16. Some people believe that the transportation of products and people are the main source of pollution and the government should be in charge of this. While others believe that there are some other causes and it is the fault of individuals. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Opinions varied as to whether pollution resulting from means of transportation or from human activities can be prevented by the government or by individuals. In my opinion, I agree with the latter opinion as some following compelling reasons will be included in this essay.

On one hand, I agree that using vehicles may do damage to the environment and the government should be in charge of tackling this problem. To begin with, there are numerous environmental issues brought about by vehicles. For instance, not only may exhaust which is discharged by means of transportation but unintended sounds from vehicles' engines also lead to pollution, more specifically is air and noise pollution as a result. Therefore, it is high time that governments took measures such as providing people with incentives to travel around by public rather than private transportations to address such pollution.

However, to me when mentioning pollution , there are several types of it for example water contamination or soil and sea pollution that cannot result from vehicles’ exhaust. By which, vehicles should not be blamed to be the sole driving force behind all environmental problems. Instead there are some other culprits that may cause those issues such as individuals’ carbon footprints and unsustainable living lifestyles indicating that we should hold each citizen accountable for finding solutions.This is because emissions that are released by humans through breathing or daily activities like the use of plastic goods without doubt have damaging impacts on the planet. Therefore, only by creating positive changes on the individual level can we wrestle with one of the most pressing concerns of all time – pollution.

In conclusion, it is true that transportation may have negative effects on the environment and governments should be responsible to curb such influences. However, besides vehicles , pollution ought to be attributed to human activities as well and all citizens should be equally responsible for preventing it.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"Opinions varied as to whether" -> "Opinions differ regarding whether"
Explanation: "Differ regarding" is a more precise and formal way to express variation in opinions, enhancing the academic tone of the sentence.
"some following compelling reasons will be included in this essay" -> "the following compelling reasons will be discussed in this essay"
Explanation: "The following compelling reasons will be discussed" is more direct and formal, improving the clarity and flow of the sentence.
"using vehicles may do damage" -> "the use of vehicles may cause damage"
Explanation: "The use of vehicles may cause damage" is more precise and formal, aligning better with academic style by specifying the subject and action.
"not only may exhaust which is discharged" -> "not only does the exhaust discharged"
Explanation: "Does the exhaust discharged" corrects the grammatical structure and clarifies the meaning, making it more precise and formal.
"unintended sounds from vehicles’ engines also lead to pollution, more specifically is air and noise pollution as a result" -> "unintended sounds from vehicle engines also contribute to air and noise pollution"
Explanation: Simplifying and rephrasing this section improves clarity and removes redundancy, enhancing the formal tone.
"it is high time that governments took measures" -> "it is imperative that governments implement measures"
Explanation: "It is imperative that governments implement measures" uses more formal language and emphasizes the necessity of action, which is more suitable for an academic context.
"to travel around by public rather than private transportations" -> "to use public transportation rather than private vehicles"
Explanation: "Use public transportation rather than private vehicles" is more precise and avoids the awkward construction of "travel around by public transportations."
"to me when mentioning pollution" -> "to me, when discussing pollution"
Explanation: Adding a comma after "to me" corrects the grammatical structure, and "discussing" is more formal than "mentioning" in this context.
"there are several types of it for example" -> "there are several types, such as"
Explanation: "Such as" is more formal and appropriate for academic writing than "for example," which is somewhat informal and vague.
"cannot result from vehicles’ exhaust" -> "cannot be solely attributed to vehicle exhaust"
Explanation: "Cannot be solely attributed to vehicle exhaust" is more precise and formal, emphasizing the exclusivity of the cause.
"Instead there are some other culprits that may cause those issues" -> "Instead, other factors may contribute to these issues"
Explanation: "Other factors may contribute to these issues" is more formal and avoids the colloquial tone of "culprits," which is inappropriate in academic writing.
"individually accountable for finding solutions" -> "individually responsible for addressing these issues"
Explanation: "Individually responsible for addressing these issues" is more specific and formal, fitting the academic style better than "finding solutions," which is vague.
"only by creating positive changes on the individual level can we wrestle with one of the most pressing concerns of all time – pollution" -> "only through individual actions can we effectively address one of the most pressing concerns of our time: pollution"
Explanation: "Through individual actions can we effectively address" is more formal and precise, and "our time" is more appropriate than "all time," which is overly broad and informal.
"besides vehicles, pollution ought to be attributed to human activities as well and all citizens should be equally responsible for preventing it" -> "besides vehicle emissions, pollution should also be attributed to human activities, and all citizens should be equally responsible for mitigating it"
Explanation: "Vehicle emissions" is a more specific term than "vehicles," and "mitigating" is more precise and formal than "preventing," which is somewhat simplistic and broad.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Task Response: 7

Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively addresses both views regarding the sources of pollution and the responsibility for mitigating it. The first part discusses the role of transportation in pollution, highlighting the government’s responsibility to address this issue. The second part acknowledges other causes of pollution, emphasizing individual accountability. However, while both perspectives are presented, the discussion could be more balanced, as the first view is somewhat more developed than the second.
- How to improve: To enhance the balance between the two views, the writer could provide more detailed examples and arguments for the perspective that emphasizes individual responsibility. This could include specific actions individuals can take to reduce pollution and a more thorough exploration of how these actions can complement government efforts.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The writer states their position clearly in the introduction and maintains it throughout the essay, favoring individual responsibility over government intervention. However, the phrase "I agree with the latter opinion" could be clearer if it explicitly stated that the writer believes individuals bear significant responsibility for pollution. Additionally, the conclusion reiterates this position but could be more assertive in stating the writer’s stance.
- How to improve: To maintain a clearer position, the writer should explicitly state their viewpoint in both the introduction and conclusion. Using phrases like "I firmly believe" or "It is my conviction that" can strengthen the clarity of the position. Additionally, ensuring that each paragraph ties back to this central argument will help reinforce the writer’s stance.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents several ideas regarding pollution from transportation and individual actions. The first paragraph provides a good example of how transportation contributes to pollution, while the second paragraph discusses various types of pollution caused by individual actions. However, some ideas lack depth and could benefit from further elaboration. For instance, the mention of "individuals’ carbon footprints" could be expanded with specific examples of how individuals contribute to pollution.
- How to improve: To strengthen the support for ideas, the writer should aim to provide more specific examples and data. For instance, citing statistics on pollution levels from transportation versus individual activities would enhance the argument. Additionally, discussing potential solutions or successful initiatives that individuals can adopt would provide a more robust support for the claims made.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, focusing on pollution sources and the responsibilities of government and individuals. However, there are moments where the discussion could be more focused. For example, the mention of "unintended sounds from vehicles’ engines" may be seen as a minor point that detracts from the main argument about air pollution and individual responsibility.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer should prioritize the most relevant points that directly address the prompt. Avoiding tangential details and ensuring that each point made directly supports the main argument will help keep the essay on topic. A clear outline before writing can also assist in maintaining focus on the central themes of the essay.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 7

Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear structure, beginning with an introduction that outlines the topic and the writer’s stance. Each paragraph addresses a specific viewpoint, with the first focusing on the role of transportation in pollution and the second emphasizing individual responsibility. However, the transition between ideas could be smoother. For example, the shift from discussing government responsibility to individual accountability lacks a clear linking sentence, which can disrupt the logical flow.
- How to improve: To enhance logical organization, consider using clearer topic sentences that explicitly state the main idea of each paragraph. Additionally, incorporating transitional phrases (e.g., "On the other hand," "Conversely," "In contrast") at the beginning of paragraphs can help guide the reader through the argument more effectively.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay utilizes paragraphs effectively to separate different ideas, which is crucial for clarity. Each paragraph contains a main idea and supporting details. However, the second paragraph is somewhat lengthy and could be broken down into smaller sections to improve readability. The conclusion effectively summarizes the main points but could benefit from a more definitive statement regarding the writer’s opinion.
- How to improve: Aim to keep paragraphs focused on a single idea or argument. If a paragraph becomes too long, consider splitting it into two to maintain clarity and focus. Additionally, ensure that the conclusion not only summarizes but also reinforces the writer’s opinion more assertively, possibly by restating the main argument in a more impactful way.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a reasonable use of cohesive devices, such as "however," "to begin with," and "therefore," which help connect ideas within and between paragraphs. However, the range of cohesive devices is somewhat limited, and some phrases are used repetitively. For instance, "therefore" appears multiple times, which can make the writing feel monotonous.
- How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, consider incorporating a wider variety of linking words and phrases, such as "furthermore," "in addition," "consequently," and "for instance." This will not only enhance the flow of the essay but also demonstrate a more sophisticated command of language. Additionally, varying sentence structures can help maintain reader interest and improve overall cohesion.

By addressing these areas for improvement, the essay can achieve a higher level of coherence and cohesion, potentially raising the band score in this criterion.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Lexical Resource: 6

