In a number of countries, some people think it is necessary to spend large sums of money on constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities. Others believe the money should be spent on improving existing public transport. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

In a number of countries, some people think it is necessary to spend large sums of money on constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities. Others believe the money should be spent on improving existing public transport.

Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

To meet the increasing demand for cross-city transport, there has been a burgeoning argument regading the most holistic approach. While many suggest governments to subsidize building new railway lines to support very fast trains, I support the views of others who opt for the improvement of existing public transport as it is more practical and possible for all countries to apply.

On the one hand, it is reasonable for some to advocate investing in developing facilities for fast trains. This can be explained that the majority now is for regular trains, with low capacity and long waiting time, and more lines for fast, modern ones will help to transport more passengers on a daily basis. However, this line of reasoning is not sound as city planners in most countries spare little or no land for such mass constructions, and the impulsive implementation of which may cause disturbance in land distribution for other purposes, including industry, agriculture and housing. Some may suggest the alternative "verticle development" for transport instead, which means building subway or elevated railway lines. Given the technical limits of most developing countries, this is rather an impossibility.

On the other hand, improving existing facility for public transport system is rather a more feasible approach. Making more use of other modes of transport can be the first to be considered. As train is not the only means to travel across a country, developing faster and bigger vehicles, such as buses, coaches and vessels can help to share the burden. Then, with the demand for trains being lowered, governments can spare a few months closing the system to get rid of old, slow tracks to make way for modern and fast ones. Japan is a prime example of this as the country has replaced most of its outdated steam and gas train's lines with the cutting-edge bullet train system, which can carry five times the number of passengers everyday.

In conclusion, although gathering more budget to build fast railway lines seems promising to many people as a way to meet the increasing need for mass transits, it is impossible to carry out due to the lack of landsites and the technical limits of many countries. Hence, improving the quality of existing public transport of all modes and replacing old tracks with that for fast trains are more holistic approachs to achieve the desired goal

---

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

1. "burgeoning argument regading" -> "growing debate regarding"
   Explanation: "Burgeoning" is correct, but "regarding" should be "regarding" to maintain grammatical accuracy. The term "growing debate" is more precise and formal than "burgeoning argument," which can be vague and less commonly used in academic writing.

2. "many suggest governments to subsidize" -> "many advocate that governments subsidize"
   Explanation: "Advocate that" is more formal and precise than "suggest to," aligning better with academic style by specifying the action directly.

3. "opt for the improvement of existing public transport" -> "prefer the enhancement of existing public transportation"
   Explanation: "Enhancement" is more specific and formal than "improvement," and "transportation" is the correct term for the broader range of public services discussed, rather than "transport."

4. "This can be explained that" -> "This can be explained by"
   Explanation: "Explained by" is the correct prepositional phrase for introducing a reason or cause, whereas "explained that" is grammatically incorrect in this context.

5. "the majority now is for regular trains" -> "the majority currently favors regular trains"
   Explanation: "Favors" is more precise and formal than "is for," and "currently" is more appropriate than "now" in formal writing to indicate temporal context.

6. "more lines for fast, modern ones" -> "additional lines for fast, modern trains"
   Explanation: "Additional" is more specific and formal than "more," and "trains" should be included to clarify the subject.

7. "impulsive implementation" -> "hasty implementation"
   Explanation: "Hasty" is a more commonly used and understood term in formal English than "impulsive," which can be less precise in this context.

8. "verticle development" -> "vertical development"
   Explanation: "Vertical" is the correct spelling, and this term is more commonly used in formal discussions of architecture and urban planning.

9. "impossibility" -> "unfeasibility"
   Explanation: "Unfeasibility" is a more precise term in academic contexts, indicating that something is not practical or possible due to technical or financial constraints.

10. "Making more use of other modes of transport" -> "Utilizing other modes of transportation"
    Explanation: "Utilizing" is more formal and precise than "making more use of," and "transportation" is the correct term for the broader range of public services discussed.

11. "train is not the only means to travel" -> "trains are not the sole means of travel"
    Explanation: "Trains" should be plural to match the generalization, and "sole means of travel" is more formal and precise than "only means to travel."

12. "gathering more budget" -> "securing additional funding"
    Explanation: "Securing additional funding" is a more formal and precise way to express the acquisition of financial resources, suitable for academic writing.

13. "impossible to carry out" -> "impractical to implement"
    Explanation: "Impractical" is more specific and formal than "impossible," which can imply a complete lack of feasibility, which is not the case here.

14. "more holistic approachs" -> "more holistic approaches"
    Explanation: "Approaches" should be plural to match the context of multiple strategies being discussed, and "holistic" is correctly used as an adjective to describe these approaches.

