Some people believe the government should spend money building train and subway lines to reduce traffic congestion. Others, however, think that building more and wider roads is a better way to reduce traffic congestion. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

There have been controversial arguments surrounding the issue of whether should spend money on building train and subway lines or building more and wider roads. While some people think that the government should spend more on building more and wider roads, I support the idea that should expenditure on establishing and expanding train and subway systems to diminish traffic jams.

On the one hand, building and expanding the road system is an effective solution to solve the problem of traffic congestion. Indeed, the population is increasing rapidly along with people having the habit of preferring to own their own vehicles, the widening of the road will give people more space to move to both sides. This makes transportation more convenient, reduces traffic congestion and is useful for some vehicles such as ambulances and fire trucks.

On the other hand, I believe that building train and subway lines will reduce traffic congestion. To begin with, using railways will be more convenient when transporting many people and not worrying about congestion because they have their own rail system. Besides, building a subway system or elevated railway, it helps expand the transportation system by taking advantage of underground and elevated space instead of just using it to build regular roads. More importantly, traveling by train will minimize traffic accidents, ensuring the safety of people's lives and property.

In conclusion, If there is enough funding, it is possible to develop both road and train systems. I support the view that priority should be given to investing in developing the train and subway lines system because of its benefits.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

Errors and Improvements:

"whether should spend money" -> "whether the government should allocate funds"
Explanation: Replacing "whether should spend money" with "whether the government should allocate funds" enhances formality and precision, clarifying the focus on government spending decisions.
"building more and wider roads" -> "expanding road infrastructure"
Explanation: Changing "building more and wider roads" to "expanding road infrastructure" maintains the formal tone and provides a more comprehensive description of the proposed action.
"While some people think that the government should spend more on building more and wider roads" -> "While some argue for increased government investment in expanding road infrastructure"
Explanation: The suggested change introduces a more nuanced and formal expression, avoiding the repetition of "more and wider roads."
"I support the idea that should expenditure on establishing and expanding train and subway systems" -> "I advocate allocating funds for the establishment and expansion of train and subway systems"
Explanation: The revised phrase enhances formality by using "advocate" and provides a clearer expression of supporting the allocation of funds.
"building and expanding the road system" -> "enhancing and expanding the road network"
Explanation: The substitution of "building and expanding the road system" with "enhancing and expanding the road network" elevates the vocabulary and provides a more sophisticated description.
"Indeed, the population is increasing rapidly along with people having the habit of preferring to own their own vehicles" -> "Indeed, the population is rapidly growing, and the trend of private vehicle ownership is prevalent"
Explanation: The suggested changes improve clarity and formality, offering a more precise description of the population growth and vehicle ownership habits.
"the widening of the road will give people more space to move to both sides" -> "road widening will provide additional space for lateral movement"
Explanation: The alteration maintains clarity while using more formal language to describe the benefits of road widening.
"This makes transportation more convenient" -> "This facilitates more convenient transportation"
Explanation: The revised phrase uses a more formal and precise term, enhancing the academic tone of the sentence.
"building more and wider roads, I support the idea that should expenditure on establishing and expanding train and subway systems" -> "building more and wider roads; instead, I support allocating funds for establishing and expanding train and subway systems"
Explanation: The suggested change improves sentence structure and clarity, avoiding a lengthy and complex construction.
"traveling by train will minimize traffic accidents" -> "train travel will mitigate traffic accidents"
Explanation: The replacement offers a more concise and formal expression without compromising clarity.
"If there is enough funding, it is possible to develop both road and train systems." -> "With sufficient funding, it is feasible to develop both road and train systems."
Explanation: The suggested change enhances formality and precision, providing a more refined expression of the conditional statement.
"I support the view that priority should be given to investing in developing the train and subway lines system" -> "I advocate prioritizing investment in the development of the train and subway systems"
Explanation: The revised phrase uses more formal language while maintaining clarity and emphasizing the prioritization of investment.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 8

