Some people think that an international car-free day is an effective way of reducing air pollution. Others think there are some other ways. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

The topic of alleviating air pollution has been a source of controversy. One school of thoughts hold that the adoption of intermittent car-free days can be a practical measure to ease such an environmental problem. As I refute the efficiency of this method, I am convinced that there are more effective approaches to tackle issues associated with air pollution.
It is an obvious misconception to consider that adopting intermittent car-free days is a practical approach in alleviating air pollution. Supporters of this view would say that if such events are organized frequently, the level of air pollution will be likely to fall significantly. This can also raise awareness among citizens on the harmful effects of air pollution and limit their private vehicle use. However, this reasoning is irrational as vehicle exhaust is not the only factor that contributes to increasingly impaired overall air quality. Mining activities and industrial emissions are also to blame for such bad air quality. Moreover, this method is deemed to have no practical values on those whose private vehicle is their only means of travel. Therefore, it is not viable to use international car-free days as a solution to reduce air pollution.
I would suggest two other measures which would address the problem of air contamination more effectively. The main point is that on the governmental level, authorities can raise fuel prices in towns and cities. This can not only discourage the excessive fuel consumption of citizens, in which they are more likely to resort to mass transits, such as buses and trains, which release a smaller amount of carbon dioxide than cars, but also reduce congestion during rush hours. This, in turn, helps improve overall air quality in many parts of the world. Another point is that companies and factories can use advanced technology of production, which can partially contribute to the reduced level of harmful gasses in the atmosphere. If such attempts are worldwide successful, emissions from huge industrial areas are likely to reduce, resulting in a gradual decrease in the level of air pollutants in the air.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"One school of thoughts hold" -> "One school of thought holds"
Explanation: The correct phrase is "school of thought," which refers to a group of people who share a particular belief or perspective. The verb "holds" should be used instead of "hold" to agree with the singular noun "school of thought."
"practical measure" -> "practical measure to address"
Explanation: Adding "to address" clarifies the purpose of the practical measure, enhancing the sentence’s specificity and formality.
"I am convinced that there are more effective approaches" -> "I am convinced that more effective approaches exist"
Explanation: Replacing "there are" with "exist" streamlines the sentence and maintains a more formal tone.
"It is an obvious misconception" -> "It is a common misconception"
Explanation: "Common" is more precise and less absolute than "obvious," which can imply a lack of debate, which is not the case here.
"would say" -> "argue"
Explanation: "Argue" is more direct and academically appropriate than "would say," which is somewhat informal and vague.
"This can also raise awareness among citizens on the harmful effects" -> "This can also raise awareness among citizens about the harmful effects"
Explanation: Adding "about" is necessary to complete the prepositional phrase, and "awareness among citizens" is a more formal expression.
"irrational as" -> "problematic as"
Explanation: "Problematic" is a more precise and academically suitable term than "irrational," which can imply a lack of logic rather than simply being impractical.
"Mining activities and industrial emissions are also to blame for such bad air quality" -> "Mining activities and industrial emissions also contribute significantly to poor air quality"
Explanation: "Contribute significantly to poor air quality" is more precise and avoids the informal and vague term "bad air quality."
"deemed to have no practical values" -> "considered to have no practical value"
Explanation: "Value" should be singular to match the singular subject "measure," and "considered" is more formal than "deemed."
"would address the problem of air contamination" -> "would address the issue of air pollution"
Explanation: "Issue of air pollution" is a more specific and formal term than "problem of air contamination."
"raise fuel prices in towns and cities" -> "increase fuel prices in urban areas"
Explanation: "Increase" is more specific and formal than "raise," and "urban areas" is a more precise term than "towns and cities."
"discourage the excessive fuel consumption of citizens" -> "discourage excessive fuel consumption among citizens"
Explanation: "Among" is more appropriate than "of" in this context, and removing "the" before "excessive" improves the flow and formality of the sentence.
"which release a smaller amount of carbon dioxide than cars" -> "which emit less carbon dioxide than cars"
Explanation: "Emit less" is a more precise and formal way to describe the reduction in emissions compared to "release a smaller amount."
"If such attempts are worldwide successful" -> "If such efforts are globally successful"
Explanation: "Efforts" is more specific than "attempts," and "globally" is more formal than "worldwide."
"emissions from huge industrial areas are likely to reduce" -> "emissions from large industrial areas are likely to decrease"
Explanation: "Decrease" is a more formal synonym for "reduce," and "large" is more precise than "huge," which can be seen as informal.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 8