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 presented in the prompt. The first paragraph outlines the argument for constructing new railway lines for fast trains, while the second paragraph discusses the alternative perspective of improving existing public transport. The essay concludes with a clear personal opinion favoring the latter approach. However, the discussion of the first viewpoint could be more balanced, as it primarily focuses on the challenges without adequately exploring its potential benefits.
  • How to improve: To enhance this aspect, the writer should provide a more comprehensive exploration of the advantages of building new railway lines, such as potential economic benefits, reduced travel times, and environmental considerations. This would create a more balanced discussion and demonstrate a deeper engagement with the prompt.

• Present a Clear Position Throughout:

  • Detailed explanation: The writer maintains a clear position favoring the improvement of existing public transport throughout the essay. This is evident in the consistent use of supportive language and reasoning in favor of this viewpoint. However, the transition between discussing the two perspectives could be smoother, as the shift from one argument to the other feels somewhat abrupt.
  • How to improve: To improve clarity and coherence, the writer could use transitional phrases to better connect the arguments. For example, phrases like "Conversely," or "On the contrary," could help signal the shift in focus and reinforce the essay’s structure.

• Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay presents several ideas, such as the impracticality of building new railway lines in developing countries and the benefits of improving existing transport systems. However, some ideas lack sufficient elaboration and supporting evidence. For instance, while the mention of Japan’s bullet train system is a strong example, the discussion of alternative transport modes (buses, coaches, vessels) could be expanded to include specific benefits or examples.
  • How to improve: To strengthen the support for ideas, the writer should aim to provide more detailed examples and data where possible. For instance, discussing specific improvements made in public transport systems in other countries, or citing statistics on passenger capacity and efficiency, would enhance the argument’s persuasiveness.

• Stay on Topic:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, addressing the prompt’s requirements. However, there are moments where the focus drifts slightly, particularly in the discussion of "vertical development" and the technical limits of developing countries. While these points are relevant to the discussion, they could be more directly tied back to the main argument regarding the feasibility of fast trains versus improving existing transport.
  • How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer should ensure that every point made directly relates to the central argument. This can be achieved by consistently linking back to the prompt and reiterating how each point supports the overall thesis. Additionally, avoiding overly technical discussions that may distract from the main argument would help maintain clarity.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong understanding of the task and presents a well-structured argument. With some improvements in balance, elaboration, and coherence, it could achieve an even higher score in the Task Response criteria.

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 with an introduction, two body paragraphs discussing opposing views, and a conclusion. The introduction effectively outlines the topic and states the author’s opinion. Each body paragraph addresses a distinct viewpoint, which aids in logical progression. However, the transition between the two viewpoints could be smoother; for instance, the shift from discussing the benefits of fast trains to the advantages of improving existing transport could benefit from a clearer linking sentence that emphasizes the contrast.
  • How to improve: To enhance logical flow, consider using transitional phrases that explicitly indicate the relationship between ideas, such as "Conversely," or "In contrast," when moving from one viewpoint to another. Additionally, ensure that each paragraph begins with a topic sentence that clearly states the main idea, which will help guide the reader through the argument.

• Use Paragraphs:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay effectively uses paragraphs to separate different ideas, which is crucial for clarity. Each paragraph focuses on a specific aspect of the argument, making it easier for the reader to follow. However, the second body paragraph could be more effectively structured. The sentence "Making more use of other modes of transport can be the first to be considered" feels somewhat vague and could be better integrated into the overall argument.
  • How to improve: Strengthen paragraph structure by ensuring that each paragraph has a clear main idea, supported by specific examples and explanations. For instance, the second body paragraph could start with a more definitive statement about the importance of diversifying transport options, followed by specific examples that illustrate this point. Additionally, consider using concluding sentences that summarize the main idea of each paragraph, reinforcing the overall argument.

• 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 "On the other hand," which help to connect ideas and indicate shifts in argument. However, the use of cohesive devices could be more varied. For example, the phrase "this can be explained that" is somewhat awkward and could be replaced with a more conventional phrase like "This is because" to enhance clarity.
  • How to improve: To diversify cohesive devices, consider incorporating a wider range of linking words and phrases, such as "Furthermore," "Moreover," or "In addition," to add depth to the argument. Additionally, ensure that cohesive devices are used appropriately to maintain the flow of ideas without causing confusion. For example, when introducing examples, phrases like "For instance," or "A case in point is," can help clarify the relationship between the argument and the evidence provided.

Overall, while the essay achieves a solid level of coherence and cohesion, focusing on smoother transitions, clearer paragraph structures, and a more varied use of cohesive devices will enhance the overall clarity and effectiveness of the 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 "burgeoning," "holistic approach," "subsidize," and "vertical development." However, the vocabulary is sometimes repetitive and lacks variation. For instance, the term "transport" is used multiple times without synonyms or alternatives, which could enhance the richness of the language. Additionally, phrases like "improving existing facility" could be rephrased for better fluency and variety.
  • How to improve: To enhance vocabulary range, the writer should incorporate synonyms and related terms. For example, instead of repeatedly using "transport," alternatives like "conveyance," "commuting," or "travel" could be utilized. Additionally, using phrases such as "enhancing existing infrastructure" instead of "improving existing facility" would improve lexical diversity.

