens are bad, full stop.
- d) It is widely believed that young people spend too much time on screens.
___ the cost, many schools have introduced coding lessons.
- a) Although
- b) However
- c) Despite
- d) Unless
___, I believe the benefits of the proposal outweigh the drawbacks.
- a) For example
- b) On balance
- c) Firstly
- d) Meanwhile
Choose the most carefully worded statement.
- a) Technology always improves results.
- b) Technology never fails.
- c) Technology is the only solution.
- d) Technology tends to improve results when it is used well.
Pupils could learn teamwork through group projects. ___ approach would also keep the technical content in the curriculum.
- a) These
- b) This
- c) Those
- d) Such

구 완성하기

에세이에서 가져온 각 구를 완성하는 단어를 하나 입력하십시오.

To a certain ___, I agree with this view.
It could be ___ that schools place too much emphasis on examinations.
On the one hand, digital tools save time; on the ___ hand, they may weaken some skills.
Some people claim that technology makes us lazy; ___, the evidence for this is limited.
The argument has some ___, but I am not fully convinced by it.
All things ___, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

쓰기 과제

어떤 사람들은 대학 교육이 원하는 모든 사람에게 제공되어야 한다고 믿는 반면, 다른 사람들은 가장 유능한 학생들에게만 자리를 제한해야 한다고 생각합니다. 두 견해를 논하고 여러분 자신의 의견을 제시하십시오. 최소 250단어로 작성하십시오.

250–320단어

내 글 확인

질문의 모든 부분에 답했습니다: 두 견해와 나 자신의 의견.
내 입장이 서론에서 분명하고 결론에서도 일관됩니다.
각 본문 단락에는 하나의 중심 생각, 분명한 주제문, 발전된 뒷받침이 있습니다.
다양한 연결 장치와 지시어를 과하지 않게 사용했습니다.
단정적인 진술 대신 필요한 곳에서는 주장을 완곡하게 표현했습니다.
정확한 어휘와 단문 및 복문을 섞어 사용했고, 철자와 문장 부호를 확인했습니다.

정답

응집성, 문체, 완곡 표현

a) WhileWhile은 양보를 도입합니다: 글쓴이가 한 가지 점을 인정한 다음 대조되는 점을 말합니다.
c) Technical skills might well become less important in the long run.Might well과 in the long run은 확실성이 아니라 근거 있는 가능성을 나타냅니다.
c) By contrast두 번째 문장은 첫 번째 문장과 대조되므로 By contrast가 필요합니다.
d) It is widely believed that young people spend too much time on screens.It is widely believed that은 비인칭적이고 절제된 표현이며, 나머지는 구어적이거나 지나치게 일반화되어 있습니다.
c) DespiteDespite 뒤에는 명사구(the cost)가 옵니다. Although에는 완전한 절이 필요합니다.
b) On balanceOn balance는 숙고한 끝의 전반적인 판단을 나타내므로 결론에 어울립니다.
d) Technology tends to improve results when it is used well.Tends to와 the condition when it is used well은 단정적인 주장을 피합니다.
b) ThisThis approach는 앞 문장의 생각 전체를 다시 가리킵니다. These와 Those에는 복수 명사가 필요하고, Such에는 관사가 필요합니다: Such an approach.

구 완성하기

extent / degreeTo a certain extent (또는 degree)는 흔한 완곡 표현입니다.
argued / said / claimed / suggested / contendedIt could be argued that은 글쓴이가 완전히 확신하지 않은 채 조심스럽게 논점을 도입합니다.
other고정된 짝은 on the one hand ... on the other hand입니다.
however / nevertheless / nonetheless두 번째 절이 첫 번째 절과 대조되므로 세미콜론 뒤에는 대조를 나타내는 연결어가 필요합니다.
merit / merits / validity / substance / force / weight / appealHas some merit (또는 weight, validity, force)는 반대하기 전에 한 가지 점을 인정하는 전형적인 방법입니다.
consideredAll things considered는 결론을 맺을 때 쓰는 고정 표현입니다.

모범 답안

The question of who should be admitted to university is far from straightforward. Some argue that every willing applicant deserves a place, while others believe that places should be reserved for the most able. In my view, both positions contain part of the truth, but a system based on ability alone is more likely to waste potential than to protect standards.

Those who favour open access make a principled argument. Education improves earning power and personal confidence, so restricting it can deepen existing inequalities. Moreover, ability at eighteen is not a fixed quantity: many people who perform modestly at school flourish once they find a subject that interests them. Open access also allows adults who change career later in life to retrain.

On the other hand, there are practical limits. Teaching resources are finite, and large classes may reduce the quality of teaching for everyone. Employers, too, rely on degrees as an indicator of competence, and that signal could lose its value if qualifications were awarded without any selection. It is therefore understandable that some institutions wish to limit entry.

Nevertheless, selection need not be based on a single examination. Universities could consider a wider range of evidence, such as projects, interviews and previous work experience, and could offer foundation courses to students who need extra support. Such measures would protect standards without closing doors prematurely.

In conclusion, I believe that places should be widely available, but that access should be accompanied by support, so that opportunity does not become a promise that cannot be kept.