Some people believe that the best way to deal with heavy traffic in city centers is for privately owned cars to be banned, others however, think this is an unrealistic solution. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Today, traffic jams are becoming a severely disturbing phenomenon in some overpopulated urbanized cities. Some people argue that privately owned vehicles should be disallowed to enter city centres. Others, however, disagree and believe that it will not be a viable solution. In this context, it is a matter of debate.

On the one hand, people in favour of prohibiting privately registered cars argue that traffic congestion was originally created by the immense numbers of citizens' vehicles. In addition, some people in fact own multiple cars or even more. For instance, a single household may obtain more than one car for each family member and drive separately to a gathering in the city centre. In his book, Urban Catastrophe, Dr Victor Sam discusses this issue by saying, “Over 90% of London population own multiple cars and then people wonder, why such a problem exists?” Consequently, it has been advocated for a while to simply disallow ordinary people’s cars from approaching the mid-town.

On the other hand, the argument seems to be absurd and lacks comprehension of the true nature of the issue. Indeed, people should not be responsible for the faulty planning and structuring done by loose authority in the first place. In other words, restricting citizens from their basic rights because of shabby traffic designs is, absolutely, reprehensible. The government should work on logical and viable solutions such as the newly designed highway bridges in Egypt, for example, instead of turning their backs and blaming people’s properties.

To conclude, it is understandable to look thoroughly into the ever-rising traffic congestion hurdle. Whether banning the vehicles of the community to abreast city centres would be realistic or not, is still arguable amongst decision-makers. Personally, I tend to appreciate people’s right to own and move freely without any restrictions.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

Errors and Improvements:

"severely disturbing phenomenon" -> "significant urban challenge"
Explanation: "Severely disturbing phenomenon" is overly dramatic and informal. "Significant urban challenge" maintains formality while accurately describing the issue.
"disallowed to enter" -> "prohibited from entering"
Explanation: "Disallowed to enter" is awkward phrasing. "Prohibited from entering" is more concise and formal.
"On the one hand" -> "One perspective"
Explanation: "On the one hand" is a bit informal for academic writing. "One perspective" maintains neutrality and formality.
"immense numbers of citizens’ vehicles" -> "large volume of private vehicles"
Explanation: "Immense numbers of citizens’ vehicles" is informal. "Large volume of private vehicles" is more precise and academic.
"ordinary people’s cars" -> "private vehicles"
Explanation: "Ordinary people’s cars" is somewhat colloquial. "Private vehicles" is a more formal and precise term.
"simply disallow" -> "prohibit"
Explanation: "Simply disallow" is too casual. "Prohibit" is a more formal and appropriate term.
"argument seems to be absurd" -> "argument appears flawed"
Explanation: "Seems to be absurd" is subjective and lacks formality. "Appears flawed" maintains neutrality and academic tone.
"comprehension of the true nature of the issue" -> "understanding of the underlying issue"
Explanation: "Comprehension of the true nature of the issue" is verbose. "Understanding of the underlying issue" is more concise and academic.
"shabby traffic designs" -> "ineffective traffic infrastructure"
Explanation: "Shabby traffic designs" is informal. "Ineffective traffic infrastructure" is a more formal and precise term.
"government should work on logical and viable solutions" -> "government should implement effective solutions"
Explanation: "Work on logical and viable solutions" is vague. "Implement effective solutions" is more direct and formal.
"To conclude" -> "In conclusion"
Explanation: "To conclude" is less formal. "In conclusion" is a standard phrase for academic writing.
"realistic or not, is still arguable" -> "feasible or not, remains debatable"
Explanation: "Realistic or not, is still arguable" is awkward and informal. "Feasible or not, remains debatable" is clearer and more formal.
"I tend to appreciate" -> "I lean towards valuing"
Explanation: "I tend to appreciate" is too casual. "I lean towards valuing" is more formal and precise.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Task Response: 6

Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay adequately addresses both sides of the argument regarding banning privately owned cars in city centers. It discusses the perspective of those who advocate for the ban due to traffic congestion and those who oppose it, emphasizing individual rights. However, the analysis could be more thorough by providing additional examples or statistics to support the viewpoints presented.
- How to improve: To enhance the comprehensiveness of the discussion, consider providing more concrete examples or data to strengthen the arguments on both sides. Additionally, ensure that each viewpoint is fully explored to demonstrate a deep understanding of the issue.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear position throughout, advocating for the idea that banning privately owned cars in city centers is not a realistic solution to traffic congestion. This stance is consistently supported throughout the essay, particularly in the concluding paragraph.
- How to improve: To further improve clarity and consistency, ensure that the thesis statement clearly articulates the author’s position in the introduction and that each subsequent paragraph reinforces this stance with strong supporting evidence.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively presents and extends ideas, providing arguments and examples to support each viewpoint. For instance, it discusses the causes of traffic congestion and offers a counterargument against banning privately owned cars. However, some ideas could be further developed with additional details or analysis.
- How to improve: To enhance the development of ideas, consider providing more specific examples or anecdotes to illustrate key points. Additionally, ensure that each argument is thoroughly analyzed to strengthen the overall persuasiveness of the essay.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic by discussing the issue of traffic congestion and the proposed solution of banning privately owned cars in city centers. However, there are moments where the essay veers slightly off topic, such as when discussing the responsibility of government in addressing traffic issues.
- How to improve: To maintain focus and relevance, ensure that all points made directly relate to the central topic of traffic congestion and the feasibility of banning privately owned cars. Avoid tangential discussions that detract from the main argument.

