TASK 2 (AGREE OR DISAGREE): HOUSING SHORTAGES
Topic: Only government can solve housing shortages in big cities. Agree/disagree?
Sample Answer (Viết canh giờ 35 phút)
In recent years, the relentless growth of world population numbers has resulted in housing deficiencies worldwide, thus exacerbating urban sprawling, poverty, and other societal issues. Whether this crises can only be addressed through governmental efforts has remained a contentious topic. Despite valid defenses supporting the role of the private sector in this issue, I concede that only governments can derive a comprehensive solution.
Those arguing against the primacy of governments in addressing issues related to the dearth of housing may rightly cite the private sector’s financial capacity. These proponents contend that most private companies have amassed substantial profits from their entrepreneurial endeavors and therefore tend to be more economically abundant than governmental institutions, which mostly generate revenue through taxpayer funding. Additionally, private enterprises are not bound by responsibilities to safeguard public security and individual well-being, which encompass allocations to areas such as education, healthcare, and transportation. Consequently, this places these companies in superior positions than governments to fund housing projects catering to the masses. A salient example is Vingroup, a conglomerate in Vietnam, who has, over recent decades, prioritised expenditures on the construction of houses across the country, thereby contributing to the provision of housing for members of the public.
However, it is logical to claim that all businesses are motivated by profits and governmental authorities are the only entities who could provide ultimate solutions to this housing crisis. In the aforementioned example, developers such as Vingroup tend to be driven by enormous profit margins from land accumulation and property sales at prohibitive prices rather than public interests. Such an impetus has prompted them to build projects across the country, inflating property prices, making it increasingly difficult for the average person to afford housing, and further exacerbating social inequality. By contrast, governments are tasked with safeguarding public well-being and equality. Under this rationale, governmental entities can enact laws to not only regulate disproportionate land acquisition and property inflation in the real estate market, but also ease property laws and reserve lands for residential housing construction. Furthermore, governments can also allocate national funding to upgrade urban infrastructure to accommodate growing population densities in global metropolises. They can also provide incentives for vertical construction, with a goal of building increased numbers of high rises to cater to the growing city population figures. These policies, for instance, have been put into practice in major cities, including Hong Kong, New York, and Tokyo, providing housing for millions of people and partly eradicating poverty in these metropolitan areas.
In conclusion, while private companies have the financial means to resolve the housing crisis concerning shortages, they are largely driven by profits, leading to unintended consequences. Governments, however, are responsible for their citizens and thus can impose policies on multiple levels: development, planning, and infrastructure development to incentivise developers and the entire construction industry. On balance, both parties should work in tandem to effectively and thoroughly solve worldwide housing shortages.
Marking by Chat GPT Plus
Sửa lỗi Grammar sau khi viết
Topic: Only government can solve housing shortages in big cities. Agree/disagree?
In recent years, the relentless growth of the world population numbers has resulted in housing deficiencies worldwide, thus exacerbating urban sprawling sprawl, poverty, and other societal issues. Whether this crises can only be addressed through governmental efforts has remained a contentious topic. Despite valid defenses defences (viết theo kiểu Anh – Anh) supporting the role of the private sector in this issue, I concede that only governments can derive a comprehensive solution.
Those arguing against the primacy of governments in addressing issues related to the dearth of housing may rightly cite the private sector’s financial capacity. These proponents contend that most private companies have amassed substantial profits from their entrepreneurial endeavors and therefore tend to be more economically abundant than governmental institutions, which mostly generate revenue through taxpayer funding. Additionally, private enterprises are not bound by responsibilities to safeguard public security and individual well-being, which encompass allocations to areas such as education, healthcare, and transportation. Consequently, this places these companies in a superior positions than to governments to fund housing projects catering to the masses. A salient example is Vingroup, a conglomerate in Vietnam, who which has, over recent decades, prioritised expenditures on the construction of houses across the country, thereby contributing to the provision of housing for members of the public.