Band Score for Task Response: 8

Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively addresses both views regarding the effectiveness of an international car-free day in reducing air pollution. The first paragraph presents the perspective that car-free days can alleviate air pollution, followed by a counterargument that critiques this viewpoint. The second part of the essay introduces alternative solutions, which aligns with the prompt’s requirement to discuss both views and provide a personal opinion. However, while the essay mentions the car-free day initiative, it could benefit from a more balanced exploration of the arguments for this approach before fully dismissing it.
- How to improve: To enhance the response, the essay could include more detailed examples or statistics supporting the argument for car-free days. Additionally, a more thorough examination of the benefits of car-free days, even if ultimately refuted, would provide a more balanced discussion.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The author’s position is clear: they believe that car-free days are not an effective solution to air pollution and advocate for alternative measures. This stance is consistently maintained throughout the essay. The use of phrases like "I refute the efficiency of this method" and "I am convinced that there are more effective approaches" reinforces the author’s viewpoint. However, the transition between discussing the car-free day and introducing alternative solutions could be smoother to enhance coherence.
- How to improve: To improve clarity, the author could use transitional phrases to better connect the critique of car-free days with the introduction of alternative solutions. For example, stating "While car-free days may raise awareness, they are insufficient on their own; therefore, I propose…" would provide a clearer link between the two sections.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents and supports ideas effectively, particularly in the second half where alternative solutions are proposed. The suggestions of raising fuel prices and using advanced production technologies are well-developed and supported with logical reasoning. However, the critique of car-free days lacks depth; it could benefit from more extensive elaboration on why this method is ineffective beyond the mention of other pollution sources.
- How to improve: To strengthen the support for ideas, the author should consider incorporating empirical evidence or examples from real-world scenarios where car-free days have been implemented, along with their outcomes. This would provide a more robust foundation for the argument against car-free days.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay remains largely focused on the topic of air pollution and the effectiveness of car-free days versus alternative measures. However, there are moments where the discussion could stray slightly, particularly in the introduction where the phrase "a source of controversy" is somewhat vague and could be interpreted as off-topic. The essay does a commendable job of staying relevant, but clarity in the introduction could enhance focus.
- How to improve: To maintain a tighter focus on the topic, the introduction could be revised to directly reference the specific debate about car-free days and their effectiveness. For instance, stating "The debate surrounding the effectiveness of international car-free days in reducing air pollution is contentious" would set a clearer context for the discussion that follows.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong understanding of the task requirements and presents a well-argued position. With some refinements in balance, clarity, and support, it could achieve an even higher score.

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. The first body paragraph discusses the viewpoint supporting car-free days, followed by a counterargument that highlights the limitations of this approach. The second body paragraph introduces alternative solutions, providing a logical progression of ideas. However, while the overall organization is effective, some transitions between points could be smoother. For instance, the transition from discussing car-free days to alternative measures feels abrupt, lacking a clear connective phrase that would guide the reader through the shift in focus.
- How to improve: To enhance logical flow, consider using transitional phrases such as "On the other hand," or "Conversely," when introducing alternative viewpoints. Additionally, summarizing the main point of the first argument before transitioning to the next could help reinforce the structure.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively uses paragraphs to separate different ideas, with each paragraph focusing on a specific aspect of the argument. The introduction and conclusion are clearly defined, and the body paragraphs are structured to present contrasting views. However, the second body paragraph could benefit from clearer topic sentences that explicitly state the main idea of the paragraph, making it easier for the reader to follow the argument.
- How to improve: Start each body paragraph with a strong topic sentence that encapsulates the main idea. For example, the second body paragraph could begin with a sentence like, "In contrast to car-free days, there are more effective measures that can be implemented to combat air pollution." This would immediately clarify the focus of the paragraph for the reader.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay employs a variety of cohesive devices, such as "however," "moreover," and "another point," which help to connect ideas within and between paragraphs. These devices contribute to the overall coherence of the essay. However, there are instances where the use of cohesive devices could be more varied to avoid repetition. For example, "this can also" and "this, in turn," are used multiple times, which can make the writing feel somewhat formulaic.
- How to improve: To diversify cohesive devices, consider incorporating synonyms or alternative phrases. For instance, instead of repeatedly using "this," you could use "such measures," "these actions," or "these initiatives." Additionally, varying the structure of sentences can help maintain the reader’s interest and enhance the flow of ideas.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of coherence and cohesion with a clear structure and effective use of paragraphs, there are opportunities for improvement in transitions, topic sentences, and the variety of cohesive devices. By addressing these areas, the writer can enhance the overall clarity and fluidity of their argument.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Lexical Resource: 7

