Embedded Files
Дата публикации: Mar 13, 2016 11:27:42 AM
As an IELTS writing instructor, I am often asked by my students what the secret is to successful essay writing. When I tell them ‘lots of practice, lots of guidance and lots of patience’, they usually look at me a bit disappointed as though my answer was too obvious.
So I tell them, ‘just follow the 4 Cs.’ ‘The 4 Cs?’ they ask with new interest.
Yes, the 4 Cs: conciseness, cohesion, coherence and composition. Each needs to be employed properly if you want to score well on your Task 2 essay. In this short article, which I am writing exclusively for www.ielts-blog.com, I would like to touch on each of the 4 Cs and describe how you can use these powerful ideas to heighten your IELTS score.
So let’s begin with conciseness. Unlike other languages which prize long and very elaborate sentences, proper written English is language that says a lot in few words. Students often falsely believe that the longer a sentence is the more academic it sounds.
Writing longer sentences in your response is problematic for 2 reasons. The first is it heightens the chances of errors related to coherence. The second is it makes it more difficult for you to control the grammar of the sentence, leading to silly grammatical mistakes. Too often, students receive disappointing marks on their IELTS essay simply because their long sentences led them to issues with coherence and grammar.
So how long should a sentence be? Including cohesive phrases (the second ‘C’ in our list), typical sentences are somewhere between 8 and 15 words.
Now let’s take a look at how to write these cohesive phrases. Cohesion refers to words and phrases that help ideas link together. Cohesive phrases include wordings like…
Because of this, …
As this shows, …
As can clearly be seen from this example, …
It is clear that…
Thus, the idea that…
To illustrate this, …
After analyzing both points of view, …
To provide a summary, …
Without a doubt, this causes…
What I always suggest to students is to commit many of these phrases to memory and learn how to use them properly. When you get to your examination, you can use these phrases with confidence, which will not only save you time but also reduce the chances of grammatical mistakes.
Our third C is coherence, which is the notion that all ideas you present in your essay should be easily understood by your reader. As you can probably guess, using the cohesive phrases above correctly can really help to boost the coherence in your essay as they clarify your ideas. Coherence is also greatly improved by proper grammar, so make an effort to brush up on this prior to your examination.
Our final C, composition, refers to employing a proper essay structure. This means including a thesis (in the case of an argument essay), at least 2 supporting ideas, real-life examples, proper discussion of those examples as well as some kind of summary and finally a reasoned conclusion. To break it down, an argument essay is most likely going to contain 15 sentences partitioned into 4 paragraphs and follow a pattern something like this:
Introduction paragraph
A background sentence giving some background information on the essay topic.
A more detailed sentence linking the background sentence to the thesis.
A thesis that presents your point of view on your given topic.
An outline sentence declaring the 2 points you are going to use to support your thesis.
Supporting paragraph 1
A topic sentence illustrating the first point you will be presenting to support your thesis (this point taken from your outline sentence).
A sentence showing a real-life example of this topic in action.
A discussion sentence that shows how your example links or proves your topic sentence.
A conclusion sentence that links this entire paragraph back to your thesis.
Supporting paragraph 2
A topic sentence illustrating the second point you will be presenting to support your thesis (this point taken from your outline sentence).
A sentence showing a real-life example of this topic in action.
A discussion sentence that shows how your example links or proves your topic sentence.
A conclusion sentence that links this entire paragraph back to your thesis.
Conclusion paragraph
A summary sentence that briefly states the 2 points you discussed in your supporting paragraphs.
A restatement of your thesis using different words.
A prediction or recommendation based on the topic you have been given.
By employing a logical structure like this you fulfill your essay’s requirement for proper composition.
So, in a nutshell, the 4 Cs make up the essential elements in a successful essay. Conciseness keeps sentences brief, cohesion helps the sentences link together, coherence maintains understanding in the essay and composition links all parts of the essay together logically.
Make an effort to use the 4 Cs properly and I guarantee your IELTS written mark will improve.
Good luck on your exam!
