Some people believe that governments should invest heavily in public transportation systems to reduce traffic congestion and pollution. Others think that individual car ownership should be encouraged for convenience. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Some people believe that governments should invest heavily in public transportation systems to reduce traffic congestion and pollution. Others think that individual car ownership should be encouraged for convenience.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

It is said that personal cars should be fostered because of the convenience, while others think that public transports should be used more. Although people hold conflicting views about this statement, I would strongly agree with the idea that governments should invest more in public transport provision thanks to the decrease in air pollution and rush hour traffic jams.
There are several reasons why public transportation needs to be a government priority. First and foremost, it is undeniable that spending on transport infrastructure helps reduce vehicle emissions, which have a positive effect on environmental pollution. For example, the Singapore's government paid a large amount of money in the metro from the year 2000s, and the result is that Singapore now is the cleanest city in the world thanks to the government's vision and right investment. Secondly, public transportation can significantly reduce the traffic jams in rush hour, which would save time and transportation costs for residents. This is because the more people using civil transport, the less individual cars appear on the road, which could result in reducing traffic in rush hour and avoid the feeling of exhaustion when people need to wait for traffic jams. As a consequence, not only would the air become fresher, but the life quality of citizens could also strongly improve.
Moreover, investing in public transport can make it more accessible to everyone. The fact is that not every person could afford to own a car, but they might easily pay for a season ticket, which is much cheaper than buying a car. Thus, if governments could enhance the service quality, more and more people would choose social transport such as bus or train to travel instead of driving their own cars. In contrast, notwithstanding that some people are keen on having a car because of its convenience, it could have a negative effect on the environment. Moving forward to the future, it would be easy to anticipate that as a car gets older, it emits more and more exhaust fumes, which would seriously harm the air quality, exacerbate the climate change and could make people handily suffer from respiratory issues, compared to subway systems of some developed countries that produce zero emissions. Therefore, using public transportation systems more can be considered as a way to save our planet and our overall well-being.
In conclusion, while people have different arguments, I totally agree with the idea of paying more on social transport, which could help us achieve sustainable developments as well as improve our quality of life in the future.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"It is said that" -> "It is argued that"
Explanation: "It is argued that" is a more precise and formal expression, suitable for academic writing, indicating that the statement is a topic of ongoing debate rather than a casual assertion.
"fostered" -> "promoted"
Explanation: "Fostered" is not typically used in the context of personal cars; "promoted" is more appropriate as it implies actively encouraging or supporting the use of public transport.
"public transports" -> "public transportation"
Explanation: "Public transportation" is the correct noun form, whereas "public transports" is grammatically incorrect and awkward.
"thanks to the decrease in air pollution" -> "owing to the reduction in air pollution"
Explanation: "Owing to" is a more formal preposition than "thanks to," and "reduction" is a more precise term than "decrease" in this context, enhancing the academic tone.
"spending on transport infrastructure" -> "investment in transportation infrastructure"
Explanation: "Investment" is a more precise and formal term than "spending," and "transportation" is the correct noun form in this context.
"the metro" -> "the metro system"
Explanation: "The metro system" is a more specific and accurate term than "the metro," which is ambiguous and could refer to various forms of public transport.
"the cleanest city in the world" -> "one of the cleanest cities in the world"
Explanation: Modifying "the cleanest city" to "one of the cleanest cities" avoids an absolute claim and maintains a more measured tone suitable for academic writing.
"civil transport" -> "public transportation"
Explanation: "Civil transport" is an uncommon and unclear term; "public transportation" is the standard and widely accepted term in this context.
"avoid the feeling of exhaustion" -> "reduce the feeling of exhaustion"
Explanation: "Reduce" is more precise and formal than "avoid," which is somewhat vague and informal in this context.
"not only would the air become fresher" -> "not only would the air quality improve"
Explanation: "Air quality" is a more specific and scientifically accurate term than "air become fresher," which is vague and colloquial.
"the life quality of citizens" -> "the quality of life for citizens"
Explanation: "The quality of life" is the correct idiomatic expression, whereas "the life quality" is incorrect and awkward.
"could afford to own a car" -> "can afford to purchase a vehicle"
Explanation: "Can afford to purchase a vehicle" is more precise and formal than "could afford to own a car," which is less formal and less specific.
"a season ticket" -> "a monthly pass"
Explanation: "A monthly pass" is a more specific and commonly used term in public transportation contexts than "a season ticket," which is less standard.
"Moving forward to the future" -> "Looking ahead to the future"
Explanation: "Looking ahead to the future" is a more natural and formal way to express anticipation in academic writing than "Moving forward to the future," which is awkward and redundant.
"handily suffer from respiratory issues" -> "easily suffer from respiratory issues"
Explanation: "Easily" is more appropriate than "handily," which is not commonly used in this context and sounds informal.
"achieve sustainable developments" -> "achieve sustainable development"
Explanation: "Development" should be singular when referring to a general concept, making it grammatically correct and more precise in this context.
"improve our quality of life" -> "enhance our quality of life"
Explanation: "Enhance" is a more formal and precise verb than "improve" in this context, fitting better with the academic style.

