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?

There is a strand of opinion that funding for railways should be prioritized over that of roads. While this statement is understandable, I partly agree with it.

On the one hand, funding more iron roads could offer a benefit for countries’ finance. Particularly, during the second world industrial revolution, one of the initial purposes of trains' creation was achieving a significant volume, accompanied by consumption of less fuels than other vehicles in every long routes, so this means of transportation are able to efficiently and economically deliver raw materials such as coals,oil, and other heavy products as well as a tremendous number of passengers to and from countries, which would noticeably contribute to development of trade and tourism given affordability of expenditures, if the governments spend more money to refurbish the railway systems.

However, it would be fraught with pitfalls if governmental bodies did not balance the allocation of funds between railroad and road infrastructures, since in addition to railways, not only thriving economies but also enhancement of residents’ lives is attributed to the advancement of roads. For instance, if the highway were neglected to be renovated for a long time, their substructure as well as the nations’ landscapes would deteriorate gradually, resulting in a variety of accidents such as suddenly broken bridge and road erosion, in which both citizens and travelers would be potentially vulnerable to injure, especially in the rain which could cause a chain vehicles’ collision because of struggling with potholes underlying the surface of water , and a decline in the number of visitors to the countries, which would lead to a reduction in national annual revenue from tourism.

In conclusion, while it is reasonable for the government to allocate more money to the railway system, I still believe that road infrastructure also needs raising similar funds.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

1. "There is a strand of opinion" -> "There exists a prevailing opinion"
   Explanation: "There exists a prevailing opinion" is more formal and precise, enhancing the academic tone of the sentence.

2. "funding for railways should be prioritized over that of roads" -> "funding for railways should be prioritized over that for roads"
   Explanation: Adding "for" after "that" corrects the grammatical structure, making the sentence more formal and precise.

3. "funding more iron roads" -> "funding more rail infrastructure"
   Explanation: "Rail infrastructure" is a more specific and formal term than "iron roads," which is vague and colloquial.

4. "could offer a benefit for countries’ finance" -> "could benefit a country’s finances"
   Explanation: "Benefit a country’s finances" is more direct and formal, avoiding the awkward construction of "benefit for countries’ finance."

5. "during the second world industrial revolution" -> "during the Second Industrial Revolution"
   Explanation: Capitalizing "Industrial Revolution" correctly identifies the historical event, and "Second" should be capitalized as it refers to a specific period.

6. "trains’ creation was achieving a significant volume" -> "the development of trains aimed to achieve significant volumes"
   Explanation: "The development of trains aimed to achieve significant volumes" is more precise and grammatically correct, improving clarity and formality.

7. "accompanied by consumption of less fuels" -> "requiring less fuel"
   Explanation: "Requiring less fuel" is a more direct and formal way to express the idea, avoiding the awkward and incorrect "consumption of less fuels."

8. "this means of transportation are able to" -> "this mode of transportation is able to"
   Explanation: "Mode of transportation" is the correct term, and "is" should be used instead of "are" for singular "mode."

9. "a tremendous number of passengers" -> "a large number of passengers"
   Explanation: "A large number" is more appropriate and less hyperbolic than "a tremendous number," which is overly dramatic for academic writing.

10. "would noticeably contribute to development of trade and tourism" -> "would significantly contribute to the development of trade and tourism"
    Explanation: "Significantly" is more precise and formal than "noticeably," and "the development of" is grammatically correct.

11. "given affordability of expenditures" -> "given the affordability of expenditures"
    Explanation: Adding "the" before "affordability" corrects the grammatical structure and enhances formality.

12. "it would be fraught with pitfalls" -> "this could pose significant challenges"
    Explanation: "This could pose significant challenges" is a more formal and academically appropriate way to express potential difficulties.

13. "not only thriving economies but also enhancement of residents’ lives" -> "not only the thriving economies but also the enhancement of residents’ lives"
    Explanation: Adding "the" before "thriving economies" and "enhancement" corrects the grammatical structure and enhances formality.

14. "their substructure as well as the nations’ landscapes" -> "their substructure and the nation’s landscapes"
    Explanation: "And" is more appropriate than "as well as" in this context, and "nation’s" should be singular to match "nations."

15. "suddenly broken bridge" -> "suddenly broken bridges"
    Explanation: "Bridges" should be plural to match the context of multiple bridges potentially being affected.

16. "in which both citizens and travelers would be potentially vulnerable to injure" -> "in which both citizens and travelers could be injured"
    Explanation: "Could be injured" is grammatically correct and more formal than "potentially vulnerable to injure."

17. "struggling with potholes underlying the surface of water" -> "struggling with potholes on the surface of the water"
    Explanation: "On the surface of the water" is more accurate and grammatically correct than "underlying the surface of water."