This article was written by Ryan Higgins, an online IELTS instructor, blogger and author. For more of his free IELTS resources, visit his blog.
+
Клише для эссе и ответов на вопросы
Фразы для оформления каркаса эссе.
A letter of complaint structure. Linking phrases.
conciseness (less frequent concision BrE /kənˈsɪʒn/ ; NAmE /kənˈsɪʒn/ )
[uncountable] the quality of giving only the information that is necessary and important, using few words
краткость, лаконичность, сжатость; выразительность
cohesion noun BrE /kəʊˈhiːʒn/ ; NAmE /koʊˈhiːʒn/ [uncountable]
1. (formal) the act or state of keeping together
synonym unity
the cohesion of the nuclear family
social/political/economic cohesion
2. (physics, chemistry) the force causing molecules of the same substance to stick together
1) единство, спаянность, сплочённость
2) физ.; биол. сцепление, когезия
3) информ. сцепление. связность
coherence noun BrE /kəʊˈhɪərəns/ ; NAmE /koʊˈhɪrəns/ [uncountable](formal)
the situation in which all the parts of something fit together well
The points you make are fine, but the whole essay lacks coherence.
opposite incoherence
1) связь, состыковывание, сцепление
2) логичность, последовательность, обоснованность
3) слаженность (действий)
composition noun BrE /ˌkɒmpəˈzɪʃn/ ; NAmE /ˌkɑːmpəˈzɪʃn/
Many historic places and buildings are being destroyed or damaged.
What do you think the reasons are?
What can be done about it?
Give your opinion and relevant examples.
1.
Many historic buildings and monuments are being destroyed or damaged nowadays.
At the same time, ISIL are destroying temples of Palmyra and a building company is making one of the historic houses of Yekaterinburg's centre collapse for the purpose of building a mall in this place.
Can these actions in different countries having apparent different aims be related to each other? I believe so.
I think that the main reasons of both actions are a subjective meaning of the term 'historic object' and a doubtful value of the historic objects for people.
I suppose a subjective meaning of the term 'historic building' is a reason of historic building and monuments destruction because this term is not perfectly clear for people.
At what moment should a building be considered as a historic object? It's debatable question.
As an old saying goes 'So many men, so many minds'.
Some people in Yekaterinburg are insisting on the reconstruction of The Red Colours Group monument which was disassembled and taken away three years ago.
For me, it was not a historic object because that monument was like a bunch of rusty flag-shaped tin metal sheets standing in the very centre of the city and making it ugly.
In my opinion, a historic object should be at least unique or have an aesthetic value.
As for a doubtful value of the historic objects, it should be noted that people have continually been destroying so-called historic objects throughout the history of mankind.
Romans ruined Carthage, Vandals burned Rome and crusaders sacked and looted Constantinopol as well as Americans bombed up Drezden and Taliban blew up The Buddhas of Bamiyan.
All examples show us a similar image of an arrival of people who didn't value building or monuments or considered those objects offending their religion or traditions.
At the same time, even Taliban have their own sacred places which they're taking care of.
Generally speaking, it is supposed that something has a historical value if it is somehow connected with the past of the country or the religion.
However, I believe that most people don't care much about the past, even it is the past of their own country.
I think that one of the things that can make people take care of historic places and buildings is an financial gain.
In fact, many historic monuments and building were restored because of a great interest from tourists.
The Colosseum, Cathedrals of Brugge and Gent and even The Great Pyramids are among them.
Other objects, for example Eiffel Tower in Paris or The Little Mermaid statue in Copenhagen were kept only because they are attracting tourists while many local people hate them.
I believe that the only way to keep historic building is to connect them somehow with a tourism development program.
Besides, it is very important to have the law protecting every historic object from destructing or damaging.
To sum up I would like to say that destruction of historic buildings is inevitable proccess unless they were made valuable for local people and protected by the law.
Many historic buildings and monuments are being destroyed or damaged nowadays.
At the same time, ISIL are destroying temples of Palmyra and a building company is making one of the historic houses of Yekaterinburg's centre collapse for the purpose of building a mall in this place.
