Some people believe that car-free days are an effective way to reduce air pollution. However, others argue that there are other ways that are more effective. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Car-free days have been proposed as a potential solution to reduce air pollution in urban areas. While some people believe that car-free days are an effective measure, others argue that there are alternative approaches that may be more impactful. In this discussion, we will explore both perspectives and prove why despite various viable options, car-free days would be the best remedy.
First of all, critics of the first mentality argue that governments could instead create laws related to industrial production the underlying and utmost culprit behind air pollution is the production industry. Except for automobiles, they believe that the main causes of air pollution are resource mining, consumer electronics manufacturing, and textile fabrication. By focusing on industrial production, people can address the root causes of air pollution and implement measures to mitigate its impact. This approach would involve the government setting strict controls and standards for resource mining, consumer electronics manufacturing, and textile fabrication processes. By limiting carbon emissions and promoting sustainable practices in these industries, governments can effectively reduce air pollution levels. Furthermore, implementing regulations on production methods would encourage companies to adopt cleaner technologies and invest in research and development of environmentally friendly alternatives. This could lead to innovations that not only reduce air pollution but also promote sustainable economic growth in the distant future.
However, car-free days would have a greater impact due to their far-reaching implications. Firstly, banning cars would massively reduce air pollution. As cars not only require gasoline to function, and discharge significant amounts of harmful gases into the atmosphere themselves but the waste emitted from the car industry is also troublesome. Secondly, banning cars would force motorists to find alternative modes of transportation that might then become habits. A person who cannot drive to work once a week may consider working at home or utilizing public transport. If they find these options more efficient, then they may willingly abandon using their car on other days. Over time, this could begin to shift mindsets in society and individuals might become less obsessed with car ownership as a symbol of wealth and success and start prioritizing efficiency and a cleaner environment.
In conclusion, though regulation of particular industries would also aid in the reduction of air pollution, the banning of automobiles on certain days is the single best solution. Governments should consider implementing and expanding existing policies that prohibit private vehicles.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"First of all" -> "Firstly"
Explanation: "Firstly" is a more formal transition that better suits an academic discussion, providing a smoother transition between arguments.
"the first mentality" -> "this perspective"
Explanation: "The first mentality" is slightly informal and vague. "This perspective" is a clearer and more academic alternative, specifying the viewpoint being critiqued.
"except for automobiles" -> "aside from vehicles"
Explanation: "Except for automobiles" is a bit informal. "Aside from vehicles" maintains the context but in a more formal manner.
"underlying and utmost culprit" -> "primary and underlying cause"
Explanation: The phrase "underlying and utmost culprit" is a bit informal and redundant. "Primary and underlying cause" retains the essence in a more precise, formal manner.
"discharge significant amounts" -> "emit substantial quantities"
Explanation: "Discharge significant amounts" can be refined for a more formal tone. "Emit substantial quantities" offers a more academic phrasing.
"troublesome" -> "problematic"
Explanation: While "troublesome" isn’t incorrect, "problematic" aligns better with an academic tone.
"would massively reduce" -> "would significantly decrease"
Explanation: "Massively reduce" is slightly informal; "significantly decrease" provides a more formal alternative without losing impact.
"might then become habits" -> "could become habitual"
Explanation: The shift to "could become habitual" maintains formality while expressing the potential for a habitual change.
"might willingly abandon" -> "might voluntarily forgo"
Explanation: "Willingly abandon" is slightly informal. "Voluntarily forgo" maintains a formal tone.
"obsessed with" -> "fixated on"
Explanation: "Obsessed with" has a slightly casual connotation. "Fixated on" aligns better with an academic style.
"In conclusion" -> "To conclude"
Explanation: "To conclude" serves as a more formal and standard transition for the conclusion section in academic writing.
"single best solution" -> "optimal solution"
Explanation: While not incorrect, "optimal solution" is a more commonly used phrase in academic writing.
"should consider implementing" -> "should contemplate implementing"
Explanation: "Consider implementing" can be refined for a more formal tone. "Contemplate implementing" maintains the

