Suggested version:

As of late, fewer young people are applying for science-major programs worldwide. This hesitation can largely be attributed to the rapidly evolving nature of science and the allure of easier career paths. If this trend is to continue, it may have profound implications, including a slowdown in global progress and a potential regression into a less rational era.

Two main reasons explain the unwillingness to study sciences. Initially, as science develops at an unprecedented rate, potential applicants may feel intimidated by the complexity and rigor of science-based majors. Given the intricacy of scientific theory and practice, as well as the demanding qualifications required, it is no wonder why there are so few candidates for science programs. Furthermore, young people today often gravitate towards seemingly easier and more lucrative alternatives, such as blogging, streaming, or launching start-up ventures. These options are perceived as "no-brainer" ways to achieve financial success, making science an unattractive choice in comparison.

These reasons in mind, the decline in science graduates poses significant risks to societal progress. First, science acts as the engine of development, driving revolutionary breakthroughs in fields such as healthcare, technology, and environmental sustainability. A shortage of science specialists may consequently trigger a "progress crisis," hindering humanity’s ability to innovate and address global challenges. Moreover, future generations risk falling into a "digital dark age," where the lack of individuals capable of rationalizing and logically approaching natural phenomena could lead to stagnation or even regression in scientific understanding.

To conclude, while potential scientists increasingly choose the path of least resistance, the consequences of this trend could reverberate for generations. A comprehensive, step-by-step teaching approach to STEM subjects, coupled with attractive financial and professional incentives, could begin reversing this trend. Paradoxical as it may seem, advancing science is essential to advancing humanity.

It is never easy when it comes to Adxambek's writing. Here is my humble analysis:

Task Response: Band 8.0
You address all parts of the task effectively, presenting clear and well-developed ideas on both the causes and the effects of the trend. Your ideas are relevant, and you provide logical explanations with some examples, such as cancer research. However, your conclusion, while concise, does not explore potential solutions or ways to mitigate the issue, which could add depth to your argument.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 8.0
Your essay is well-structured, with clear paragraphs that follow a logical progression. Cohesive devices are used effectively, such as "this means," "another reason," and "secondly." However, some transitions could be smoother, particularly between paragraphs, to enhance the overall flow. Additionally, there is slight repetition in sentence structures, which impacts variety.

Lexical Resource: Band 8.0
You demonstrate a wide range of vocabulary with precise and accurate word choices, such as "perceived difficulty," "breakthroughs," and "foundation block." Your use of academic language is strong, but further variation in synonyms for commonly repeated words, such as "science," would enrich your essay. There is some room to incorporate more advanced collocations or idiomatic expressions.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 8.0
Your grammar is consistently accurate, with a variety of sentence structures that include complex and compound forms. Phrases such as "Even though scientists have not developed a cure for it, they have found a way to slow it down" showcase your ability to use subordinating clauses effectively. However, there are minor issues with articles and verb forms, such as "people’s limited understanding" (instead of "the people’s") and "cause innovation becoming rare" (should be "cause innovation to become rare").

Overall Band: 8.0
Your essay is a strong response to the task with clear organization, advanced vocabulary, and a good range of grammar.

To achieve a Band 9.0:
- Add more diverse and specific examples to support your arguments.
- Ensure smoother transitions between paragraphs.
- Address minor grammatical issues and incorporate more varied lexical choices.

To be fair, this seems like a solid 8.5 to me. I kid you not. TR and LR sections are both band 9.0 contenders, but at this point, no critical mistakes - they are all pesky little details and nuances, which high-level writing is all about. However, since we are dealing with #writing and a lot of backdoor business remains mystery for us, I had to assess based on what we already know.

You know I had to pop in like this since you called me in the comments like that 😂

I want to reflect on writing. As you can see, one more nine in task 2 could give me a writing 8.5, which would be tremendous.

And that six in TA is because I had too many details, I’ve realized that!

Qizig’i, comment yozayotganlani o’zini ko’pchiligi criticize qib yozayapti, ingliz tilisini o’qib ko’rsa max upper-intermediate ligini ko’rsa bo’ladi. Qani logic qayerda, kimdir aytibdi 15+ % of the words are mispronounced deb, oxirida Bekzod akani o’zi bitta so’z xato talaffuz qilingan deb pronunciation ga 9 mas, 8 qo’ygan. And so forth..

Logic!! I wish some learnt to use it! ??

This is from before my latest exam when I scored an 8.5 for speaking. I had the chance to take a mock test with Bekzod Mirahmedov at the time and didn’t want to miss it.

However, there were hurdles to overcome, I was feeling terrible, like terrible as I was suffering from food poisoning, a high temperature and migraines. Still, that was my chance to get assessment for my speaking, so I went anyway, barely able to get up from bed. Maybe, that’s why I used words like ‘basically’ a lot(which I normally don’t use).

I hope you enjoy watching!

The table compares the annual salaries of secondary school teachers in five different countries in 2009.

Overall, Luxembourg pays by far the most money to secondary school teachers. Furthermore, while Austrlia and Denmark increased teachers' salaries to the top in a relatively short period but to a smaller amount, the starting and top salaries in Korea and Japan had a big margin which meant a lot of potential for teachers, but they were achieved in the longest times among all countries.

The salaries given to secondary school teachers in Luxemburg were the most significant among the countries studied. The starting salary in Luxembourg was 80 thousand dollars, which could go up to 112 thousand dollars in 15 years. However, the highest possible salary for teachers was 139 thousand dollars which could be achieved in 30 years of teaching.

In Australia and Denmark, the gap between the minimum and the maximum salaries was comparatively low. Teachers in Australia earned 34 600 dollars in their starting year, and the possible increase in their salaries was by just under 14 000 dollars, reaching 48 000 dollars which was the maximum, reached in just nine years. The salaries in Denmark were marginally higher, as the starting was 47 000 dollars, which could possibly go up to 54 000 dollars in 8 years.

Regarding the two East Asian countries(Korea and Japan), the potential increase in salary was very high, despite the long time it took. In Korea, the beginning point of the salary stood at 30 500 dollars, which could rise to 52,6 thousand dollars in 15 years. The total increase in 37 years, which was the longest time taken to the top salary, was from 30,5 to 84,5 thousand, marking a 54-thousand-dollar increase. Japan showed smaller numbers, with the starting point at 28 thousand dollars and increasing to 62,4 thousand in 34 years of work.

311 words.
#classwork #task1

something to cheer you up!

Assalomu alaykum everyone! After a long list of thoughts, I decided not to post anything negative.

But rather, I wish you a good and productive Sunday!