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

In the modern era, many people propose that the government should invest more of the nation's budget in transportation systems, not least spending money on railways instead of roads. I partially disagree with the given statement because spending funding on both railways and roads has various benefits.

Concerning the investment in train tracks systems, it brings several advantages. The first positive point considered is that trains are environment friendly as they cause less harm to surroundings thanks to releasing fewer carbon emissions. According to two studies by the European Environment Agency ( EEA), train systems only contribute 0.4 per cent to the total proportion of the EU's greenhouse gas emission in 2018. Moreover, regarding the safety of commuters, using public transportation such as trains may reduce traffic accidents rate. Due to the fact that it runs on separate routes, the risk of collision with other vehicles is non- existent. Hence, trains are the most favourable modes of transport chosen by passengers for long-distance travel.

In terms of road construction, there are also numerous pros spending money on it. Initially, wide and modern roads may better the traffic flow, thus decreasing congestion. To illustrate, transformation from narrow roads to large and well- equipped infrastructure helps both private and public vehicles travel smoothly without congestion. Furthermore, investing in road routes makes travelling and delivering easier in mountainous areas. For example, in Vietnam, the government connected two routes between Lai Chau and Ha Noi-Lao Cai highway, which not only develop the economy and tourism in this region but also drive for improving local inhabitants living standard.

To brief, investing in railways may help minimise air pollution and accidents while using funding on road construction reduces congestion and contributes to the improvement of mountainous areas thanks to easier delivery. From my perspective, every nation should consider using money on both of them.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

Errors and Improvements:

"many people propose" -> "many advocate"
Explanation: Replacing "many people propose" with "many advocate" adds a more formal tone and avoids the use of the informal term "propose."
"not least spending money" -> "including expenditures"
Explanation: Substituting "not least spending money" with "including expenditures" enhances formality and precision, avoiding the colloquial expression "spending money."
"I partially disagree" -> "I disagree to some extent"
Explanation: Changing "I partially disagree" to "I disagree to some extent" maintains formality while offering a more refined expression.
"Concerning the investment in train tracks systems" -> "Regarding investments in railway systems"
Explanation: The suggested change provides a more formal and precise phrasing by replacing "Concerning the investment in train tracks systems" with "Regarding investments in railway systems."
"positive point considered is that" -> "benefit to be considered is that"
Explanation: The alteration from "positive point considered is that" to "benefit to be considered is that" enhances formality and clarity.
"they cause less harm to surroundings thanks to releasing fewer carbon emissions" -> "they cause less environmental harm due to reduced carbon emissions"
Explanation: The revised version maintains clarity while utilizing more formal language by replacing "thanks to releasing fewer carbon emissions" with "due to reduced carbon emissions."
"According to two studies by the European Environment Agency (EEA), train systems only contribute 0.4 per cent to the total proportion of the EU’s greenhouse gas emission in 2018." -> "According to two studies conducted by the European Environment Agency (EEA), train systems accounted for only 0.4 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the EU in 2018."
Explanation: The suggested changes improve precision, formality, and readability by specifying that the studies were conducted by the European Environment Agency and by restructuring the sentence for better flow.
"Moreover, regarding the safety of commuters," -> "Furthermore, in terms of commuter safety,"
Explanation: The suggested change introduces a more formal transition and clarifies the relationship between safety and public transportation.
"the risk of collision with other vehicles is non-existent." -> "the risk of collision with other vehicles is negligible."
Explanation: Substituting "non-existent" with "negligible" maintains the meaning while using a more formal term.
"Hence, trains are the most favourable modes of transport chosen by passengers for long-distance travel." -> "Therefore, trains are the preferred mode of transportation for long-distance travel."
Explanation: The proposed change simplifies the expression while retaining formality and precision.
"In terms of road construction, there are also numerous pros spending money on it." -> "Regarding road construction, there are several advantages to allocating funds."
Explanation: The suggested revision replaces colloquial language with a more formal expression, stating "numerous pros spending money on it" with "several advantages to allocating funds."
"wide and modern roads may better the traffic flow" -> "wide and modern roads can enhance traffic flow"
Explanation: The recommended change provides a more precise and formal wording.
"transformation from narrow roads to large and well-equipped infrastructure" -> "upgrading from narrow roads to expansive and well-equipped infrastructure"
Explanation: The revised phrase offers a more formal and elaborate description.
"For example, in Vietnam, the government connected two routes between Lai Chau and Ha Noi-Lao Cai highway," -> "For instance, in Vietnam, the government established a connection between two routes: Lai Chau and the Ha Noi-Lao Cai highway."
Explanation: The suggested changes improve clarity and formality by specifying the action taken by the government and restructuring the sentence.
"not only develop the economy and tourism in this region but also drive for improving local inhabitants living standard." -> "not only fostering economic and tourism development in this region but also contributing to the enhancement of the living standards of local inhabitants."
Explanation: The proposed alterations enhance formality, clarity, and precision in expressing the positive outcomes of road connectivity.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Quoted text: "I partially disagree with the given statement because spending funding on both railways and roads has various benefits."
- Explanation and Improvement Suggestions: The introduction sets a clear stance but lacks a precise roadmap for the essay. It might enhance the clarity if you explicitly outline in the introduction the specific benefits and their respective sectors (railways and roads) that you plan to discuss. This will help guide your essay structure, ensuring a focused and coherent argument.
- Improved example: "While I acknowledge the benefits of investing in both railways and roads, I contend that each infrastructure type offers unique advantages. I will explore the environmental and safety benefits associated with railways, as well as the traffic flow improvements and economic development linked to road construction."
Quoted text: "According to two studies by the European Environment Agency (EEA), train systems only contribute 0.4 per cent to the total proportion of the EU’s greenhouse gas emission in 2018."
- Explanation and Improvement Suggestions: Your argument about the environmental benefits of trains is supported by referencing studies, which is commendable. However, in the IELTS task, relying on personal knowledge and experience is more encouraged than referencing specific studies or statistics. To enhance this point, provide examples or reasons based on personal knowledge or experience that illustrate how train systems contribute less to environmental pollution compared to road transportation.
- Improved example: "In my experience, using trains has been noticeably more environmentally friendly than relying on roads for transportation. The reduced emissions are evident during my daily commute, where trains have noticeably cleaner operations compared to congested roads."
Quoted text: "Transformation from narrow roads to large and well-equipped infrastructure helps both private and public vehicles travel smoothly without congestion."
- Explanation and Improvement Suggestions: This argument addresses the benefit of road infrastructure for traffic flow but lacks depth. Consider expanding upon this point by providing a specific example or personal experience that highlights how improvements in road infrastructure have alleviated congestion or enhanced transportation efficiency.
- Improved example: "Growing up in a city where road expansions were undertaken, I witnessed firsthand how widening roads eased traffic congestion during rush hours. These developments not only facilitated smoother commuting but also reduced travel time for both private vehicles and public transportation."