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Quoted text: "First of all, critics of the first mentality argue that governments could instead create laws related to industrial production, the underlying and utmost culprit behind air pollution is the production industry. Except for automobiles, they believe that the main causes of air pollution are resource mining, consumer electronics manufacturing, and textile fabrication. By focusing on industrial production, people can address the root causes of air pollution and implement measures to mitigate its impact. This approach would involve the government setting strict controls and standards for resource mining, consumer electronics manufacturing, and textile fabrication processes. By limiting carbon emissions and promoting sustainable practices in these industries, governments can effectively reduce air pollution levels. Furthermore, implementing regulations on production methods would encourage companies to adopt cleaner technologies and invest in research and development of environmentally friendly alternatives. This could lead to innovations that not only reduce air pollution but also promote sustainable economic growth in the distant future."
- Explanation and Improvement Suggestions: The paragraph provides a detailed and well-reasoned argument regarding addressing air pollution through regulations on industrial production. However, it lacks a direct connection to the essay prompt, which asks for a discussion on car-free days. To improve, integrate this argument more explicitly with the car-free days discussion. For instance, mention how regulating industrial production could be an alternative but argue why car-free days would be more effective.
- Improved example: "While some argue for regulating industrial production as a solution to air pollution, I contend that car-free days offer a more immediate and impactful measure. Though addressing industries is crucial, the visible and direct impact of reducing car usage on specific days can create a tangible shift in air quality and public behavior."
Quoted text: "However, car-free days would have a greater impact due to their far-reaching implications. Firstly, banning cars would massively reduce air pollution. As cars not only require gasoline to function, and discharge significant amounts of harmful gases into the atmosphere themselves but the waste emitted from the car industry is also troublesome. Secondly, banning cars would force motorists to find alternative modes of transportation that might then become habits. A person who cannot drive to work once a week may consider working at home or utilizing public transport. If they find these options more efficient, then they may willingly abandon using their car on other days. Over time, this could begin to shift mindsets in society, and individuals might become less obsessed with car ownership as a symbol of wealth and success and start prioritizing efficiency and a cleaner environment."
- Explanation and Improvement Suggestions: This paragraph effectively argues for the effectiveness of car-free days. However, it could benefit from more specific examples or anecdotes to illustrate the potential shift in societal mindset. Additionally, addressing potential counterarguments would strengthen the overall persuasiveness.
- Improved example: "The impact of car-free days extends beyond immediate air quality improvements. For instance, a commuter compelled to find alternative transportation on these designated days may discover the convenience of public transport or the feasibility of working from home. This not only reduces individual carbon footprints but also contributes to a broader societal shift towards eco-friendly practices. While some may argue against the inconvenience, the long-term benefits in shaping a sustainable mindset outweigh the temporary adjustments required."

Overall, while the essay addresses both perspectives, it needs better integration of arguments and more specific examples to enhance clarity and persuasive strength.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Explanation:
The essay logically organizes information and ideas with a clear progression throughout. There is effective use of cohesive devices, such as transition words, to connect sentences and paragraphs. The central topic within each paragraph is well-defined. However, there is some slight underuse of cohesive devices in a few instances.

How to improve:
To enhance coherence and cohesion, consider using a wider variety of cohesive devices consistently throughout the essay. Ensure that transitions between ideas are seamless and that the flow of the argument is maintained. Additionally, pay attention to maintaining a balance in the use of cohesive devices to avoid any underuse. Overall, a strong effort with room for subtle improvements.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 8

Band Score: 8.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates a commendable command of vocabulary, encompassing a wide range of lexical features with generally precise and sophisticated control. The use of vocabulary is fluent and flexible, conveying precise meanings effectively. Uncommon lexical items are skillfully incorporated, contributing to the overall sophistication of the essay. While there are some minor inaccuracies in word choice and collocation, they are infrequent and do not significantly impact the overall lexical resource.

How to improve:
To further enhance the lexical resource and move towards a Band 9 score, the writer could focus on refining the accuracy of word choice and collocation. Careful proofreading to eliminate occasional errors in spelling and word formation would contribute to a more polished presentation. Additionally, incorporating a few more advanced or nuanced vocabulary choices could elevate the sophistication of the language, enhancing the overall lexical control.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 8

Band Score: 8.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a wide range of sentence structures, showcasing flexibility and accuracy. The majority of sentences are error-free, with only very occasional errors or inappropriacies. The writer effectively employs complex structures to convey ideas and maintains good control of grammar and punctuation. The use of varied sentence structures contributes to the overall coherence and fluency of the essay.

How to improve: While the essay is strong in terms of grammatical range and accuracy, minor improvements can be made by ensuring consistency in punctuation and refining a few expressions for greater clarity. Additionally, paying attention to the balance of sentence lengths can enhance the overall flow of the essay. Consider revising sentences occasionally to avoid monotony and add more variety to the structure.

Bài sửa mẫu

Car-free days have emerged as a potential solution to diminish air pollution in urban settings. While some advocate for their effectiveness, others propose alternative methods that might yield more significant results. In this discourse, we will delve into both perspectives and advocate for the supremacy of car-free days as the optimal solution.

Opponents of car-free days advocate for a focus on regulating industrial production, citing it as the primary and underlying cause of air pollution, beyond just vehicles. They contend that alongside automobiles, factors like resource mining, consumer electronics manufacturing, and textile fabrication contribute substantially to air pollution. Redirecting attention towards industrial production involves governments imposing stringent controls and standards. By curbing carbon emissions and promoting sustainable practices in these sectors, authorities can effectively curtail air pollution levels. Moreover, enforcing regulations on production methods could incentivize companies to adopt cleaner technologies, fostering environmentally friendly innovations that aid in pollution reduction and sustainable economic growth.

However, the impact of car-free days extends far and wide. Primarily, prohibiting cars would drastically decrease air pollution. Not only do cars emit substantial quantities of harmful gases themselves, but the overall waste from the car industry exacerbates the issue. Secondly, such a prohibition would compel motorists to explore alternative modes of transportation, potentially leading to habitual changes. For instance, someone unable to drive to work on designated car-free days might opt for remote work or public transport. This shift in behavior could gradually reshape societal mindsets, steering individuals away from viewing car ownership as a status symbol and encouraging a focus on efficiency and a cleaner environment.

To conclude, while regulating specific industries offers a viable approach to diminish air pollution, the prohibition of automobiles on specific days emerges as the most effective solution. Governments should contemplate implementing and expanding existing policies that deter the use of private vehicles.