However, it is logical to claim that all businesses are motivated by profits and that governmental authorities are the only entities who could can provide ultimate solutions to this housing crisis. In the aforementioned example, developers such as Vingroup tend to be driven by enormous profit margins from land accumulation and property sales at prohibitive prices rather than by public interests. Such an impetus has prompted them to build projects across the country, inflating property prices, making it increasingly difficult for the average person to afford housing, and further exacerbating social inequality. By contrast, governments are tasked with safeguarding public well-being and equality. Under this rationale, governmental entities can enact laws to not only to regulate disproportionate land acquisition and property inflation in the real estate market, but also ease property laws and reserve lands for residential housing construction. Furthermore, governments can also allocate national funding to upgrade urban infrastructure to accommodate growing population densities in global metropolises. They can also provide incentives for vertical construction, with a goal of building increased numbers of high rises to cater to the growing city population figures. These policies, for instance, have been put into practice in major cities, including Hong Kong, New York, and Tokyo, providing housing for millions of people and partly eradicating poverty in these metropolitan areas.
In conclusion, while private companies have the financial means to resolve the housing crisis concerning shortages, they are largely driven by profits, leading to unintended consequences. Governments, however, are responsible for their citizens and thus can impose policies on multiple levels: development, planning, and infrastructure development to incentivise developers and the entire construction industry. On balance, both parties should work in tandem to effectively and thoroughly solve worldwide housing shortages.
Tóm tắt lỗi Grammar
| Error Type | Example | Correction |
| Article usage | “this crises” | “this crisis” (singular noun) |
| Subject–verb agreement | “the world population numbers has resulted…” | “has resulted” (correct agreement) |
| Preposition error | “in superior positions than governments” | “in superior positions to governments” |
| Relative clause | “a conglomerate who has…” | “a conglomerate which has…” |
| Parallelism | “not only… but also…” | “not only to regulate… but also to ease…” |
| Verb clarity | “can also allocate national funding…” | “allocate” (no “also” redundancy in this case) |
| Word choice | “urban sprawling” | “urban sprawl” (correct noun phrase) |
Final Sample Answer:
Topic: Only government can solve housing shortages in big cities. Agree/disagree?
In recent years, the relentless growth of the world population has resulted in housing deficiencies worldwide, thus exacerbating urban sprawl, poverty, and other societal issues. Whether this crisis can only be addressed through governmental efforts has remained a contentious topic. Despite valid defences supporting the role of the private sector in this issue, I concede that only governments can derive a comprehensive solution.
Those arguing against the primacy of governments in addressing issues related to the dearth of housing may rightly cite the private sector’s financial capacity. These proponents contend that most private companies have amassed substantial profits from their entrepreneurial endeavors and therefore tend to be more economically abundant than governmental institutions, which mostly generate revenue through taxpayer funding. Additionally, private enterprises are not bound by responsibilities to safeguard public security and individual well-being, which encompass allocations to areas such as education, healthcare, and transportation. Consequently, this places these companies in a superior position to governments to fund housing projects catering to the masses. A salient example is Vingroup, a conglomerate in Vietnam, which has, over recent decades, prioritised expenditures on the construction of houses across the country, thereby contributing to the provision of housing for members of the public.
However, it is logical to claim that all businesses are motivated by profits, and governmental authorities are the only entities who can provide ultimate solutions to the housing crisis. In the aforementioned example, developers such as Vingroup tend to be driven by enormous profit margins from land accumulation and property sales at prohibitive prices rather than public interests. Such an impetus has prompted them to build projects across the country, inflating property prices, making it increasingly difficult for the average person to afford housing, and further exacerbating social inequality. By contrast, governments are tasked with safeguarding public well-being and equality. Under this rationale, governmental entities can enact laws not only to regulate disproportionate land acquisition and property inflation in the real estate market, but also to ease property laws and reserve lands for residential housing construction. Furthermore, governments can also allocate national funding to upgrade urban infrastructure to accommodate growing population densities in global metropolises. They can also provide incentives for vertical construction, with the goal of building increased numbers of high-rises to cater to the growing city population figures. These policies, for instance, have been put into practice in major cities, including Hong Kong, New York, and Tokyo, providing housing for millions of people and partly eradicating poverty in these metropolitan areas.