Use a Wide Range of Vocabulary:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a reasonable range of vocabulary, with terms like "pollution," "environmental issues," "incentives," and "culprits." However, the vocabulary used is somewhat repetitive and lacks variation. For instance, the term "pollution" appears multiple times without synonyms or related terms, which could enhance the richness of the language. Phrases like "vehicles may do damage" could be replaced with more varied expressions such as "vehicles contribute significantly to environmental degradation."
- How to improve: To enhance vocabulary range, the writer should incorporate synonyms and related terms. For example, instead of repeatedly using "pollution," they could use "contamination," "degradation," or "environmental harm." Additionally, employing more sophisticated phrases such as "environmental sustainability" or "ecological footprint" would demonstrate a broader lexical resource.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains instances of imprecise vocabulary usage. For example, the phrase "unintended sounds from vehicles’ engines" could be more accurately described as "noise pollution caused by vehicular traffic." Additionally, the expression "vehicles should not be blamed to be the sole driving force" is awkward and could be more clearly articulated as "vehicles should not be solely blamed for environmental issues."
- How to improve: To improve precision, the writer should focus on using vocabulary that accurately conveys their intended meaning. This can be achieved by revising awkward phrases for clarity and ensuring that the chosen words fit the context. For example, replacing "culprits" with "factors" or "contributors" when discussing pollution sources would enhance clarity.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally displays good spelling, with no major errors that impede understanding. However, there are minor issues, such as the phrase "transportations," which should be singular as "transport." Additionally, the spacing in "pollution ," should be corrected to remove the unnecessary space before the comma.
- How to improve: To enhance spelling accuracy, the writer should proofread their work carefully, paying attention to common spelling errors and ensuring that plural forms are used correctly. Utilizing spell-check tools and reading the essay aloud can also help identify and correct minor spelling mistakes.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of the topic and presents coherent arguments, focusing on expanding vocabulary range, improving precision in word choice, and ensuring spelling accuracy will help elevate the Lexical Resource score.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 7

Use a Wide Range of Structures:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a reasonable variety of sentence structures. For instance, the use of complex sentences is evident in phrases like "Opinions varied as to whether pollution resulting from means of transportation or from human activities can be prevented by the government or by individuals." This complexity adds depth to the argument. However, there are instances of repetitive structures, particularly in the second paragraph, where the phrase "to begin with" and "for instance" are used similarly. Additionally, the use of "there are" constructions is somewhat overused, which can make the writing feel less dynamic.
- How to improve: To diversify sentence structures, the writer could incorporate more varied introductory phrases and transition words. For example, instead of repeatedly starting sentences with "there are," the writer could use more engaging openings such as "One significant issue is…" or "Another factor to consider is…". Additionally, integrating more compound-complex sentences could enhance the complexity and fluidity of the writing.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay shows a good level of grammatical accuracy overall, but there are notable errors that detract from clarity. For example, the phrase "not only may exhaust which is discharged by means of transportation but unintended sounds from vehicles’ engines also lead to pollution" is awkwardly constructed and could be clearer. The use of commas is inconsistent, particularly in the phrase "to me when mentioning pollution , there are several types of it for example water contamination or soil and sea pollution that cannot result from vehicles’ exhaust," where a comma should follow "pollution" and before "for example." Additionally, the phrase "vehicles should not be blamed to be the sole driving force" is grammatically incorrect; it should be "vehicles should not be blamed as the sole driving force."
- How to improve: To enhance grammatical accuracy, the writer should focus on sentence clarity and punctuation rules. Practicing the correct placement of commas, especially in complex sentences, will improve readability. Furthermore, reviewing subject-verb agreement and ensuring that verbs are used correctly in context will help eliminate awkward constructions. Reading the essay aloud can also assist in identifying areas where the flow is disrupted by grammatical errors.

In summary, while the essay achieves a Band 7 for Grammatical Range and Accuracy, there is room for improvement in diversifying sentence structures and enhancing grammatical precision. By focusing on these areas, the writer can elevate their writing to a higher band score.

Bài sửa mẫu

Opinions differ regarding whether pollution resulting from means of transportation or from human activities can be prevented by the government or by individuals. In my opinion, I agree with the latter view, as the following compelling reasons will be discussed in this essay.

On one hand, I acknowledge that using vehicles may cause damage to the environment and that the government should be in charge of tackling this problem. To begin with, there are numerous environmental issues brought about by vehicles. For instance, not only does the exhaust discharged by means of transportation contribute to pollution, but unintended sounds from vehicle engines also lead to air and noise pollution as a result. Therefore, it is high time that governments took measures such as providing people with incentives to use public transportation rather than private vehicles to address such pollution.

However, when discussing pollution, there are several types, such as water contamination or soil and sea pollution, that cannot be solely attributed to vehicle exhaust. Vehicles should not be blamed as the sole driving force behind all environmental problems. Instead, other factors may contribute to these issues, such as individuals’ carbon footprints and unsustainable lifestyles, indicating that we should hold each citizen accountable for finding solutions. This is because emissions released by humans through breathing or daily activities, like the use of plastic goods, undoubtedly have damaging impacts on the planet. Therefore, only through individual actions can we effectively address one of the most pressing concerns of our time: pollution.

In conclusion, it is true that transportation may have negative effects on the environment and that governments should be responsible for curbing such influences. However, besides vehicle emissions, pollution should also be attributed to human activities, and all citizens should be equally responsible for mitigating it.