Can these actions in different countries having apparent different aims be related to each other? I believe so.
I think that the main reasons of both actions are a subjective meaning of the term 'historic object' and a doubtful value of the historic objects for people.
I suppose a subjective meaning of the term 'historic building' is a reason of historic building and monuments destruction because this term is not perfectly clear for people.
At what moment should a building be considered as a historic object? It's debatable question.
As an old saying goes 'So many men, so many minds'.
Some people in Yekaterinburg are insisting on the reconstruction of The Red Colours Group monument which was disassembled and taken away three years ago.
For me, it was not a historic object because that monument was like a bunch of rusty flag-shaped tin metal sheets standing in the very centre of the city and making it ugly.
In my opinion, a historic object should be at least unique or have an aesthetic value.
As for a doubtful value of the historic objects, it should be noted that people have continually been destroying so-called historic objects throughout the history of mankind.
Romans ruined Carthage, Vandals burned Rome and crusaders sacked and looted Constantinopol as well as Americans bombed up Drezden and Taliban blew up The Buddhas of Bamiyan.
All examples show us a similar image of an arrival of people who didn't value building or monuments or considered those objects offending their religion or traditions.
At the same time, even Taliban have their own sacred places which they're taking care of.
Generally speaking, it is supposed that something has a historical value if it is somehow connected with the past of the country or the religion.
However, I believe that most people don't care much about the past, even it is the past of their own country.
I think that one of the things that can make people take care of historic places and buildings is an financial gain.
In fact, many historic monuments and building were restored because of a great interest from tourists.
The Colosseum, Cathedrals of Brugge and Gent and even The Great Pyramids are among them.
Other objects, for example Eiffel Tower in Paris or The Little Mermaid statue in Copenhagen were kept only because they are attracting tourists while many local people hate them.
I believe that the only way to keep historic building is to connect them somehow with a tourism development program.
Besides, it is very important to have the law protecting every historic object from destructing or damaging.
To sum up I would like to say that destruction of historic buildings is inevitable proccess unless they were made valuable for local people and protected by the law.
2.
Many historic buildings and monuments are being destroyed or damaged nowadays.
At the same time, ISIL are destroying temples of Palmyra and a building company is making one of the historic houses of Yekaterinburg's centre collapse for the purpose of building a mall in this place.
Can these actions in different countries be related to each other? I believe so.
I think that the main reasons for both actions are a subjective meaning of the term 'historic object' and a doubtful value of the historic objects for people.
I suppose a subjective meaning of the term 'historic building' is a reason for historic building and monuments destruction because this term is not perfectly clear for people.
At what moment should a building be considered as a historic object? It's a debatable question.
As an old saying goes 'So many men, so many minds'.
Some people in Yekaterinburg are insisting on the reconstruction of The Red Colours Group monument which was disassembled and taken away three years ago.
For me, it was not a historic object because that monument was like a bunch of rusty flag-shaped tin metal sheets standing in the very centre of the city and making it ugly.
In my opinion, a historic object should be at least unique or have an aesthetic value.
As for a doubtful value of the historic objects, it should be noted that people have continually been destroying so-called historic objects throughout the history of mankind.
Romans ruined Carthage, Vandals burned Rome and crusaders sacked and looted Constantinople as well as Americans bombed up Dresden and Taliban blew up The Buddhas of Bamiyan.
All examples show us a similar image of an arrival of people who didn't value building or monuments or considered those objects offending their religion or traditions.
At the same time, even Taliban have their own sacred places which they're taking care of.
Generally speaking, it is supposed that something has a historical value if it is somehow connected with the past of the country or the religion.
However, I believe that most people don't care much about the past, even if it is the past of their own country.
I think that one of the things that can make people take care of historic places and buildings is a financial gain.
In fact, many historic monuments and building were restored because of a great tourists' interest.
The Colosseum, Cathedrals of Brugge and Gent and even The Great Pyramids are among them.
Other objects, for example, Eiffel Tower in Paris or The Little Mermaid statue in Copenhagen, were kept only because they are attracting tourists while many local people hate them.