Band Score for Task Response: 8

Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay adequately addresses both aspects of the prompt – building train and subway lines and building more and wider roads. It explores the advantages of each approach and clearly presents the author’s opinion on prioritizing train and subway lines. Relevant sections are cited to support the analysis.
- How to improve: While the essay covers both sides, a more nuanced discussion of the opposing view could strengthen the response. Providing additional examples or considering potential drawbacks of the chosen stance would enhance the depth of the argument.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear and consistent position in favor of investing in train and subway lines. Each paragraph reinforces this stance, and the author’s opinion is evident throughout the essay.
- How to improve: To further enhance clarity, consider explicitly stating the opinion in the introduction and conclusion. This can reinforce the position for readers who may skim or skip parts of the essay.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively presents ideas on both sides, extending arguments with examples. For instance, it explains the benefits of wider roads in reducing traffic congestion and provides reasons for supporting train and subway lines, including safety considerations.
- How to improve: To elevate the essay, consider providing more specific examples and evidence to support the advantages mentioned. This can add depth to the discussion and make the essay more compelling.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, discussing the two proposed solutions for reducing traffic congestion. However, there are minor deviations, such as the mention of the population increase. While related, it could be more directly tied to the issue of traffic congestion.
- How to improve: To maintain a tighter focus, ensure that every point made directly contributes to the discussion of whether the government should invest in building train and subway lines or more and wider roads. Avoid tangential details that do not significantly impact the central argument.

Overall Feedback:

The essay demonstrates a strong understanding of the prompt and effectively addresses the key elements. To improve, consider delving deeper into the opposing view, explicitly stating the position in the introduction and conclusion, providing more specific examples, and maintaining a laser focus on the topic throughout. This would elevate the essay, making it even more persuasive and well-rounded.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 7

Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally follows a logical structure, starting with an introduction that presents both views, followed by body paragraphs discussing each viewpoint in turn, and a clear conclusion. However, there are instances where the organization could be improved. For example, the introductory sentence is somewhat convoluted and could be rephrased for better clarity. Additionally, the connection between ideas in the body paragraphs could be smoother. The second paragraph starts abruptly with "On the one hand," without a clear transition from the previous paragraph.
- How to improve: Refine the introduction for better clarity and coherence. Ensure smooth transitions between paragraphs to enhance the overall logical flow of ideas.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay uses paragraphs effectively, with each paragraph focusing on a specific aspect of the argument. However, the second paragraph lacks a clear topic sentence, making it slightly challenging to discern the main point. A stronger topic sentence would improve the coherence of this paragraph. Additionally, the conclusion is concise but could be expanded slightly for a more comprehensive summary of the main points.
- How to improve: Provide a clear topic sentence for each paragraph to guide the reader. Consider expanding the conclusion to summarize key arguments without introducing new information.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay employs a reasonable range of cohesive devices, such as transition words and phrases ("On the one hand," "On the other hand," "In conclusion"). However, there is room for improvement in the variety and precision of cohesive devices used. Some transitions are predictable, and a more diverse range would enhance the overall cohesiveness.
- How to improve: Experiment with a broader range of cohesive devices to enhance the coherence between sentences and paragraphs. Consider using more sophisticated transitions that not only signal a shift in ideas but also clarify the relationships between those ideas.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a commendable level of coherence and cohesion. By refining the introduction, strengthening topic sentences, and diversifying the use of cohesive devices, the essay could achieve an even higher level of clarity and logical organization.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Lexical Resource: 6