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 the prompt by clearly stating a position in favor of government investment in public transportation. It acknowledges the opposing view of individual car ownership but maintains a strong focus on the benefits of public transport. The response is comprehensive, covering aspects such as environmental impact, traffic congestion, and accessibility. However, the essay could benefit from a more explicit discussion of the opposing viewpoint, which would enhance the overall balance of the argument.
- How to improve: To more comprehensively address all elements of the question, the essay could include a brief acknowledgment of the advantages of individual car ownership, such as convenience and personal freedom. This would provide a more nuanced discussion and demonstrate an understanding of the complexity of the issue.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The position is clear and consistent throughout the essay. The writer strongly agrees with the need for government investment in public transport, and this stance is reiterated in various parts of the essay. The use of phrases like "I would strongly agree" and "I totally agree" reinforces the writer’s commitment to this viewpoint. However, the transition between acknowledging the opposing view and reinforcing the main argument could be smoother.
- How to improve: To maintain a clear and consistent position, the writer could use transitional phrases that explicitly connect the acknowledgment of the opposing view back to their main argument. For example, after discussing the convenience of cars, the writer could state, "Despite these advantages, the long-term benefits of public transport far outweigh the convenience of individual car ownership."
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents several well-supported ideas regarding the benefits of public transportation, including environmental advantages, reduction of traffic congestion, and increased accessibility. Specific examples, such as the investment in Singapore’s metro system, effectively illustrate these points. However, some ideas could be further extended or elaborated upon for greater depth.
- How to improve: To enhance the presentation and support of ideas, the writer could include additional examples or data to substantiate claims. For instance, citing statistics on pollution reduction in cities that have invested in public transport could strengthen the argument. Additionally, providing a counter-example of a city that has struggled with traffic congestion due to high car ownership could further illustrate the importance of public transport.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay remains largely on topic, focusing on the benefits of public transportation and the need for government investment. The writer successfully avoids irrelevant information and maintains a clear focus on the prompt. However, there are moments where the discussion of individual car ownership could be seen as slightly tangential, particularly in the latter half of the essay.
- How to improve: To maintain focus and relevance to the topic, the writer should ensure that any discussion of individual car ownership directly ties back to the main argument. For example, instead of merely stating that cars have a negative environmental impact, the writer could connect this back to the benefits of public transport as a viable alternative, reinforcing the overall argument.