I believe that the only way to keep historic building is to connect them somehow with a tourism development program.
Besides, it is very important to have the law protecting every historic object from destructing or damaging.
To sum up, I would like to say that destruction of historic buildings is inevitable process unless they were made valuable for local people and protected by the law.
Many historic buildings and monuments are being destroyed or damaged nowadays.
At the same time, ISIL are destroying temples of Palmyra and a building company is making one of the historic houses of Yekaterinburg's centre collapse for the purpose of building a mall in this place.
Can these actions in different countries be related to each other? I believe so.
I think that the main reasons for both actions are a subjective meaning of the term 'historic object' and a doubtful value of the historic objects for people.
I suppose a subjective meaning of the term 'historic building' is a reason for historic building and monuments destruction because this term is not perfectly clear for people.
At what moment should a building be considered as a historic object? It's a debatable question.
As an old saying goes 'So many men, so many minds'.
Some people in Yekaterinburg are insisting on the reconstruction of The Red Colours Group monument which was disassembled and taken away three years ago.
For me, it was not a historic object because that monument was like a bunch of rusty flag-shaped tin metal sheets standing in the very centre of the city and making it ugly.
In my opinion, a historic object should be at least unique or have an aesthetic value.
As for a doubtful value of the historic objects, it should be noted that people have continually been destroying so-called historic objects throughout the history of mankind.
Romans ruined Carthage, Vandals burned Rome and crusaders sacked and looted Constantinople as well as Americans bombed up Dresden and Taliban blew up The Buddhas of Bamiyan.
All examples show us a similar image of an arrival of people who didn't value building or monuments or considered those objects offending their religion or traditions.
At the same time, even Taliban have their own sacred places which they're taking care of.
Generally speaking, it is supposed that something has a historical value if it is somehow connected with the past of the country or the religion.
However, I believe that most people don't care much about the past, even if it is the past of their own country.
I think that one of the things that can make people take care of historic places and buildings is a financial gain.
In fact, many historic monuments and building were restored because of a great tourists' interest.
The Colosseum, Cathedrals of Brugge and Gent and even The Great Pyramids are among them.
Other objects, for example, Eiffel Tower in Paris or The Little Mermaid statue in Copenhagen, were kept only because they are attracting tourists while many local people hate them.
I believe that the only way to keep historic building is to connect them somehow with a tourism development program.
Besides, it is very important to have the law protecting every historic object from destructing or damaging.
To sum up, I would like to say that destruction of historic buildings is inevitable process unless they were made valuable for local people and protected by the law.
3.
Many historic buildings and monuments are being destroyed or damaged nowadays.
At the same time, ISIL are destroying temples of Palmyra and a building company is making one of the historic houses of Yekaterinburg's centre collapse for the purpose of building a mall in this place.
Can these actions in different countries be related to each other? I believe so.
I think that the main reasons for both actions are a subjective meaning of the term 'historic object' and a doubtful value of the historic objects for people.
I suppose that a subjective meaning of the term 'historic building' is a reason for historic building and monuments destruction because this term is not perfectly clear for people.
At what moment should a building be considered as a historic object? It's a debatable question.
As an old saying goes 'So many men, so many minds'.
Some people in Yekaterinburg are insisting on the reconstruction of The Red Colours Group monument which was disassembled and taken away three years ago.
For me, it was not a historic object at all because it was like a bunch of rusty flag-shaped metal sheets which stood in the very centre of the city and made it being ugly.
In my opinion, a historic object should be at least unique or have an aesthetic value.
As for a doubtful value of the historic objects, it should be noted that people have continually been destroying so-called historic objects throughout the history of mankind.
Romans ruined Carthage, Vandals burned Rome and crusaders sacked and looted Constantinople as well as Americans bombed up Dresden and Taliban blew up The Buddhas of Bamiyan.
In every case, new-arrived people didn't appreciate buildings or monuments.
As for the latter example, Taliban considered those objects offending their religion and traditions.