Overall, your essay articulates both perspectives well and offers reasonable support for each. However, to further strengthen your argument, consider providing more personal insights and experiences rather than relying on external studies or generalized claims to support your points. This will add depth and authenticity to your argument.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates a logical organization of ideas with clear progression throughout. The introduction presents a clear thesis outlining a partial disagreement with the prompt, setting the stage for subsequent arguments. Each body paragraph introduces a distinct advantage of investing in either railways or roads, and the conclusion neatly summarizes the key points. There is a range of cohesive devices used appropriately, facilitating smooth transitions between ideas and paragraphs. The essay maintains a central topic within each paragraph, enhancing overall coherence.

How to Improve:
To elevate the coherence and cohesion to a higher band, ensure that cohesive devices are used consistently and precisely. Additionally, consider refining the paragraphing to ensure a more logical flow. While the essay generally manages paragraphing well, a more deliberate organization of ideas within paragraphs could further enhance coherence. Review sentence-level cohesion to eliminate any potential mechanical or faulty use. Overall, maintaining a cohesive thread throughout the essay will contribute to a more seamless and integrated response.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates a sufficient range of vocabulary with an attempt at flexibility and precision. The writer employs less common lexical items and displays some awareness of style and collocation. There are occasional errors in word choice and spelling, such as "two studies by the European Environment Agency (EEA)," where the word "by" may be unnecessary, and "non-existent" is preferable to "non- existent." Despite these errors, the essay maintains coherence and clarity in conveying ideas.

How to improve:
To enhance the Lexical Resource score, the writer should focus on refining word choice and avoiding minor inaccuracies. Paying attention to collocation, such as ensuring the correct pairing of words, will contribute to a more sophisticated use of vocabulary. Additionally, a careful review for spelling and grammatical accuracy will help eliminate errors and elevate the overall lexical quality of the essay.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a good command of grammar and punctuation, with a variety of complex structures used throughout. There are frequent error-free sentences, and the control of grammar and punctuation is generally sound. However, there are a few errors present, such as "according to two studies" instead of "according to two studies by the European Environment Agency (EEA)," and "may reduce traffic accidents rate" could be more appropriately phrased. Overall, the essay meets the criteria for Band 7, with a good range of structures and mostly error-free sentences.

How to improve:

Precision in Citations: Ensure precision when citing sources. In this case, specify that the information is from the European Environment Agency (EEA) studies.
Sentence Structure: Refine sentence structures for clarity. For example, rephrase "may reduce traffic accidents rate" to "may reduce the rate of traffic accidents" for better clarity and accuracy.

Note: While the essay is generally strong, addressing the mentioned points would enhance its overall grammatical range and accuracy.

Bài sửa mẫu

In the contemporary era, there is a growing sentiment that governments should allocate a significant portion of the national budget to transportation systems, with some advocating for a focus on railways rather than roads. While I disagree to some extent with this proposition, as I believe funds should be distributed to both railways and roads, it is crucial to recognize the various benefits associated with each.

Regarding investments in railway systems, a notable benefit is their positive impact on the environment. Many argue that trains are a more environmentally friendly mode of transportation due to their reduced carbon emissions. According to two studies conducted by the European Environment Agency (EEA), train systems accounted for only 0.4 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the EU in 2018. Furthermore, when considering commuter safety, the risk of collisions with other vehicles is negligible for trains, as they operate on separate routes. Therefore, trains remain the preferred mode of transportation for long-distance travel.

Turning to road construction, there are several advantages to allocating funds in this area. Wide and modern roads can significantly enhance traffic flow, reducing congestion. Upgrading from narrow roads to expansive and well-equipped infrastructure facilitates smooth travel for both private and public vehicles. For instance, in Vietnam, the government connected two routes: Lai Chau and the Ha Noi-Lao Cai highway. This not only fostered economic and tourism development in the region but also contributed to the enhancement of the living standards of local inhabitants.

In conclusion, while I disagree with the notion of exclusively investing in railways over roads, it is evident that both have their merits. Investing in railways can minimize air pollution and accidents, while allocating funds to road construction reduces congestion and positively impacts areas like mountainous regions. In my view, a balanced approach that considers both railways and roads is essential for comprehensive transportation development in any nation.