In summary, the essay demonstrates strong reasoning and a clear position, earning a band score of 8. With minor adjustments to address opposing viewpoints, enhance the depth of support for ideas, and maintain focus throughout, the essay could achieve an even higher score.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 8

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 8

Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear argument in favor of investing in public transportation, with a logical progression from the introduction to the conclusion. Each paragraph focuses on a specific reason supporting the main argument, such as environmental benefits, traffic reduction, and accessibility. For instance, the transition from discussing environmental impacts to traffic congestion is smooth and maintains the reader’s understanding of the argument’s flow. However, the introduction could be clearer in outlining the main points that will be discussed, which would enhance the overall coherence.
- How to improve: To enhance logical organization, the introduction could briefly outline the key points that will be addressed in the essay. This would provide a roadmap for the reader, making it easier to follow the argument. Additionally, using more explicit linking phrases between paragraphs could further clarify the connections between ideas.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively uses paragraphs to separate different ideas, with each paragraph dedicated to a specific aspect of the argument. The first body paragraph discusses environmental benefits, while the second focuses on accessibility. This clear structure aids readability and comprehension. However, the final paragraph could benefit from a more distinct separation of ideas, as it attempts to introduce multiple concepts in a single paragraph, which may confuse the reader.
- How to improve: To improve paragraph structure, consider breaking the final paragraph into two separate paragraphs: one focusing on the negative impacts of car ownership and the other on the benefits of public transportation. This would allow for a more thorough exploration of each idea and enhance clarity.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a good use of cohesive devices, such as "first and foremost," "for example," and "in contrast," which help to guide the reader through the argument. These devices effectively connect ideas and maintain the flow of the essay. However, there are instances where the use of cohesive devices could be more varied. For example, the phrase "moving forward to the future" is somewhat repetitive and could be replaced with a more varied expression.
- How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, consider incorporating a wider range of linking words and phrases, such as "additionally," "furthermore," or "on the other hand." This would not only enhance the essay’s cohesion but also demonstrate a more sophisticated command of language. Additionally, varying sentence structures can also contribute to a more engaging and cohesive writing style.

Overall, the essay is well-structured and presents a compelling argument in favor of public transportation investment. By refining the introduction, improving paragraph separation, and diversifying cohesive devices, the coherence and cohesion of the essay can be further enhanced, potentially leading to an even higher band score.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Lexical Resource: 7

Use a Wide Range of Vocabulary:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a good range of vocabulary relevant to the topic of public transportation and environmental issues. Terms such as "infrastructure," "vehicle emissions," "traffic jams," and "sustainable developments" show an ability to discuss the subject matter with appropriate terminology. However, there are instances of repetition, such as the phrase "public transportation" which appears multiple times without variation.
- How to improve: To enhance the range of vocabulary, consider using synonyms or related phrases. For instance, instead of repeatedly using "public transportation," alternatives like "public transit," "mass transit," or "communal transport" could be employed. Additionally, incorporating more varied adjectives and adverbs could enrich the essay.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally uses vocabulary accurately, but there are moments where word choice could be more precise. For example, the phrase "the life quality of citizens" is somewhat awkward; "quality of life" is the more commonly accepted phrase. Additionally, "fostered" in the context of personal cars is not the most suitable choice; "encouraged" would be more appropriate.
- How to improve: Focus on refining word choice to ensure clarity and precision. Reading more academic texts or essays can help in understanding the context in which certain phrases are used. Utilizing a thesaurus can also assist in finding more precise alternatives to commonly used words.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay displays a good level of spelling accuracy, with only a few minor errors. For instance, "the Singapore’s government" should be corrected to "the Singapore government," as the definite article is unnecessary in this context. Additionally, "social transport" is an unusual phrase; "public transport" is more standard.
- How to improve: To improve spelling accuracy, it is advisable to proofread the essay carefully or use spelling and grammar checking tools. Regular practice with writing and receiving feedback can also help in identifying and correcting common spelling mistakes.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a solid command of vocabulary suitable for the topic, there is room for improvement in terms of variety, precision, and spelling accuracy. By focusing on expanding vocabulary, refining word choice, and enhancing proofreading practices, the writer can work towards achieving a higher band score in Lexical Resource.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 8