In conclusion, while private companies have the financial means to resolve the housing crisis, they are largely driven by profits, leading to unintended consequences. Governments, however, are responsible for their citizens and thus can impose policies on multiple levels: development, planning, and infrastructure development to incentivise developers and the entire construction industry. On balance, both parties should work in tandem to effectively and thoroughly solve worldwide housing shortages.
Vocabulary
| Vocabulary / Collocation | Vietnamese Translation |
| relentless growth | sự gia tăng không ngừng |
| housing deficiencies | tình trạng thiếu nhà ở |
| urban sprawl | sự đô thị hóa tràn lan |
| poverty | nghèo đói |
| societal issues | các vấn đề xã hội |
| governmental efforts | nỗ lực từ chính phủ |
| contentious topic | chủ đề gây tranh cãi |
| valid defences | lập luận hợp lý |
| derive a comprehensive solution | đưa ra giải pháp toàn diện |
| primacy of governments | vai trò hàng đầu của chính phủ |
| dearth of housing | sự thiếu hụt nhà ở |
| financial capacity | năng lực tài chính |
| amassed substantial profits | tích lũy lợi nhuận đáng kể |
| entrepreneurial endeavors | hoạt động kinh doanh |
| economically abundant | dư dả về kinh tế |
| safeguard public security | bảo vệ an ninh xã hội |
| individual well-being | phúc lợi cá nhân |
| superior position | vị trí vượt trội |
| catering to the masses | phục vụ đại chúng |
| salient example | ví dụ tiêu biểu |
| conglomerate | tập đoàn lớn |
| prioritised expenditures | ưu tiên chi tiêu |
| provision of housing | việc cung cấp chỗ ở |
| ultimate solutions | giải pháp cuối cùng/tối ưu |
| enormous profit margins | biên lợi nhuận khổng lồ |
| land accumulation | tích tụ đất đai |
| prohibitive prices | giá cả quá cao |
| impetus | động lực thúc đẩy |
| inflating property prices | đẩy giá bất động sản lên cao |
| average person | người dân bình thường |
| exacerbating social inequality | làm trầm trọng thêm bất bình đẳng xã hội |
| safeguarding public well-being | bảo vệ phúc lợi xã hội |
| equality | bình đẳng |
| enact laws | ban hành luật |
| regulate disproportionate land acquisition | kiểm soát việc thu mua đất không cân đối |
| property inflation | sự tăng giá bất động sản |
| real estate market | thị trường bất động sản |
| ease property laws | nới lỏng luật nhà đất |
| reserve lands | dành đất ra |
| residential housing construction | xây dựng nhà ở dân cư |
| allocate national funding | phân bổ ngân sách quốc gia |
| upgrade urban infrastructure | nâng cấp cơ sở hạ tầng đô thị |
| population densities | mật độ dân số |
| metropolises | các đô thị lớn |
| provide incentives for vertical construction | khuyến khích xây dựng nhà cao tầng |
| high-rises | tòa nhà cao tầng |
| put into practice | được áp dụng trong thực tế |
| eradicating poverty | xóa đói giảm nghèo |
| metropolitan areas | khu vực đô thị lớn |
| financial means | tiềm lực tài chính |
| housing crisis | khủng hoảng nhà ở |
| unintended consequences | hậu quả ngoài ý muốn |
| impose policies | áp dụng chính sách |
| infrastructure development | phát triển cơ sở hạ tầng |
| incentivise developers | tạo động lực cho nhà đầu tư |
| construction industry | ngành xây dựng |
| in tandem | phối hợp đồng bộ |
| effectively and thoroughly solve | giải quyết hiệu quả và triệt để |
Dàn ý
Bài viết của mình sẽ bao gồm 1 đoạn mở bài (introduction), 2 đoạn thân bài (body paragraph), và 1 đoạn kết bài (conclusion).