• Use Vocabulary Precisely:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay contains instances of imprecise vocabulary usage. For example, the phrase "the majority now is for regular trains" is vague and could be misinterpreted. Furthermore, "the impulsive implementation of which may cause disturbance" lacks clarity and could be better articulated. The term "facilities" in "improving existing facility" is also too broad and does not specify what facilities are being referred to.
  • How to improve: To improve precision, the writer should aim for clarity in their word choices. For example, instead of "the majority now is for regular trains," a more precise statement could be "the majority of commuters currently rely on conventional trains." Additionally, replacing "impulsive implementation" with "hasty implementation" would convey a clearer meaning. The writer should also specify what "facilities" refers to, such as "public transport facilities" or "transportation infrastructure."

• Use Correct Spelling:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay contains several spelling errors, such as "regading" (regarding), "verticle" (vertical), and "approachs" (approaches). These errors can detract from the overall professionalism and clarity of the writing.
  • How to improve: To enhance spelling accuracy, the writer should proofread the essay carefully before submission. Utilizing spell-check tools and reading the essay aloud can help identify errors. Additionally, the writer could maintain a list of commonly misspelled words and practice them regularly to improve overall spelling proficiency.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of the topic and presents relevant arguments, there is room for improvement in vocabulary range, precision, and spelling accuracy. By incorporating a wider variety of vocabulary, ensuring precise word choices, and carefully proofreading for spelling errors, the writer can enhance their lexical resource and potentially achieve a higher band score.

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 sentences and conditional clauses. For example, phrases like "While many suggest governments to subsidize building new railway lines" and "this is rather an impossibility" showcase the use of subordinate clauses and varied sentence beginnings. However, there are instances where the sentence structures could be more sophisticated or varied. For instance, the use of "this can be explained that" is somewhat awkward and could be expressed more fluidly.
  • How to improve: To enhance the variety of sentence structures, consider incorporating more complex and compound sentences. For example, instead of saying "this can be explained that the majority now is for regular trains," you could rephrase it to "this can be explained by the fact that the majority currently relies on regular trains." Additionally, using more varied transitions between ideas can help improve the flow and complexity of the writing.

• Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay generally maintains a good level of grammatical accuracy, but there are notable errors that detract from clarity. For instance, "regading" is a spelling mistake that should be corrected to "regarding." Additionally, the phrase "the impulsive implementation of which may cause disturbance" is awkwardly constructed; it would be clearer as "the impulsive implementation of such projects may disrupt." Punctuation is mostly correct, but there are a few instances where commas could enhance readability, such as before "which means building subway or elevated railway lines."
  • How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, it is essential to proofread the essay for spelling and grammatical errors. Pay particular attention to commonly confused words and phrases. Additionally, practicing sentence rephrasing can help clarify awkward constructions. For punctuation, review the rules regarding the use of commas, especially in complex sentences, to ensure that they are used to enhance clarity rather than impede it.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a solid command of grammatical range and accuracy, focusing on refining sentence structures and correcting grammatical errors will help elevate the score further.

Bài sửa mẫu

To meet the increasing demand for cross-city transport, there has been a burgeoning debate regarding the most holistic approach. While many advocate that governments subsidize building new railway lines to support very fast trains, I support the views of others who prefer the enhancement of existing public transportation, as it is more practical and feasible for all countries to apply.

On the one hand, it is reasonable for some to advocate investing in developing facilities for fast trains. This can be explained by the fact that the majority currently favors regular trains, which have low capacity and long waiting times. Additional lines for fast, modern trains will help to transport more passengers on a daily basis. However, this line of reasoning is not sound, as city planners in most countries spare little or no land for such mass constructions, and the hasty implementation of these projects may cause disturbances in land distribution for other purposes, including industry, agriculture, and housing. Some may suggest the alternative of “vertical development” for transport instead, which means building subway or elevated railway lines. Given the technical limits of most developing countries, this is rather unfeasible.

On the other hand, improving existing facilities for the public transport system is a more feasible approach. Utilizing other modes of transportation can be the first option to consider. As trains are not the sole means of travel across a country, developing faster and larger vehicles, such as buses, coaches, and vessels, can help to share the burden. Then, with the demand for trains being lowered, governments can spare a few months to close the system to get rid of old, slow tracks and make way for modern and fast ones. Japan is a prime example of this, as the country has replaced most of its outdated steam and gas train lines with the cutting-edge bullet train system, which can carry five times the number of passengers every day.

In conclusion, although gathering more budget to build fast railway lines seems promising to many people as a way to meet the increasing need for mass transit, it is impractical to implement due to the lack of available land and the technical limits of many countries. Hence, improving the quality of existing public transport across all modes and replacing old tracks with those for fast trains are more holistic approaches to achieve the desired goal.