Band Score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 8

Use a Wide Range of Structures:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a commendable variety of sentence structures. For instance, the use of complex sentences such as "Although people hold conflicting views about this statement, I would strongly agree with the idea that governments should invest more in public transport provision thanks to the decrease in air pollution and rush hour traffic jams" showcases an ability to convey nuanced ideas effectively. Additionally, the essay employs conditional structures ("if governments could enhance the service quality") and comparative phrases ("not only would the air become fresher, but the life quality of citizens could also strongly improve"), which contribute to the overall richness of the text. However, there are instances of repetitive structure, particularly in the way arguments are introduced (e.g., "First and foremost," "Secondly," "Moreover"), which could benefit from more variation.
- How to improve: To diversify sentence structures further, the writer could incorporate more varied introductory phrases and transition words. For example, instead of consistently using "First and foremost," the writer could alternate with phrases such as "To begin with," "In addition," or "Another significant point is." Additionally, integrating more compound-complex sentences could enhance the sophistication of the writing.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally maintains a high level of grammatical accuracy, with only minor errors present. For example, the phrase "the Singapore’s government" should be corrected to "the Singapore government" to eliminate the unnecessary article. Additionally, the sentence "Moving forward to the future, it would be easy to anticipate that as a car gets older, it emits more and more exhaust fumes" could be more clearly expressed by removing "moving forward to the future," which is somewhat redundant. Punctuation is mostly used correctly, but there are a few instances where commas could enhance clarity, such as before "which could result in reducing traffic in rush hour."
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, the writer should focus on eliminating unnecessary articles and ensuring subject-verb agreement. Regular practice with grammar exercises and reviewing common grammatical errors can also be beneficial. Furthermore, the writer should pay attention to punctuation rules, particularly regarding the use of commas in complex sentences, to enhance clarity and readability.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong command of grammatical range and accuracy, achieving a band score of 8. By incorporating more varied sentence structures and refining grammatical and punctuation accuracy, the writer can further elevate their writing quality.

Bài sửa mẫu

It is said that personal cars should be promoted because of their convenience, while others think that public transportation should be used more. Although people hold conflicting views about this statement, I would strongly agree with the idea that governments should invest more in public transportation provision owing to the reduction in air pollution and rush hour traffic jams.

There are several reasons why public transportation needs to be a government priority. First and foremost, it is undeniable that spending on transportation infrastructure helps reduce vehicle emissions, which have a positive effect on environmental pollution. For example, the Singaporean government invested a large amount of money in the metro system from the year 2000, and the result is that Singapore is now one of the cleanest cities in the world thanks to the government’s vision and right investment. Secondly, public transportation can significantly reduce traffic jams during rush hour, which would save time and transportation costs for residents. This is because the more people use public transport, the fewer individual cars appear on the road, which could result in reducing traffic during rush hour and avoiding the feeling of exhaustion when people need to wait in traffic.

As a consequence, not only would the air quality improve, but the quality of life for citizens could also strongly improve. Moreover, investing in public transport can make it more accessible to everyone. The fact is that not every person can afford to own a car, but they might easily pay for a monthly pass, which is much cheaper than buying a car. Thus, if governments could enhance the service quality, more and more people would choose public transportation such as buses or trains to travel instead of driving their own cars. In contrast, notwithstanding that some people are keen on having a car because of its convenience, it could have a negative effect on the environment. Looking ahead to the future, it would be easy to anticipate that as a car gets older, it emits more and more exhaust fumes, which would seriously harm air quality, exacerbate climate change, and could make people easily suffer from respiratory issues, compared to subway systems in some developed countries that produce zero emissions. Therefore, using public transportation systems more can be considered a way to save our planet and enhance our quality of life.

In conclusion, while people have different arguments, I totally agree with the idea of investing more in public transportation, which could help us achieve sustainable development as well as improve our quality of life in the future.