• Intro: Mình nêu rõ bối cảnh gia tăng dân số gây thiếu nhà ở, dẫn tới tranh luận về vai trò của chính phủ. Sau đó, mình nêu quan điểm: chính phủ là bên duy nhất có thể đưa ra giải pháp toàn diện.
• Body 1: Mình sẽ trình bày lập luận của phe phản đối quan điểm “chỉ chính phủ mới có thể giải quyết”, nhấn mạnh vai trò tài chính và khả năng triển khai của khu vực tư nhân.
• Body 2: Mình sẽ phản biện quan điểm trên, cho rằng chỉ chính phủ mới có thể đưa ra giải pháp toàn diện, với lập luận về trách nhiệm xã hội, quyền lực lập pháp, và giải pháp quy hoạch.
• Conclusion: Khẳng định lại rằng, dù doanh nghiệp có thể hỗ trợ phần nào, giải pháp toàn diện và lâu dài vẫn phải đến từ chính phủ, với sự phối hợp của cả hai bên.
Dàn ý cụ thể của 2 Body Paragraphs:
Body paragraph 1:
Phe cho rằng chính phủ không phải là bên duy nhất có thể giải quyết khủng hoảng nhà ở
• Lập luận 1: Khu vực tư nhân có năng lực tài chính vượt trội
→ Các tập đoàn lớn đã tích lũy lợi nhuận đáng kể → Có thể đầu tư xây dựng nhà ở quy mô lớn.
→ Ví dụ: Tập đoàn Vingroup ở Việt Nam xây nhà ở hàng loạt.
• Lập luận 2: Khu vực tư nhân không bị ràng buộc trách nhiệm công
→ Không cần chi cho giáo dục, y tế → Có thể tập trung toàn lực vào đầu tư nhà ở.
→ Lý giải: Tính linh hoạt và hiệu quả của doanh nghiệp tư nhân giúp đẩy nhanh tiến độ.
Body paragraph 2:
Phản biện: Chỉ chính phủ mới có thể đưa ra giải pháp toàn diện và công bằng
• Lập luận 1: Doanh nghiệp tư nhân bị chi phối bởi lợi nhuận
→ Tập trung vào người có khả năng chi trả → Đẩy giá bất động sản lên cao → Làm trầm trọng thêm bất bình đẳng.
→ Chỉ chính phủ mới có thể đảm bảo phúc lợi chung, bảo vệ người thu nhập thấp.
• Lập luận 2: Chính phủ có quyền lực và công cụ để kiểm soát thị trường
→ Ban hành luật kiểm soát thu mua đất, giá nhà, phân bổ đất cho nhà ở xã hội.
→ Triển khai các giải pháp quy hoạch đô thị: nhà ở xã hội, xây cao tầng, mở rộng hạ tầng đô thị.
→ Ví dụ: Chính sách nhà ở ở Hong Kong, Tokyo, New York.
Tủ Grammar
| Cấu Trúc / Grammar | Ví dụ áp dụng trong bài |
| It is + adj + for sb to do sth | It is essential for governments to regulate property speculation. |
| Cause and Effect (Câu nhân – quả) | Excessive private involvement may lead to inflated housing prices. |
| With + noun / V-ing (mở rộng câu) | With proper legislation, governments can ensure equitable housing distribution. |
| Instead of + V-ing | Instead of relying solely on the private sector, governments should play a leading role. |
| Subject + should be + V3 (bị động) | Housing construction should be regulated by public authorities. |
| Not only … but also … | Not only does the private sector have funding, but it also operates without social duty. |
| A better response would be to… | A better response would be to combine public oversight with private-sector efficiency. |
| Despite + noun/V-ing | Despite their resources, corporations are driven primarily by profit. |
| Participial phrase (phẩy + V-ing) | …thereby making housing increasingly inaccessible to low-income families. |
| Relative clause (who/which/where…) | Governments, which are accountable to the public, can implement more inclusive solutions. |