18. "a decline in the number of visitors to the countries" -> "a decline in the number of visitors to these countries"
    Explanation: "These countries" is more specific and formal than "the countries," which is vague and less precise.

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

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 discussing both the benefits of investing in railways and the necessity of maintaining road infrastructure. The author expresses a partial agreement with the statement, which aligns with the requirement to evaluate the extent of agreement or disagreement. However, the analysis could be more balanced; while the benefits of railways are discussed, the drawbacks of neglecting roads are somewhat overshadowed by the lengthy explanation of railway advantages.
  • How to improve: To enhance the response to all parts of the question, the writer should ensure that each side of the argument is given equal weight. This can be achieved by providing a more detailed exploration of the advantages of railways alongside a succinct but impactful discussion of the importance of roads, ensuring that both perspectives are clearly articulated.

• Present a Clear Position Throughout:

  • Detailed explanation: The position is stated clearly in the introduction and conclusion, indicating a partial agreement with the statement. However, the body paragraphs could benefit from a clearer distinction between the two sides of the argument. The transition from discussing railways to roads is somewhat abrupt, which may confuse readers about the writer’s overall stance.
  • How to improve: To maintain a clear position throughout, the writer should use topic sentences that explicitly state the focus of each paragraph. Additionally, employing transitional phrases can help clarify the shift between discussing railways and roads, reinforcing the writer’s position and making the argument more cohesive.

• Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay presents several ideas, particularly regarding the economic benefits of railways and the potential dangers of neglecting roads. However, some ideas are not fully developed or supported with sufficient evidence. For example, the historical reference to the industrial revolution is interesting but lacks a direct connection to the current context of railway funding.
  • How to improve: To strengthen the presentation and support of ideas, the writer should provide more contemporary examples or statistics that illustrate the benefits of railways and the consequences of poor road maintenance. Additionally, expanding on each point with clear explanations and relevant examples will enhance the overall argument.

• Stay on Topic:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, addressing the prompt about government spending on railways versus roads. However, some sentences, particularly in the second paragraph, become overly complex and may stray from the main argument, making it harder for the reader to follow the logic.
  • How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer should aim for clarity and conciseness in their sentences. Breaking down complex ideas into simpler statements can help keep the reader engaged and ensure that each point directly contributes to the overall argument. Regularly revisiting the prompt during the writing process can also help maintain relevance throughout 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 argument structure, beginning with an introduction that outlines the writer’s position. The first body paragraph discusses the benefits of investing in railways, while the second body paragraph highlights the importance of maintaining road infrastructure. This logical organization helps the reader follow the argument. However, the transition between the two paragraphs could be smoother, as the shift from discussing railways to roads feels somewhat abrupt.
  • How to improve: To enhance logical flow, consider using transitional phrases at the beginning of the second paragraph, such as "On the other hand" or "Conversely," to signal a shift in focus. Additionally, ensuring that each paragraph begins with a clear topic sentence that encapsulates the main idea will help reinforce the logical structure.

• Use Paragraphs:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay effectively uses paragraphs to separate different ideas, with each paragraph focusing on a distinct aspect of the argument. The introduction and conclusion are also clearly delineated. However, the second body paragraph is quite lengthy and contains multiple ideas, which could overwhelm the reader.
  • How to improve: To improve paragraphing, consider breaking the second body paragraph into two smaller paragraphs. One could focus on the consequences of neglecting road infrastructure, while the other could discuss the broader implications for national revenue and tourism. This would create a clearer separation of ideas and enhance readability.

• Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a reasonable use of cohesive devices, such as "on the one hand," "however," and "for instance," which help to connect ideas and guide the reader. However, there are instances where the use of cohesive devices could be more varied or refined. For example, the phrase "this means of transportation" could be replaced with "rail transport" for clarity and conciseness.
  • How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, incorporate a wider range of linking words and phrases, such as "furthermore," "in addition," or "consequently," to create more nuanced connections between ideas. Additionally, ensure that pronouns and references are clear to avoid ambiguity; for instance, clarify what "this" refers to in sentences to maintain coherence.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of coherence and cohesion, but there are opportunities for improvement in logical flow, paragraph structure, and the variety of cohesive devices used. By implementing these suggestions, the writer can enhance the clarity and effectiveness of their 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 an attempt to use a variety of vocabulary, such as "funding," "prioritized," "infrastructures," and "deteriorate." However, there are instances where the vocabulary choices are somewhat limited or repetitive, such as the repeated use of "funding" and "government." Additionally, phrases like "the second world industrial revolution" are somewhat awkward and could be expressed more clearly.
  • How to improve: To enhance vocabulary range, the writer could incorporate synonyms or related terms. For instance, instead of repeating "funding," alternatives like "investment" or "financial support" could be used. Furthermore, varying sentence structures and including more advanced vocabulary related to economics and transportation would elevate the essay’s lexical resource.