Overall, while the essay effectively addresses the prompt and presents a clear position, there are areas where it could be strengthened through more comprehensive analysis, clearer articulation of ideas, and stricter adherence to the central topic. With some refinement, the essay has the potential to achieve an even higher band score.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 6

Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a moderate level of logical organization. It presents two contrasting views on the issue of heavy traffic in city centers: one advocating for banning privately owned cars and the other opposing this solution. However, the organization could be strengthened by clearer transitions between ideas. For instance, the shift from discussing the argument against banning cars to the conclusion feels somewhat abrupt. Additionally, the essay lacks a clear introduction outlining the structure of the argument, which could improve coherence.
- How to improve: To enhance logical organization, consider structuring the essay with a clear introduction that outlines the main points to be discussed. Ensure smooth transitions between paragraphs to guide the reader through the argument more effectively. You can achieve this by using linking words and phrases to connect ideas and create a cohesive flow of information.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay uses paragraphs to separate different ideas, which is a positive aspect. However, the effectiveness of paragraphing could be improved. Some paragraphs are overly long and cover multiple points, leading to a lack of clarity and focus within each paragraph. For example, the paragraph discussing the argument against banning cars could be broken down into smaller paragraphs to address specific points more clearly.
- How to improve: Aim for shorter paragraphs that each focus on a single main idea or argument. This will help improve clarity and make the essay easier to follow. Consider starting a new paragraph for each new point or perspective introduced in the essay. Additionally, ensure that each paragraph has a clear topic sentence that previews the main idea of the paragraph.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay makes some use of cohesive devices to connect ideas and create coherence, but there is room for improvement. Cohesive devices such as transition words and phrases (e.g., "On the one hand," "On the other hand," "To conclude") are used to some extent, but their usage could be more varied and consistent throughout the essay. Additionally, the essay could benefit from greater use of cohesive devices within paragraphs to link sentences and ideas more effectively.
- How to improve: Increase the variety and frequency of cohesive devices used throughout the essay to create a more cohesive and coherent argument. This includes using a wider range of transition words and phrases to signal shifts between ideas and paragraphs. Additionally, ensure that cohesive devices are used within paragraphs to create logical connections between sentences and maintain coherence within each section of the essay.

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, such as "phenomenon," "prohibiting," "approaching," "reprehensible," "abreast," "viable," "shabby," "hurdle," and "logical." These words are mostly well-used and contribute effectively to the discussion.
- How to improve: To further enhance the vocabulary range, consider incorporating more specific and sophisticated vocabulary where appropriate. For instance, instead of "phenomenon," using "urban predicament" or "traffic quagmire" can add more depth and precision. Also, ensure that the context of each word used fits perfectly to avoid any risk of over or under explanation.

in the’s even S Nic Revolution Whole Number E.g. Even Essay Writing. is in It

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 commendable variety of sentence structures, including simple, compound, and complex sentences. For example, it effectively employs compound sentences ("Today, traffic jams are becoming a severely disturbing phenomenon in some overpopulated urbanized cities") as well as complex sentences ("In addition, some people in fact own multiple cars or even more"). This variety enhances the readability and coherence of the essay, allowing for a smoother flow of ideas.
- How to improve: While the essay exhibits a good range of structures, further diversification could be achieved by incorporating more complex compound-complex sentences. This can be done by combining ideas within a sentence more intricately, thus elevating the sophistication of the writing.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong command of grammar and punctuation. However, there are a few instances where minor errors are present, such as missing commas in compound sentences ("For instance, a single household may obtain more than one car for each family member and drive separately to a gathering in the city centre"). Additionally, there are a couple of instances where the choice of prepositions could be improved ("people’s properties" could be rephrased as "people’s possessions"). These errors do not significantly impede comprehension but could be refined for greater clarity and precision.
- How to improve: To enhance grammatical accuracy, it is advisable to review the rules governing comma usage in compound sentences and ensure consistency throughout the essay. Furthermore, paying closer attention to preposition selection can help refine the clarity and accuracy of expression.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong grasp of grammatical range and accuracy, contributing to its effective communication of ideas. By further diversifying sentence structures and refining grammatical precision, the essay could achieve an even higher level of sophistication and coherence.

Bài sửa mẫu

Today, traffic congestion poses a significant urban challenge in densely populated cities. There are differing views on how to address this issue, with some advocating for a ban on privately owned cars entering city centers, while others view this as an impractical solution.

Supporters of banning privately owned vehicles argue that the root cause of traffic congestion lies in the large number of individual cars on the roads. They point out that many households own multiple cars, leading to unnecessary traffic. Dr. Victor Sam, in his book *Urban Catastrophe*, highlights this by noting that over 90% of London’s population owns multiple cars, exacerbating congestion issues. Therefore, proponents of the ban suggest that restricting private vehicles from entering city centers could alleviate traffic congestion.

However, opponents of this idea argue that it unfairly penalizes individuals for the failures of urban planning and infrastructure. They believe that the responsibility lies with the government to address traffic congestion through improved transportation systems, such as the construction of new highways or bridges. For instance, the recent development of highway bridges in Egypt serves as a more practical solution to ease traffic flow.

In conclusion, while it is essential to find solutions to the increasing problem of traffic congestion, the effectiveness of banning privately owned cars from city centers remains a subject of debate. Personally, I believe that restricting people’s right to own and use their vehicles freely may not be the most effective approach. Instead, governments should focus on implementing comprehensive transportation strategies that address the root causes of congestion while ensuring the mobility of citizens.