Do you want to improve your writing? Try our new evaluation service and get detailed feedback.
Check Your Text it's free

Every police officer should carry a gun whenever he or she is working; police officers need to be armed to protect themselves and the public from violent criminals. The benefits of having an armed police force far outweigh the disadvantages. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Since year 2014 till present, the relationship between the police and public has deteriorated, and conflicts are becoming increasingly serious. The police is facing new challenges, higher risks and unprecedented situations, but there are also cases of abuse of force. In my opinion, the police should be equipped with the pistol for self-protection and not more. First of all, before the 90s, we did hear about bank robberies and kidnappings, so there was a demand for greater arm force to handle these dangerous criminals. As of recent years these kind of crimes are rarely occur due to the improvement of the public security. The police is almost lost the reason in using of firearm. Secondly, there are records showing that the police used unauthorized force against unarmed persons. The public granted permission in gatherings and organized large-scale protests, because they disagreed with the new law announced by the government. The police did not notify the people and dispersed them with guns pointing to their head. Thirdly, the Police General Rules listed clearly conditions for usage of force, but there are still polices abused usage of guns and caused injury to public. There was a young protester was unarmed and no aggressive actions, a traffic police fired a shot at him without warning. In addition, a police shoot a female protester using an anti-riot gun, and caused her left eye be blind. In conclusion, the police is authorized with more force but inappropriately usage will caused very serious losses to the public. I believe the degree of weapon usage for the police should strictly maintain for protection purposes.
Since year 2014 till present, the relationship between the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
police
and
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
public
has deteriorated, and conflicts are becoming
increasingly
serious. The
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
police
is facing new challenges, higher
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
risks
and unprecedented situations,
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:
but
there are
also
cases of abuse of
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
force
. In my opinion, the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
police
should
be equipped
with the pistol for self-protection and not more.

Often, this adverbial phrase is redundant. Consider using “first”.
First of all
,
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:
before
the 90s, we did hear about bank robberies and kidnappings,
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:
so
there was a demand for greater arm
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
force
to handle these
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:
dangerous
criminals.
“As” at the beginning of a sentence usually requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
As
of recent years
‘These’ does not seem to match the singular noun ‘kind’. Did you mean “this kind” or “these kinds”?
these kind
of crimes are rarely occur due to the improvement of the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
public
security. The
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
police
is almost lost the reason in using of firearm.

Secondly
, there are records showing that the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
police
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
used
unauthorized
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
force
against unarmed persons. The
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
public
granted permission in gatherings and organized large-scale protests,
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:
because
they disagreed with the new law announced by the
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
government
. The
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
police
did not notify the
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
people
and dispersed them with guns pointing to their head.

Thirdly
, the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
Police
General
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
Rules
listed
clearly
conditions for
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
usage
of
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
force
,
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:
but
there are
still
polices abused
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
usage
of guns and caused injury to
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
public
. There was a young protester
was unarmed
and no aggressive actions, a traffic
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
police
fired a shot at him without warning.
In addition
, a
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
police
shoot a female protester using an anti-riot gun, and caused her
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
left
eye be blind.

In conclusion
, the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
police
is authorized
with more
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
force
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:
but
inappropriately
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
usage
will
The modal verb ‘will’ requires the verb’s base form.
caused
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:
very
serious losses to the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
public
. I believe the degree of weapon
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
usage
for the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
police
should
strictly
maintain for protection purposes.
What do you think?
  • This is funny writingFunny
  • I love this writingLove
  • This writing has blown my mindWow
  • It made me angryAngry
  • It made me sadSad

IELTS essay Every police officer should carry a gun whenever he or she is working; police officers need to be armed to protect themselves and the public from violent criminals. The benefits of having an armed police force far outweigh the disadvantages. with this opinion?

Essay
  American English
5 paragraphs
267 words
6.0
Overall Band Score
Coherence and Cohesion: 6.0
  • Structure your answers in logical paragraphs
  • ?
    One main idea per paragraph
  • Include an introduction and conclusion
  • Support main points with an explanation and then an example
  • Use cohesive linking words accurately and appropriately
  • Vary your linking phrases using synonyms
Lexical Resource: 5.5
  • Try to vary your vocabulary using accurate synonyms
  • Use less common question specific words that accurately convey meaning
  • Check your work for spelling and word formation mistakes
Grammatical Range: 6.5
  • Use a variety of complex and simple sentences
  • Check your writing for errors
Task Achievement: 5.0
  • Answer all parts of the question
  • ?
    Present relevant ideas
  • Fully explain these ideas
  • Support ideas with relevant, specific examples
Labels Descriptions
  • ?
    Currently is not available
  • Meet the criteria
  • Doesn't meet the criteria
Recent posts