The best way for governments to solve the problem of traffic congestion is to provide free public transport 24 hours per day, seven days a week. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The best way for governments to solve the problem of traffic congestion is to provide free public transport 24 hours per day, seven days a week.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Introduction: Traffic congestion in large cities is a pervasive problem, leading to numerous initiatives aimed at alleviating gridlock. Among these, the concept of providing fare-free public transport as a solution has gained traction. However, I believe that while well-intentioned, this approach is fundamentally flawed and impractical for several reasons.
Body Paragraph 1 – Cost and Fairness: Firstly, the financial sustainability of a fare-free public transport system is questionable. Funding such an initiative would likely require substantial increases in taxation, which could place an unfair burden on those who do not use public transport regularly, or at all. This approach could lead to disproportionate costs being shouldered by a segment of the population, thereby raising issues of equity and fairness.
Body Paragraph 2 – Practicality and Usage: Moreover, the practicality of maintaining a zero-fare service around the clock is dubious. The ridership of public transport naturally fluctuates throughout the day, with significantly lower usage during late-night hours. Operating full services 24/7 would thus result in substantial financial waste, as resources would be expended during times of minimal demand.
Body Paragraph 3 – Security Concerns and System Abuse: Critics of fare-free transport also point to potential increases in security issues. Fare-free systems might attract individuals who use the services not as commuters but as shelters, which could lead to increased incidents of vandalism, disturbances, and other forms of misconduct. This could deter regular commuters, especially those concerned about safety during off-peak hours, potentially driving them back to private vehicle usage.
Conclusion: In conclusion, while fare-free public transport presents an attractive solution to urban traffic congestion on the surface, the underlying costs, practical challenges, and potential for abuse render it an impractical solution. It is crucial that governments consider more balanced approaches that enhance service affordability and accessibility without compromising on service quality and security.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

1. "Traffic congestion" -> "traffic congestion"
   Explanation: The term "traffic congestion" is already precise and appropriate for academic writing, so no change is necessary here.

2. "pervasive problem" -> "widespread issue"
   Explanation: "Widespread issue" is a more formal and precise term that better fits the academic context, replacing the slightly informal "pervasive problem."

3. "leading to numerous initiatives" -> "resulting in numerous initiatives"
   Explanation: "Resulting in" is more formal and academically appropriate than "leading to," which can be seen as slightly less formal.

4. "gained traction" -> "has gained popularity"
   Explanation: "Has gained popularity" is more specific and formal, suitable for academic writing, compared to the more colloquial "gained traction."

5. "fundamentally flawed" -> "fundamentally flawed"
   Explanation: This phrase is already correct and does not require change.

6. "impractical" -> "unfeasible"
   Explanation: "Unfeasible" is a more precise term in academic contexts, indicating that something is not possible or practical due to constraints, which is more specific than "impractical."

7. "Cost and Fairness" -> "Cost and Equity"
   Explanation: "Equity" is a more precise term in the context of fairness and distribution of costs, aligning better with academic language.

8. "substantial increases in taxation" -> "significant tax increases"
   Explanation: "Significant tax increases" is a more direct and formal way to express the idea, avoiding the redundancy of "substantial increases in taxation."

9. "place an unfair burden" -> "impose an unfair burden"
   Explanation: "Impose" is a more formal verb that fits better in academic writing than "place," which can be seen as less formal.

10. "shouldered by" -> "borne by"
    Explanation: "Borne by" is a more formal expression, commonly used in academic texts to describe the distribution of burdens or costs.

11. "dubious" -> "questionable"
    Explanation: "Questionable" is a more neutral and academically appropriate term than "dubious," which can carry a slightly negative connotation.

12. "ridership" -> "ridership"
    Explanation: This is a correct term and does not need change.

13. "Operating full services 24/7" -> "Maintaining full services 24/7"
    Explanation: "Maintaining" is more precise in this context, as it specifically refers to the ongoing operation and management of services, which is more relevant to the discussion of public transport.

14. "substantial financial waste" -> "significant financial waste"
    Explanation: "Significant" is a more formal synonym for "substantial," enhancing the academic tone.

15. "Critics of fare-free transport" -> "Critics of free public transportation"
    Explanation: "Free public transportation" is a more formal and precise term than "fare-free transport," aligning better with academic style.

16. "as shelters" -> "as shelters"
    Explanation: This phrase is correct and does not require change.

17. "deter" -> "discourage"
    Explanation: "Discourage" is a more precise term in this context, indicating a negative influence on behavior, which is more suitable for academic writing than "deter."

18. "potentially driving them back" -> "potentially leading them to revert"
    Explanation: "Leading them to revert" is a more formal and precise expression, suggesting a return to previous behavior or actions, which is more appropriate in an academic context.

19. "It is crucial that" -> "It is essential that"
    Explanation: "Essential" is a stronger, more formal adverb that emphasizes the necessity of the action, fitting better in academic writing than "crucial."

These changes enhance the precision, formality, and clarity of the essay, aligning it more closely with academic standards.

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 the prompt by presenting a clear disagreement with the idea that free public transport is the best solution for traffic congestion. The author outlines specific reasons for this stance, including financial sustainability, practicality, and security concerns. Each reason corresponds directly to the prompt, demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the question. However, while the essay presents a strong counterargument, it could benefit from acknowledging any potential merits of the proposed solution to provide a more balanced view.
  • How to improve: To enhance the response, the author could briefly mention some advantages of free public transport, such as increased accessibility or reduced traffic during peak hours, before refuting them. This would show a more nuanced understanding of the topic and strengthen the argument against it.

• Present a Clear Position Throughout:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear position throughout, consistently arguing against the effectiveness of free public transport as a solution to traffic congestion. The use of phrases like "I believe that while well-intentioned, this approach is fundamentally flawed" establishes a strong personal stance from the outset, and this position is reinforced in each body paragraph. The conclusion succinctly reiterates the author’s viewpoint, ensuring clarity.
  • How to improve: While the position is clear, the author could enhance the essay by explicitly restating their stance in the body paragraphs. For instance, concluding each paragraph with a sentence that ties back to the main argument would reinforce the position and improve coherence.

• Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay presents well-structured arguments, each supported by relevant examples and reasoning. For instance, the discussion on financial sustainability is backed by the potential impact on taxation, while the practicality argument is supported by ridership patterns. However, the ideas could be extended further with more specific examples or data, which would lend additional weight to the arguments.
  • How to improve: To strengthen the support for ideas, the author could incorporate statistics or case studies from cities that have implemented similar fare-free systems, discussing the outcomes. This would provide concrete evidence to back up claims and enhance the overall persuasiveness of the essay.

• Stay on Topic:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay remains focused on the topic of traffic congestion and the proposed solution of free public transport. Each paragraph directly relates to the central argument, with no significant deviations. The author successfully avoids introducing unrelated ideas, which helps maintain clarity and coherence throughout the essay.
  • How to improve: To further ensure adherence to the topic, the author should be cautious of overly complex sentences that might confuse the reader. Simplifying language and ensuring that each point is directly tied back to the prompt will help maintain focus and clarity.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong understanding of the task and effectively communicates a well-supported argument. By incorporating the suggested improvements, the author could elevate their score even further.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 8

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 8

• Organize Information Logically:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay is organized in a logical manner, with a clear progression from the introduction to the conclusion. Each body paragraph addresses a distinct aspect of the argument against fare-free public transport, which helps maintain clarity. For instance, the first paragraph discusses financial sustainability, the second focuses on practicality, and the third highlights security concerns. This structure allows the reader to follow the argument easily and understand the rationale behind the writer’s stance.
  • How to improve: To enhance the logical flow, consider adding transitional phrases at the beginning of each paragraph to signal the shift in focus. For example, using phrases like "In addition to financial concerns," at the start of the second paragraph would help connect the ideas more fluidly. Additionally, summarizing the main point of each paragraph at the end could reinforce the argument’s coherence.

• Use Paragraphs:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay effectively uses paragraphs to separate distinct ideas, which contributes to its overall coherence. Each paragraph has a clear topic sentence that outlines the main idea, followed by supporting details. For example, the topic sentence in the first body paragraph clearly states the focus on cost and fairness, allowing the reader to grasp the main argument quickly.
  • How to improve: While the paragraphing is effective, consider ensuring that each paragraph contains a concluding sentence that ties back to the overall thesis. This would not only reinforce the main argument but also provide a smoother transition to the next point. For instance, concluding the first paragraph with a sentence that reflects on the implications of financial burden could strengthen the connection to the subsequent discussion on practicality.

• Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a good range of cohesive devices, such as "Firstly," "Moreover," and "In conclusion," which guide the reader through the argument. These devices help in marking the structure and flow of ideas. Additionally, the use of phrases like "this approach" and "such an initiative" effectively links back to previously mentioned concepts, maintaining cohesion throughout the essay.
  • How to improve: To further diversify the use of cohesive devices, consider incorporating more varied linking words and phrases. For example, instead of repeatedly using "Firstly" and "Moreover," try alternatives like "To begin with" or "Furthermore." Additionally, using more complex cohesive devices, such as "In contrast" or "On the other hand," when discussing counterarguments could enhance the depth of analysis and improve the overall sophistication of the essay.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong command of coherence and cohesion, effectively organizing ideas and using cohesive devices. By implementing the suggested improvements, the writer can elevate the clarity and sophistication of their argument even further.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 8

Band Score for Lexical Resource: 8

• Use a Wide Range of Vocabulary:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a commendable range of vocabulary, utilizing terms such as "pervasive," "alleviating," "financial sustainability," and "disproportionate." These choices reflect a strong command of language and an ability to convey complex ideas effectively. The use of phrases like "fundamentally flawed" and "dubious" adds depth to the argument, showcasing the writer’s ability to articulate nuanced positions.
  • How to improve: To further enhance lexical variety, the writer could incorporate synonyms or related terms to avoid repetition. For instance, instead of using "substantial" multiple times, alternatives like "significant," "considerable," or "ample" could be employed. Additionally, integrating more idiomatic expressions or collocations related to public transport and urban planning could enrich the essay’s vocabulary.

• Use Vocabulary Precisely:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay generally employs vocabulary with precision, effectively communicating the writer’s stance. For example, the term "equity" is used appropriately in the context of discussing fairness in taxation. However, there are instances where word choice could be more precise. The phrase "financial waste" could be interpreted broadly; specifying "inefficient allocation of resources" would clarify the argument.
  • How to improve: To improve precision, the writer should consider the context in which words are used. For example, instead of "dubious," which may imply doubt without context, the writer could specify "questionable feasibility" to clarify the nature of the doubt. Regularly consulting a thesaurus or using vocabulary-building tools can help in selecting the most appropriate words for specific contexts.

• Use Correct Spelling:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay displays a high level of spelling accuracy, with no noticeable errors. Words such as "congestion," "initiatives," and "sustainability" are spelled correctly, reflecting careful proofreading and attention to detail.
  • How to improve: To maintain and enhance spelling accuracy, the writer should continue to proofread their work. Additionally, engaging in spelling exercises or using digital tools that highlight spelling errors can further reinforce this skill. Practicing writing under timed conditions can also help improve spelling under pressure, which is beneficial for exam scenarios.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong command of lexical resource, meriting a band score of 8. By focusing on expanding vocabulary range, enhancing precision in word choice, and maintaining spelling accuracy, the writer can aim for an even higher score in future essays.

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, the use of complex sentences is evident in phrases such as "the financial sustainability of a fare-free public transport system is questionable," which effectively conveys nuanced ideas. Additionally, the essay incorporates conditional structures, such as "if governments consider more balanced approaches," which adds depth to the argument. The use of varied sentence openings, such as "Firstly," "Moreover," and "In conclusion," helps to create a coherent flow throughout the essay.
  • How to improve: To further diversify sentence structures, the writer could incorporate more compound-complex sentences and varied transitional phrases. For example, instead of starting multiple sentences with "Firstly" or "Moreover," the writer could use alternatives like "In addition," or "On the other hand," to introduce contrasting ideas. Additionally, employing more rhetorical questions or direct addresses to the reader could enhance engagement and variety.

• Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay exhibits a high level of grammatical accuracy, with few errors present. For example, the phrase "which could place an unfair burden on those who do not use public transport regularly, or at all" correctly uses commas to separate clauses, enhancing clarity. However, there is a minor issue with comma usage in the phrase "which could lead to disproportionate costs being shouldered by a segment of the population, thereby raising issues of equity and fairness," where the comma before "thereby" could be omitted for smoother reading. Overall, punctuation is used effectively to delineate ideas and maintain the flow of the argument.
  • How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, the writer should focus on careful proofreading to catch minor errors, particularly in punctuation. It may be beneficial to read the essay aloud to identify any awkward phrasing or misplaced commas. Additionally, practicing complex sentence constructions and ensuring that clauses are correctly punctuated will further enhance grammatical precision.

In summary, the essay demonstrates a strong command of grammatical range and accuracy, meriting a Band Score of 8. By diversifying sentence structures and refining punctuation, the writer can elevate their writing even further.

Bài sửa mẫu

**Introduction:** Traffic congestion in large cities is a widespread issue, leading to numerous initiatives aimed at alleviating gridlock. Among these, the concept of providing fare-free public transport as a solution has gained popularity. However, I believe that while well-intentioned, this approach is fundamentally flawed and unfeasible for several reasons.

**Body Paragraph 1 – Cost and Equity:** Firstly, the financial sustainability of a fare-free public transport system is questionable. Funding such an initiative would likely require significant tax increases, which could impose an unfair burden on those who do not use public transport regularly, or at all. This approach could lead to disproportionate costs being borne by a segment of the population, thereby raising issues of equity and fairness.

**Body Paragraph 2 – Practicality and Usage:** Moreover, the practicality of maintaining full services 24/7 is dubious. The ridership of public transport naturally fluctuates throughout the day, with significantly lower usage during late-night hours. Operating a zero-fare service around the clock would thus result in substantial financial waste, as resources would be expended during times of minimal demand.

**Body Paragraph 3 – Security Concerns and System Abuse:** Critics of free public transportation also point to potential increases in security issues. Fare-free systems might attract individuals who use the services not as commuters but as shelters, which could lead to increased incidents of vandalism, disturbances, and other forms of misconduct. This could discourage regular commuters, especially those concerned about safety during off-peak hours, potentially leading them to revert to private vehicle usage.

**Conclusion:** In conclusion, while fare-free public transport presents an attractive solution to urban traffic congestion on the surface, the underlying costs, practical challenges, and potential for abuse render it an impractical solution. It is essential that governments consider more balanced approaches that enhance service affordability and accessibility without compromising on service quality and security.