At the same time, even Taliban have their own sacred places which they're taking care of.
Generally speaking, it is supposed that something has a historical value if it is somehow connected with the past of the country or the religion.
However, I believe that most people don't care much about the past, even if it is the past of their own country.
I think that one of the things that can make people take care of historic places and buildings is a financial gain.
In fact, many historic monuments and building were restored because of a great tourists' interest.
The Colosseum, Cathedrals of Brugge and Gent and even The Great Pyramids are among them.
Other objects, for example, Eiffel Tower in Paris or The Little Mermaid statue in Copenhagen, were kept only because they are attracting tourists while many local people hate them.
I believe that the only way to keep historic building is to connect them somehow with a tourism development program.
Besides, it is very important to have the law protecting every historic object from destructing or damaging.
To sum up, I would like to say that destruction of historic buildings is inevitable process unless they were made valuable for local people and protected by the law.
Many historic buildings and monuments are being destroyed or damaged nowadays.
At the same time, ISIL are destroying temples of Palmyra and a building company is making one of the historic houses of Yekaterinburg's centre collapse for the purpose of building a mall in this place.
Can these actions in different countries be related to each other? I believe so.
I think that the main reasons for both actions are a subjective meaning of the term 'historic object' and a doubtful value of the historic objects for people.
I suppose that a subjective meaning of the term 'historic building' is a reason for historic building and monuments destruction because this term is not perfectly clear for people.
At what moment should a building be considered as a historic object? It's a debatable question.
As an old saying goes 'So many men, so many minds'.
Some people in Yekaterinburg are insisting on the reconstruction of The Red Colours Group monument which was disassembled and taken away three years ago.
For me, it was not a historic object at all because it was like a bunch of rusty flag-shaped metal sheets which stood in the very centre of the city and made it being ugly.
In my opinion, a historic object should be at least unique or have an aesthetic value.
As for a doubtful value of the historic objects, it should be noted that people have continually been destroying so-called historic objects throughout the history of mankind.
Romans ruined Carthage, Vandals burned Rome and crusaders sacked and looted Constantinople as well as Americans bombed up Dresden and Taliban blew up The Buddhas of Bamiyan.
In every case, new-arrived people didn't appreciate buildings or monuments.
As for the latter example, Taliban considered those objects offending their religion and traditions.
At the same time, even Taliban have their own sacred places which they're taking care of.
Generally speaking, it is supposed that something has a historical value if it is somehow connected with the past of the country or the religion.
However, I believe that most people don't care much about the past, even if it is the past of their own country.
I think that one of the things that can make people take care of historic places and buildings is a financial gain.
In fact, many historic monuments and building were restored because of a great tourists' interest.
The Colosseum, Cathedrals of Brugge and Gent and even The Great Pyramids are among them.
Other objects, for example, Eiffel Tower in Paris or The Little Mermaid statue in Copenhagen, were kept only because they are attracting tourists while many local people hate them.
I believe that the only way to keep historic building is to connect them somehow with a tourism development program.
Besides, it is very important to have the law protecting every historic object from destructing or damaging.
To sum up, I would like to say that destruction of historic buildings is inevitable process unless they were made valuable for local people and protected by the law.
Final
Many historic places and buildings are being destroyed or damaged.
What do you think the reasons are?
What can be done about it?
Give your opinion and relevant examples.
Taller Buddha (one of The Buddhas of Bamiyan) in 1963 and in 2008 after destruction.
Many historic buildings and monuments are being destroyed or damaged nowadays. At the same time, ISIL are destroying temples of Palmyra and a building company is making one of the historic houses of Yekaterinburg's centre collapse for the purpose of building a mall in this place. Can these actions in different countries be related to each other? I believe so. I think that the main reasons for both actions are a subjective meaning of the term 'historic object' and a doubtful value of the historic objects for people.
I suppose that a subjective meaning of the term 'historic building' is a reason for historic building and monuments destruction because this term is not perfectly clear for people. At what moment should a building be considered as a historic object? It's a debatable question. As an old saying goes 'So many men, so many minds'.
