The threat of nuclear weapons maintains world peace. Nuclear power provides cheap and clean energy.
The benefits of nuclear energy overweigh the disadvantages.
Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer.
While the lethal power of nuclear weapons has long been a threat to humankind and the union between countries. Many argue that it is a green alternative energy source with lower cost and this merit outweighs the downside. Despite its potential merit, I disagree with the latter idea and believe that the downsides are much more significant.
Many people believe that atomic energy has the potential to be the leading source of energy. The colossal environmental cost of fossil fuels has led to nuclear energy, a type of power that is both eco-friendly and inexhaustible. In fact, the developed nations nowadays all have their own nuclear factories to provide electricity and they have substantially helped further the modern industries, bringing about a prosperous economy. However, looking at its deadly nature once leaked out to the environment, all of that thriving scenarios pale into insignificance. Take the Chernobyl power plant's radiation leak as an example. The city in which this factory is located is now a ghost town. The radio destroyed everything and rendered the area surrounding the power station uninhabitable for potentially thousands of years.
Further, the fact that many powerhouses in the world possess the secret of nuclear power poses such a threat to global peace. No one knows at any time in the future, a third world war will explode. If it is the case, the elimination of nuclear power now may be of utmost importance as battles using nuclear war will claim not only thousands of lives but hundreds of millions of people. In addition, nuclear weapons can possibly fall into the wrong hands in the black market. Thus, its existence has never ceased to be a danger.
In conclusion, while there is no denying that nuclear is cleaner, more powerful, and cheaper than non-renewable sources of energy, its benefit is all eclipsed by the potential threat. If no drastic steps are made to eradicate this type of weapon, human existence will be jeopardised.Holt Educational Consultant - / 14,801 
4780 The writer will do good to remember that there is a 40 minute time limit on the writing, editing, and finalization of this essay response. As such, he should not be writing 327 words as an explanation for his opinion. Due to the additional review work needed to increase the scores per section, he should write only 300 words. Use a timer next time, follow the outlined writing tasks to learn exactly how long it will take you write the correct number of words. The ideal scoring length is 275 - 280 words.
While the prompt restatement and writer's opinion are well presented in this work, the writer fails to apply the same writing accuracy in his reasoning paragraphs. For starters, he should have known that atomic energy cannot be mistaken for nuclear energy. These are 2 different energy sources and cannot be used interchangeably nor as synonyms for one another. This is the biggest vocabulary error in this essay since it alters the source topic and will lead to discussion confusion for the reader/examiner.
Another issue is that the writer provided a non-required opinion about the state of mankind in relation to nuclear energy. This is considered a topic deviation that has resulted in an open ended essay. As the essay now lacks a proper concluding summary, it may receive a failing score for not being completed / formatted based on the required writing format.
As far as thinking in English goes, the writer has the ability to think straight using the English language. However, he also tends to lose track of the correct discussion focus for the essay. This is a problem that could lead to further deviant essay discussions in the future. He should always double check his writing against the original prompt to prevent this.
