The opening paraphrase is missing one reference. Since there are 2 reference points in the original prompt, the interpretation should also include 2 sentences restating each public opinion. The third sentence reference should be the writer's opinion in support or against one of the 2 idea presentations. As such, the first paragraph has not met the appropriate task accuracy requirements even as it does present an acceptable writer's opinion. It is a bit confusing due to the missing opinion.
Now, the first opinion explanation is on point in its discussion. It is strong in reference and actually shows the writer can think logically in the English language. The problem, is that the same cannot be said for the second opinion explanation. I was confused as to what was meant by
should delightfully take the blame for paying taxes to support public schools.
Why should they be happy to take the blame? The blame for what? I believe that the writer was a bit confused by his transliteration from Vietnamese to English in this case. Did he perhaps mean "...should delightfully pay for taxes to support public schools" ? That statement type would seem to better align itself with the rest of the paragraph. This lack of clarity in the paragraph could very well garner failing preliminary scores in the GRA and C+C sections.
40 words is the minimum word requirement for the concluding summary. It should be composed of at least 2 sentences as well and function in reverse paraphrase mode. Since the writer did not achieve that in the concluding statement, that paragraph will have to be given a failing score as well.