Some people in Yekaterinburg are insisting on the reconstruction of The Red Colours Group monument which was disassembled and taken away three years ago.
For me, it was not a historic object at all because it was like a bunch of rusty flag-shaped metal sheets which stood in the very centre of the city and made it being ugly.
In my opinion, a historic object should be at least unique or have an aesthetic value.
As for a doubtful value of the historic objects, it should be noted that people have continually been destroying so-called historic objects throughout the history of mankind.
Romans ruined Carthage, Vandals burned Rome and crusaders sacked and looted Constantinople as well as Americans bombed up Dresden and Taliban blew up The Buddhas of Bamiyan. In every case, new-arrived people didn't appreciate buildings or monuments. As for the latter example, Taliban considered those objects offending their religion and traditions. At the same time, even Taliban have their own sacred places which they're taking care of. Generally speaking, it is supposed that something has a historical value if it is somehow connected with the past of the country or the religion. However, I believe that most people don't care much about the past, even if it is the past of their own country.
I think that one of the things that can make people take care of historic places and buildings is a financial gain. In fact, many historic monuments and building were restored because of a great tourists' interest. The Colosseum, Cathedrals of Brugge and Gent and even The Great Pyramids are among them. Other objects, for example, Eiffel Tower in Paris or The Little Mermaid statue in Copenhagen, were kept only because they are attracting tourists while many local people hate them. I believe that the only way to keep historic building is to connect them somehow with a tourism development program. Besides, it is very important to have the law protecting every historic object from destructing or damaging. To sum up, I would like to say that destruction of historic buildings is inevitable process unless they were made valuable for local people and protected by the law.
507 words
2.
Many historic buildings and monuments are being destroyed or damaged nowadays. At the same time, ISIL are destroying the temples of Palmyra and a building company is making one of the historic houses of Yekaterinburg's centre collapse for the purpose of building a mall in this place. Can these actions in different countries be related to each other? I believe so. I think that the main reasons for both actions are a subjective meaning of the term 'historic object' and a doubtful value of the historic objects for people.
I suppose that a subjective meaning of the term 'historic building' is a reason for historic building and monuments destruction because this term is not perfectly clear for people. At what moment should a building be considered as a historic object? It's a debatable question. As an old saying goes 'So many men, so many minds'.
Some people in Yekaterinburg are insisting on the reconstruction of The Red Colours Group monument which was disassembled and taken away three years ago.
For me, it was not a historic object at all because it was like a bunch of rusty flag-shaped metal sheets which stood in the very centre of the city and made it ugly.
In my opinion, a historic object should be at least unique or have an aesthetic value.
As for a doubtful value of the historic objects, it should be noted that people have continually been destroying so-called historic objects throughout the history of mankind.
Romans ruined Carthage, Vandals burned Rome and crusaders sacked and looted Constantinople as well as Americans bombed up Dresden and Taliban blew up The Buddhas of Bamiyan. In every case, newly-arrived people didn't appreciate buildings or monuments. As for the latter example, Taliban considered those objects offending their religion and traditions. At the same time, even Taliban have their own sacred places which they're taking care of. Generally speaking, it is supposed that something has a historical value if it is somehow connected with the past of the country or the religion. However, I believe that most people don't care much about the past, even if it is the past of their own country.
I think that one of the things that can make people take care of historic places and buildings is a financial gain. In fact, many historic monuments and building were restored because of a great tourists' interest. The Colosseum, Cathedrals of Brugge and Gent and even The Great Pyramids are among them. Other objects, for example, Eiffel Tower in Paris or The Little Mermaid statue in Copenhagen, were kept only because they are attracting tourists while many local people hate them. I believe that the only way to keep a historic building is to connect it somehow with a tourism development program. Besides, it is very important to have the law protecting every historic object from destructing or damaging. To sum up, I would like to say that destruction of historic buildings is inevitable process unless they have been made valuable for local people and protected by the law.
shouldn't be more than 250 words
ISIL are destroying the temples of Palmyra - find a synonim for to destroy
and made it be ugly.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse