Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

It is believed that should allocate more funds for railways not for roads. I agree that more money should be spent on railsway, however, the governments should not neglect improving roads quality. This essay will depict some benefits of railways vehicles and argue how this type of transport does not outweigh the latter.
Trains and high-speed trains might be more environmental friendly than cars and motorbikes. The former transports do not give off as much greenhouse gas emissions as the latters do. Moreover, if more and more individuals travel by railways means of transportation, the traffic congestion phenomenon will be minimised. For instance, AR43 train in Sao Viet Station is able to carry up 150 people in total per trip. More than 112 four-seat cars are required to help the number of people travelling.
Depite the fact that travelling by railways tranports may significantly hinder pollution and traffic jam, roads quality is also of paramount importance. Funds deficit on roads may result in an increasing number of incidents, which is extremely lethal to our society. Traffic congest may be ameliorated by building new overpasses, traffic tunnels. Hence, more spending should be invested to build infrastucture. For example, the construction of My An Overpass in Dong Nai has significantly solved the dilemma of traffic jam in My An roundabout.
In conclusion, it will be conducive if the governments invest more money in railways, but it is not a comprehensive solution to long-standing problems. Roads reconstruction and improvement also merit more funds

---

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

1. "It is believed that should allocate more funds for railways not for roads." -> "It is believed that more funds should be allocated to railways rather than to roads."
   Explanation: The original phrase is grammatically incorrect and awkward. The revised version corrects the grammatical structure and uses more formal language suitable for academic writing.

2. "more money should be spent on railsway" -> "more funds should be allocated to rail transportation"
   Explanation: "railsway" is a typographical error and "rail transportation" is the correct term. Also, "spent" is replaced with "allocated" to maintain a formal tone.

3. "the governments should not neglect improving roads quality" -> "governments should not overlook the improvement of road quality"
   Explanation: "neglect improving" is awkward and unclear; "overlook the improvement of" is more precise and formal.

4. "This essay will depict some benefits of railways vehicles" -> "This essay will elucidate the benefits of rail vehicles"
   Explanation: "depict" is too vague and informal for academic writing; "elucidate" is more precise and formal. Also, "railways vehicles" should be "rail vehicles" for grammatical correctness.

5. "the former transports do not give off as much greenhouse gas emissions as the latters do" -> "the former emit significantly fewer greenhouse gases than the latter"
   Explanation: "give off" is informal and imprecise; "emit" is more scientifically accurate. "The latters" is grammatically incorrect; "the latter" is the correct form.

6. "if more and more individuals travel by railways means of transportation" -> "if more individuals opt for rail transportation"
   Explanation: "by railways means of transportation" is awkward and redundant; "opt for rail transportation" is concise and clear.

7. "the traffic congestion phenomenon will be minimised" -> "traffic congestion will be minimized"
   Explanation: "minimised" is less common in American English; "minimized" is preferred in academic American English.

8. "AR43 train in Sao Viet Station is able to carry up 150 people in total per trip" -> "the AR43 train at Sao Viet Station can accommodate up to 150 passengers per trip"
   Explanation: "is able to carry up" is awkward and informal; "can accommodate up to" is more precise and formal.

9. "More than 112 four-seat cars are required to help the number of people travelling" -> "more than 112 four-seat cars are needed to transport the same number of passengers"
   Explanation: "help the number of people travelling" is vague and informal; "transport the same number of passengers" is clearer and more formal.

10. "Depite the fact that travelling by railways tranports" -> "Despite the fact that traveling by rail transportation"
    Explanation: "Depite" is a typographical error; "Despite" is the correct word. "tranports" is a typographical error; "transportation" is the correct term.

11. "roads quality is also of paramount importance" -> "road quality is also of paramount importance"
    Explanation: "roads quality" should be "road quality" for grammatical correctness.

12. "Funds deficit on roads may result in an increasing number of incidents" -> "a funds deficit on roads may lead to an increasing number of incidents"
    Explanation: "Funds deficit" is grammatically incorrect; "a funds deficit" corrects this. "may result in" is replaced with "may lead to" for a more formal tone.

13. "Traffic congest may be ameliorated" -> "traffic congestion may be alleviated"
    Explanation: "congest" is incorrect; "congestion" is the correct term. "ameliorated" is less common in this context; "alleviated" is more appropriate.

14. "more spending should be invested to build infrastucture" -> "more investment should be allocated to building infrastructure"
    Explanation: "more spending should be invested" is awkward and informal; "more investment should be allocated" is clearer and more formal. "infrastucture" is a typographical error; "infrastructure" is the correct term.

15. "the construction of My An Overpass in Dong Nai has significantly solved the dilemma of traffic jam in My An roundabout" -> "the construction of My An Overpass in Dong Nai has significantly alleviated traffic congestion in My An roundabout"
    Explanation: "solved the dilemma of traffic jam" is overly dramatic and informal; "alleviated traffic congestion" is more precise and formal.

16. "it will be conducive if the governments invest more money in railways" -> "it would be beneficial if governments invested more funds in rail transportation"
    Explanation: "it will be conducive" is informal and vague; "it would be beneficial" is more precise and formal. "invest more money" is replaced with "invested more funds" for a more formal tone.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Task Response: 7

• Answer All Parts of the Question:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay addresses the prompt by stating a clear agreement with the idea that governments should prioritize spending on railways over roads. However, it also acknowledges the importance of maintaining and improving road infrastructure. This dual perspective shows an understanding of the complexity of the issue. The essay provides arguments for both sides, but the response could be more balanced in terms of depth. The mention of environmental benefits and traffic congestion reduction from railways is relevant, but the discussion on roads could be expanded to provide a more comprehensive view.
  • How to improve: To enhance the response, the writer should ensure that each part of the question is explored in equal depth. This could involve providing more specific examples and data regarding the benefits of railways while also elaborating on the consequences of neglecting road infrastructure. A clearer distinction between the importance of both modes of transport would strengthen the argument.

• Present a Clear Position Throughout:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear position that favors railway investment, but it occasionally wavers by suggesting that roads should not be neglected. This could confuse the reader regarding the writer’s primary stance. The introduction states an agreement with the prompt, but the subsequent sentences introduce a counterargument that may dilute the main position.
  • How to improve: To maintain a clear position, the writer should explicitly state their primary argument in the introduction and reinforce it throughout the essay. Using clear topic sentences at the beginning of each paragraph can help guide the reader and keep the focus on the main argument. Additionally, it could be beneficial to clearly delineate the counterarguments and then refute them to strengthen the primary position.

• Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay presents several ideas, such as the environmental benefits of railways and the need for road improvements. However, some ideas are not fully developed. For instance, while the environmental aspect is mentioned, it lacks specific data or studies to support the claim. The example of the AR43 train is somewhat relevant but could be better integrated into the argument. Similarly, the mention of the My An Overpass is a good example, but it could be expanded to explain how it directly relates to the argument about road funding.
  • How to improve: To improve the presentation and support of ideas, the writer should aim to provide more detailed explanations and relevant examples for each point made. Incorporating statistics, studies, or expert opinions would add credibility to the arguments. Additionally, ensuring that each idea is fully explored before moving on to the next will create a more cohesive and persuasive essay.

• Stay on Topic:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, focusing on the debate between spending on railways versus roads. However, some sentences could be clearer in their relevance to the main argument. For example, the phrase "the traffic congestion phenomenon will be minimised" could be better connected to the overall argument about government spending priorities.
  • How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer should regularly refer back to the main question throughout the essay. This can be achieved by rephrasing the prompt in the topic sentences of each paragraph or by summarizing how each point relates back to the central argument. Additionally, avoiding overly complex sentences can help clarify the main points and keep the reader engaged with the topic.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 7

• Organize Information Logically:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear position on the topic, advocating for increased investment in railways while acknowledging the importance of road maintenance. The introduction sets the stage effectively, stating the writer’s agreement with the prompt. However, the logical flow could be enhanced. For instance, the transition from discussing the benefits of railways to the importance of roads is somewhat abrupt. The essay could benefit from a clearer structure that delineates the arguments for railways and then contrasts them with the necessity of road improvements.
  • How to improve: To enhance logical organization, consider using clearer topic sentences at the beginning of each paragraph that outline the main idea. For example, start the second paragraph with a statement like, "While railways offer significant environmental benefits, the importance of maintaining and improving road infrastructure cannot be overlooked." This would create a smoother transition and help the reader follow the argument more easily.

• Use Paragraphs:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay uses paragraphs to separate different ideas, which is a positive aspect. However, the paragraphs could be more effectively structured. The first paragraph combines the introduction and the first argument, which can confuse readers. Additionally, the second paragraph lacks a clear separation of ideas, as it discusses both the benefits of railways and the need for road improvements without distinct transitions.
  • How to improve: Ensure that each paragraph focuses on a single main idea. For instance, the first paragraph could be dedicated solely to the advantages of railways, while a subsequent paragraph could address the necessity of road improvements. Use linking phrases to connect ideas within and between paragraphs, such as "On the other hand" or "Conversely," to clarify the relationship between contrasting points.

• Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay employs some cohesive devices, such as "moreover" and "for example," which help to connect ideas. However, the range of cohesive devices is limited, and some transitions are not used effectively. For instance, the phrase "if more and more individuals travel by railways means of transportation" is awkwardly constructed and could confuse readers. Additionally, the use of "hence" and "but" in the conclusion could be improved for better clarity and flow.
  • How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, incorporate a wider range of linking words and phrases, such as "furthermore," "in contrast," "as a result," and "consequently." Additionally, ensure that all phrases are grammatically correct and clearly convey the intended meaning. For example, rephrase "if more and more individuals travel by railways means of transportation" to "if an increasing number of individuals choose railways as their mode of transport." This will enhance clarity and improve the overall cohesiveness of the essay.

By addressing these areas for improvement, the essay could achieve a higher band score in Coherence and Cohesion, ultimately leading to a more effective and persuasive argument.

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 such as "environmental friendly," "traffic congestion," and "infrastructure." However, there are instances where the vocabulary is somewhat repetitive or lacks variation. For example, the phrase "railways vehicles" could be more effectively expressed as "rail transport" or "rail systems" to enhance lexical diversity. Additionally, the term "traffic jam" is used multiple times, which could be varied with synonyms like "traffic congestion" or "gridlock."
  • How to improve: To enhance the range of vocabulary, the writer should actively seek synonyms and related terms. Engaging with a thesaurus or vocabulary-building exercises can help. For instance, instead of repeating "roads," consider using "roadways," "highways," or "streets" to add variety.

• Use Vocabulary Precisely:

  • Detailed explanation: While the essay contains some precise vocabulary, there are notable inaccuracies. The phrase "more environmental friendly" should be corrected to "more environmentally friendly." Additionally, "latters" is incorrectly used; it should be "latter" when referring to the previously mentioned "cars and motorbikes." The term "funds deficit" is also awkward; a more precise expression would be "lack of funding" or "insufficient funds."
  • How to improve: To improve precision, the writer should focus on grammatical accuracy and context-appropriate word choice. Reviewing common collocations and expressions in English can help. For example, instead of saying "the governments should not neglect improving roads quality," a more precise phrasing would be "the government should also prioritize the improvement of road quality."