Use a Wide Range of Vocabulary:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a good range of vocabulary, with terms like "alleviating," "intermittent car-free days," "environmental problem," and "harmful effects." These choices reflect an ability to discuss the topic in depth and convey complex ideas. However, there are instances where vocabulary could be more varied. For example, the phrase "air pollution" is repeated multiple times without synonyms or paraphrasing, which could enhance the lexical diversity.
- How to improve: To improve, the writer could incorporate synonyms or related terms, such as "air contamination," "atmospheric pollutants," or "poor air quality." This would not only demonstrate a wider range of vocabulary but also make the essay more engaging.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally uses vocabulary accurately, but there are moments of imprecision. For instance, the phrase "the efficiency of this method" could be more clearly articulated as "the effectiveness of this approach." Additionally, the term "irregular" in "intermittent car-free days" might confuse readers, as it implies unpredictability rather than a scheduled event.
- How to improve: To enhance precision, the writer should consider the context in which words are used. For example, replacing "intermittent" with "scheduled" or "regularly occurring" would clarify the intended meaning. Furthermore, ensuring that terms are used in their correct context will strengthen the overall clarity of the argument.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay exhibits a high level of spelling accuracy, with no noticeable errors in the text. Words such as "alleviating," "misconception," and "contribute" are spelled correctly, which reflects a strong command of English spelling conventions.
- How to improve: While the spelling is generally correct, the writer should continue to proofread their work to catch any potential typographical errors. Additionally, practicing spelling through reading and writing exercises can further solidify their spelling skills, ensuring that this remains a strength in future essays.

In summary, the essay demonstrates a solid command of lexical resource, earning a band score of 7. To achieve a higher score, the writer should focus on expanding vocabulary variety, enhancing precision in word choice, and maintaining their high standard of spelling accuracy.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 8

Band Score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 8

Use a Wide Range of Structures:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a commendable variety of sentence structures. For instance, complex sentences such as "Supporters of this view would say that if such events are organized frequently, the level of air pollution will be likely to fall significantly" effectively convey conditionality and future implications. Additionally, the use of varied sentence openings, such as "Moreover" and "Another point is that," helps to transition smoothly between ideas. However, there are instances of less complex structures, such as "This can also raise awareness among citizens on the harmful effects of air pollution," which could be enhanced with more intricate constructions.
- How to improve: To further diversify sentence structures, consider incorporating more compound-complex sentences and varying the placement of clauses. For example, instead of stating "This can also raise awareness among citizens," you could rephrase it to "Raising awareness among citizens about the harmful effects of air pollution can also be achieved through such events." This not only adds complexity but also emphasizes the action more effectively.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The grammatical accuracy of the essay is generally strong, with few errors. For example, the phrase "One school of thoughts hold" contains a subject-verb agreement error; it should be "One school of thought holds." Additionally, the punctuation is mostly correct, but there are minor issues, such as the lack of a comma before "which" in "which can partially contribute to the reduced level of harmful gasses in the atmosphere," which could improve clarity.
- How to improve: To enhance grammatical accuracy, pay close attention to subject-verb agreement and the use of singular versus plural forms. Regularly proofreading your work can help identify and correct these errors. For punctuation, ensure that clauses are properly punctuated, especially when using relative clauses. Practicing with punctuation exercises focused on complex sentences can also be beneficial.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a high level of grammatical range and accuracy, focusing on the suggested improvements will help elevate the writing further, potentially achieving a higher band score.

Bài sửa mẫu

The topic of alleviating air pollution has been a source of controversy. One school of thought holds that the adoption of intermittent car-free days can be a practical measure to ease such an environmental problem. As I refute the efficiency of this method, I am convinced that more effective approaches exist to tackle issues associated with air pollution.

It is a common misconception to consider that adopting intermittent car-free days is a practical approach in alleviating air pollution. Supporters of this view would argue that if such events are organized frequently, the level of air pollution will likely fall significantly. This can also raise awareness among citizens about the harmful effects of air pollution and limit their private vehicle use. However, this reasoning is problematic as vehicle exhaust is not the only factor that contributes to increasingly impaired overall air quality. Mining activities and industrial emissions also contribute significantly to poor air quality. Moreover, this method is considered to have no practical value for those whose private vehicle is their only means of travel. Therefore, it is not viable to use international car-free days as a solution to reduce air pollution.

I would suggest two other measures that would address the problem of air contamination more effectively. The main point is that at the governmental level, authorities can increase fuel prices in urban areas. This can not only discourage excessive fuel consumption among citizens, making them more likely to resort to mass transit, such as buses and trains, which emit less carbon dioxide than cars, but also reduce congestion during rush hours. This, in turn, helps improve overall air quality in many parts of the world. Another point is that companies and factories can use advanced production technology, which can partially contribute to a reduced level of harmful gases in the atmosphere. If such efforts are globally successful, emissions from large industrial areas are likely to decrease, resulting in a gradual decline in the level of air pollutants in the air.