Use a Wide Range of Vocabulary:
- Detailed explanation: The essay exhibits a moderate range of vocabulary. There is an attempt to use varied words and expressions, but there is room for improvement. For instance, the repetitive use of phrases like "building more and wider roads" and "traffic congestion" could be diversified for a more sophisticated presentation. Specificity in vocabulary related to transportation and urban planning can enhance the lexical resource.
Examples from the essay include:
- "building more and wider roads"
- "reduce traffic congestion"
- "expanding the road system"
- How to improve: To enhance the range of vocabulary, consider incorporating synonyms and more nuanced expressions. For instance, instead of frequently using "building more and wider roads," you could explore alternatives such as "expanding the road infrastructure" or "constructing broader transportation networks." This subtle variation can elevate the lexical richness of the essay.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The usage of vocabulary is generally clear, but there are instances where precision can be improved. For example, the phrase "habit of preferring to own their own vehicles" can be refined for greater precision. The term "habit" may not precisely capture the reasons behind individuals owning vehicles.
Examples from the essay include:
- "habit of preferring to own their own vehicles"
- How to improve: Aim for more precise and specific language. In this context, you could replace "habit" with a term like "tendency" or "inclination" to convey a clearer understanding of people’s choices. This adjustment contributes to a more nuanced and accurate portrayal of the argument.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: Spelling accuracy in the essay is generally satisfactory, with no major spelling errors. However, there are minor grammatical and typographical issues, such as the inconsistent use of singular and plural forms (e.g., "whether should spend" should be "whether the government should spend").
Examples from the essay include:
- "whether should spend"
- How to improve: Pay careful attention to grammar and ensure consistency in verb forms. In this case, the correct phrase is "whether the government should spend." Additionally, proofread the essay thoroughly to catch any other minor errors or typos that might impact overall coherence.

In conclusion, while the essay demonstrates a commendable use of vocabulary, there is room for improvement in diversifying word choices and enhancing precision. Addressing minor grammatical issues will contribute to a more polished and effective expression of ideas.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 6

Use a Wide Range of Structures:
- Detailed explanation: The essay exhibits a moderate range of sentence structures. It employs simple and complex sentences, contributing to a reasonable variety. However, there is room for improvement, especially in the usage of more complex structures, such as compound-complex sentences, which can enhance the overall sophistication of the writing.
- How to improve: To diversify sentence structures, consider incorporating compound-complex sentences to combine ideas effectively. For example, instead of exclusively using straightforward sentences, try incorporating sentences with subordinate clauses or varying sentence lengths to add complexity and depth to your writing.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates generally accurate grammar and punctuation usage. However, there are some instances of grammatical errors and punctuation issues that impact clarity. For instance, there is an error in the sentence "whether should spend money on building train," where "whether" should be followed by the subject "the government." Additionally, there are minor punctuation errors, such as missing articles and incorrect usage of commas.
- How to improve: Pay close attention to subject-verb agreement and sentence structure. In the mentioned instance, correct the sentence to "whether the government should spend money on building train." Additionally, review the proper use of articles and commas to enhance overall grammatical accuracy. Consider revising sentences to ensure clarity and precision.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a commendable grasp of grammar and a moderate range of sentence structures, there is room for improvement. To elevate your writing, focus on incorporating more complex sentence structures and refining grammar and punctuation to enhance overall clarity and coherence.

Bài sửa mẫu

There has been considerable debate regarding whether the government should allocate funds to expand road infrastructure or invest in building train and subway lines to alleviate traffic congestion. While some argue for increased government investment in expanding road infrastructure, I advocate allocating funds for the establishment and expansion of train and subway systems to address this issue.

On one hand, proponents of enhancing and expanding the road network argue that it is an effective solution to the problem of traffic congestion. Indeed, the population is rapidly growing, and the trend of private vehicle ownership is prevalent. Road widening will provide additional space for lateral movement, facilitating more convenient transportation. This not only reduces traffic congestion but is also beneficial for emergency vehicles such as ambulances and fire trucks.

On the other hand, I firmly believe that allocating funds for the development of train and subway lines can significantly reduce traffic congestion. Firstly, utilizing railways is more convenient for transporting large numbers of people without the concern of congestion, thanks to having a dedicated rail system. Additionally, the construction of a subway system or elevated railway expands the transportation network by utilizing underground and elevated spaces, rather than merely relying on traditional road development. Most importantly, train travel has the potential to mitigate traffic accidents, thereby ensuring the safety of people’s lives and property.

In conclusion, with sufficient funding, it is feasible to develop both road and train systems. However, I advocate prioritizing investment in the development of train and subway systems due to their numerous benefits in addressing traffic congestion and enhancing overall transportation efficiency.