• Use Correct Spelling:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay contains several spelling errors, such as "railsway" (should be "railway"), "Depite" (should be "Despite"), "tranports" (should be "transports"), "infrastucture" (should be "infrastructure"), and "congest" (should be "congestion"). These errors detract from the overall clarity and professionalism of the writing.
  • How to improve: To enhance spelling accuracy, the writer should implement proofreading strategies, such as reading the essay aloud or using spell-check tools. Additionally, creating a list of commonly misspelled words and practicing them can be beneficial. Regular writing practice, along with feedback from peers or instructors, can also help identify and correct spelling mistakes.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of the topic and presents relevant arguments, improvements in vocabulary range, precision, and spelling accuracy are necessary to achieve a higher band score in the Lexical Resource criteria.

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 demonstrates some variety in sentence structures, including simple, compound, and complex sentences. For example, the use of phrases like "It is believed that should allocate more funds for railways not for roads" attempts to introduce a complex idea, but it lacks clarity due to missing subjects and incorrect structure. Additionally, the sentence "This essay will depict some benefits of railways vehicles and argue how this type of transport does not outweigh the latter" shows an attempt at a more complex structure, but it could be clearer and more precise. The overall range of structures is somewhat limited, with many sentences being either overly simplistic or awkwardly constructed.
  • How to improve: To enhance the variety of sentence structures, the writer should practice combining shorter sentences into more complex ones and using introductory phrases or clauses. For instance, instead of saying "Trains and high-speed trains might be more environmental friendly than cars and motorbikes," the writer could say, "While trains and high-speed trains are often considered more environmentally friendly than cars and motorbikes, it is essential to recognize the importance of road infrastructure." This not only adds complexity but also improves clarity.

• Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay contains several grammatical errors and punctuation issues that hinder clarity. For example, "should allocate more funds for railways not for roads" is missing a subject and should read "the government should allocate more funds for railways rather than roads." Additionally, "the former transports do not give off as much greenhouse gas emissions as the latters do" contains incorrect pluralization ("latters" should be "latter"). Punctuation errors are also present, such as missing commas that could clarify sentence structure, particularly in complex sentences.
  • How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, the writer should focus on subject-verb agreement and the correct use of articles and plurals. Regular practice with grammar exercises, particularly those focusing on common errors, can be beneficial. For punctuation, the writer should review the rules regarding comma usage, especially in compound and complex sentences. Reading the essay aloud can help identify areas where pauses (and thus commas) are needed for clarity. For example, revising "Funds deficit on roads may result in an increasing number of incidents, which is extremely lethal to our society" to "A deficit in funding for roads may lead to an increasing number of incidents, which can be extremely lethal to our society" improves both clarity and grammatical accuracy.

By addressing these areas, the writer can enhance the overall quality of their writing, potentially raising their band score in Grammatical Range and Accuracy.

Bài sửa mẫu

It is believed that governments should allocate more funds for railways rather than for roads. I agree that more money should be spent on railways; however, the governments should not neglect improving road quality. This essay will depict some benefits of rail vehicles and argue how this type of transport does not outweigh the latter.

Trains and high-speed trains might be more environmentally friendly than cars and motorbikes. The former transport does not emit as much greenhouse gas as the latter does. Moreover, if more individuals opt for rail transportation, the traffic congestion phenomenon will be minimized. For instance, the AR43 train at Sao Viet Station can carry up to 150 people in total per trip. More than 112 four-seat cars are needed to transport the same number of passengers.

Despite the fact that traveling by rail may significantly reduce pollution and traffic jams, road quality is also of paramount importance. A funds deficit on roads may result in an increasing number of incidents, which is extremely lethal to our society. Traffic congestion may be alleviated by building new overpasses and traffic tunnels. Hence, more investment should be allocated to building infrastructure. For example, the construction of My An Overpass in Dong Nai has significantly alleviated traffic congestion in the My An roundabout.

In conclusion, it would be beneficial if governments invested more money in railways, but it is not a comprehensive solution to long-standing problems. Road reconstruction and improvement also merit more funds.