• Use Vocabulary Precisely:

  • Detailed explanation: Some vocabulary choices lack precision, which can lead to confusion. For example, "iron roads" is an unusual term; "railways" or "railroad tracks" would be more appropriate. The phrase "a significant volume, accompanied by consumption of less fuels" is also vague and could be clearer. Additionally, "thriving economies" and "enhancement of residents’ lives" are somewhat generic and could be specified further.
  • How to improve: To improve precision, the writer should focus on using terms that accurately convey their intended meaning. For example, instead of "iron roads," they could use "rail transport." Furthermore, providing specific examples or data to support claims about economic benefits could enhance clarity and precision.

• Use Correct Spelling:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay contains several spelling errors, such as "coals" (should be "coal"), "fuels" (should be "fuel"), and "injure" (should be "injury"). These errors detract from the overall professionalism of the writing and can confuse the reader.
  • How to improve: To enhance spelling accuracy, the writer should proofread their work carefully, possibly using spell-check tools or reading the essay aloud to catch mistakes. Additionally, practicing spelling of commonly used academic vocabulary can help reduce errors in future essays.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a reasonable attempt at using vocabulary effectively, there are notable areas for improvement in range, precision, and spelling that could help elevate the score in the Lexical Resource criterion.

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 good variety of sentence structures, including complex and compound sentences. For example, the use of introductory phrases such as "On the one hand" and "However" effectively signals transitions between ideas. Additionally, the sentence "For instance, if the highway were neglected to be renovated for a long time, their substructure as well as the nations’ landscapes would deteriorate gradually" showcases the use of conditional clauses. However, there are instances of awkward phrasing and run-on sentences that detract from clarity, such as "so this means of transportation are able to efficiently and economically deliver raw materials such as coals, oil, and other heavy products as well as a tremendous number of passengers to and from countries."
  • How to improve: To diversify sentence structures further, consider incorporating more varied sentence openings and lengths. For instance, use shorter sentences for emphasis and clarity, especially when presenting key arguments. Additionally, practice breaking down overly complex sentences into simpler, clearer statements to enhance readability.

• Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay contains several grammatical inaccuracies and punctuation errors. For instance, "countries’ finance" should be "countries’ finances" to reflect the plural form correctly. The phrase "one of the initial purposes of trains’ creation was achieving a significant volume" is awkward; it would be clearer as "one of the initial purposes of creating trains was to achieve a significant volume." Furthermore, there are punctuation issues, such as missing commas which can lead to run-on sentences, particularly in lengthy clauses. For example, "resulting in a variety of accidents such as suddenly broken bridge and road erosion" should include a comma before "such as" for clarity.
  • How to improve: To enhance grammatical accuracy, review the rules for pluralization and possessive forms, ensuring that nouns are correctly modified. Additionally, practice using commas to separate clauses and items in a list, which will help clarify complex sentences. Regularly revising grammar rules and engaging in exercises focused on punctuation can also be beneficial.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a solid grasp of grammatical range and accuracy, focusing on clarity and precision in both sentence structure and grammatical correctness will help elevate the writing to a higher band score.

Bài sửa mẫu

There exists a prevailing opinion that funding for railways should be prioritized over that for roads. While this statement is understandable, I partly agree with it.

On the one hand, funding more rail infrastructure could benefit a country’s finances. Particularly, during the Second Industrial Revolution, one of the initial purposes of trains’ development was to achieve significant volumes while requiring less fuel than other vehicles on long routes. This mode of transportation is able to efficiently and economically deliver raw materials such as coal, oil, and other heavy products, as well as a large number of passengers to and from countries. This would significantly contribute to the development of trade and tourism, given the affordability of expenditures, if governments invest more money in refurbishing the railway systems.

However, it could pose significant challenges if governmental bodies do not balance the allocation of funds between rail and road infrastructures. In addition to railways, thriving economies and the enhancement of residents’ lives are also attributed to the advancement of roads. For instance, if highways are neglected and not renovated for a long time, their substructure and the nation’s landscapes would gradually deteriorate, resulting in a variety of accidents such as suddenly broken bridges and road erosion. In such cases, both citizens and travelers could be injured, especially during rain, which could lead to chain collisions due to struggling with potholes on the surface of the water. Furthermore, this could result in a decline in the number of visitors to these countries, leading to a reduction in national annual revenue from tourism.

In conclusion, while it is reasonable for the government to allocate more money to the railway system, I still believe that road infrastructure also requires similar funding.