Some people think international car-free days are an effective way of reducing air pollution; however, others think there are some other ways. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

It is widely believed that international car-free days are an effective method for reducing air pollution. While there are some benefits to this practice, I agree with this notion due to the benefits it presents.
On the one hand, the primary reason why some individuals believe holding car-free days globally is essential may result in a significant improvement in air quality. This is exemplified by the significant improvement in India’s air quality during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was estimated that India’s air quality increased is over 50% during the shutdown. furthermore, a personal transportation-free day would allow individuals to do more physical exercise throughout the day. It is recommended to spend half an hour exercising per day which would be more achievable if people bike or walk to work.
On the other hand, there are a variety of reasons why people disagree with this notion. For instance, if cars were banned for a day, many individuals who commute to work by car would be unable to attend work, potentially leading to understaffing in companies. Many places like the suburbs and the countryside have a lack of public transportation, and alternative modes of transportation, such as buses and taxis, may not be viable. Also, people may not have the necessary funds to afford healthcare transportation, ambulances, or helicopters, so personal vehicles would be the only way to get to the hospital.
In conclusion, with the above-mentioned advantages, I believe that this would be beneficial due to the environmental benefits it produces.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"It is widely believed" -> "It is commonly accepted"
Explanation: "It is commonly accepted" is a more precise and formal expression, suitable for academic writing, compared to the more colloquial "It is widely believed."
"an effective method" -> "an effective strategy"
Explanation: "Strategy" is a more specific and formal term than "method," which better fits the context of discussing a planned approach to reducing air pollution.
"I agree with this notion" -> "I concur with this perspective"
Explanation: "Concur" is a more formal synonym for "agree," and "perspective" is a more academic term than "notion," enhancing the formality of the statement.
"may result in a significant improvement" -> "could lead to a substantial improvement"
Explanation: "Could lead to" is a more precise and formal way of expressing potential outcomes in academic writing, compared to "may result in."
"it was estimated that India’s air quality increased is over 50%" -> "it was estimated that India’s air quality improved by over 50%"
Explanation: The phrase "improved by over 50%" is grammatically correct and clearer than "increased is over 50%," which is awkward and incorrect.
"furthermore" -> "Additionally"
Explanation: "Additionally" is more formal and appropriate for academic writing than "furthermore," which can sometimes sound informal or conversational.
"It is recommended to spend half an hour exercising per day" -> "It is recommended to dedicate at least 30 minutes daily to exercise"
Explanation: "Dedicate at least 30 minutes daily to exercise" is more precise and formal, specifying the time and activity in a clearer manner.
"would be more achievable" -> "would be more feasible"
Explanation: "Feasible" is a more formal term than "achievable," which is slightly less precise and more colloquial.
"Many places like the suburbs and the countryside" -> "Many rural and suburban areas"
Explanation: "Rural and suburban areas" is a more precise and formal way to describe these geographical locations, avoiding the informal phrasing of "places like."
"lack of public transportation" -> "insufficient public transportation"
Explanation: "Insufficient" is a more precise term than "lack of," which is vague and less formal.
"alternative modes of transportation, such as buses and taxis" -> "alternative modes of transportation, including buses and taxis"
Explanation: "Including" is more formal and appropriate in academic writing than "such as," which can be seen as too casual.
"people may not have the necessary funds to afford healthcare transportation, ambulances, or helicopters" -> "individuals may not have the necessary financial resources to access healthcare transportation, ambulances, or helicopters"
Explanation: "Financial resources" is a more precise and formal term than "funds," and "access" is more appropriate than "afford" in this context, which is more specific to the availability of services.
"personal vehicles would be the only way to get to the hospital" -> "personal vehicles would be the sole means of accessing hospitals"
Explanation: "Sole means of accessing hospitals" is more formal and precise than "the only way to get to the hospital," which is somewhat colloquial.
"with the above-mentioned advantages" -> "considering the aforementioned advantages"
Explanation: "Considering the aforementioned advantages" is a more formal and academic way to refer back to previously discussed points, enhancing the formality of the conclusion.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Task Response: 7

Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay addresses both views regarding international car-free days and presents the writer’s opinion. The first paragraph outlines the belief in the effectiveness of car-free days, while the second paragraph discusses the opposing viewpoint, highlighting practical challenges. However, the essay could benefit from a more balanced exploration of both perspectives. For instance, while the benefits of car-free days are mentioned, the counterarguments could be elaborated further to provide a more comprehensive view of the debate.
- How to improve: To enhance the response, the writer should ensure that each viewpoint is explored in greater depth. This could involve providing more examples or statistics related to the drawbacks of car-free days, as well as discussing alternative solutions to air pollution in more detail. A clearer structure that dedicates equal attention to both sides will also strengthen the argument.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The writer expresses a clear position in favor of car-free days, stating their agreement with the notion due to the benefits presented. However, the conclusion reiterates the advantages without explicitly addressing the counterarguments discussed earlier. This could create a perception of inconsistency, as the essay does not fully integrate the opposing views into the final stance.
- How to improve: To maintain a clear and consistent position, the writer should integrate the counterarguments into the conclusion, acknowledging them while reaffirming their stance. This could involve a statement that recognizes the challenges posed by car-free days but emphasizes that the environmental benefits outweigh these concerns.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents several ideas, such as the improvement in air quality during the COVID-19 pandemic and the potential for increased physical activity. However, some points lack sufficient development. For instance, while the example of India’s air quality is relevant, it could be more effectively linked to the broader argument about car-free days. Additionally, the mention of personal transportation needs in the counterargument is valid but could be expanded with more examples or data to strengthen the point.
- How to improve: The writer should aim to extend their ideas by providing more detailed explanations and examples. For instance, they could include statistics on air quality improvements from other regions or studies that support the benefits of reduced car usage. Similarly, elaborating on the economic implications of car-free days could provide a more robust argument.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally remains focused on the topic of international car-free days and their impact on air pollution. However, some parts, particularly in the counterargument, could be perceived as slightly off-topic. For example, the discussion about healthcare transportation may not directly relate to the effectiveness of car-free days in reducing pollution, which could distract from the main argument.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer should ensure that all points made directly relate to the topic of car-free days and their effectiveness. It may be beneficial to clarify how the challenges of public transportation relate to the overall discussion about air pollution and car-free initiatives. Keeping all arguments tightly aligned with the prompt will enhance the essay’s coherence and relevance.

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 sets the stage for the discussion, and each body paragraph addresses a distinct perspective. However, the logical flow could be improved; for instance, the transition between the benefits of car-free days and the counterarguments could be more seamless. The mention of India’s air quality improvement is relevant but could be better integrated into the argument to enhance clarity.
- How to improve: To enhance logical organization, consider using transitional phrases that clearly indicate shifts between ideas, such as "In contrast" or "Conversely." Additionally, ensure that each point builds on the previous one to create a more cohesive argument. For example, after discussing the benefits of car-free days, explicitly state how these benefits are challenged by the counterarguments in the following paragraph.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay uses paragraphs effectively, with each paragraph focusing on a specific aspect of the discussion. The first paragraph outlines the benefits of car-free days, while the second presents opposing views. However, the paragraphs could be more balanced in length and depth; the first paragraph is slightly more developed than the second, which may give the impression of bias.
- How to improve: Aim for a more balanced approach by expanding on the counterarguments in the second paragraph. This could involve providing more examples or elaborating on the points made, such as discussing the potential economic impact of car-free days in more detail. Additionally, consider using topic sentences that clearly state the main idea of each paragraph to guide the reader.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay employs some cohesive devices, such as "On the one hand" and "On the other hand," which help to delineate contrasting views. However, the range of cohesive devices is somewhat limited, and the essay could benefit from more varied connectors to enhance flow and clarity. For instance, the use of "furthermore" is appropriate, but it could be complemented with other devices like "Moreover" or "Additionally" to introduce new points.
- How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, practice incorporating a wider range of linking words and phrases. For example, use "In addition to" when adding information, or "Nevertheless" when presenting a counterpoint. Additionally, consider using pronouns or synonyms to avoid repetition and improve cohesion within and between sentences. For instance, instead of repeating "individuals," you could use "they" or "people" in subsequent references.

By addressing these areas, the essay can achieve a higher level of coherence and cohesion, potentially leading to an improved band score in future assessments.

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 "car-free days," "air pollution," and "personal transportation." However, the vocabulary tends to be somewhat repetitive, particularly with phrases like "air quality" and "personal transportation." The use of synonyms or more varied expressions could enhance the richness of the essay. For example, instead of repeating "air quality," the writer could have used terms like "atmospheric conditions" or "environmental health."
- How to improve: To improve vocabulary range, the writer should aim to incorporate synonyms and related terms throughout the essay. Engaging with a thesaurus or vocabulary lists related to environmental topics could help diversify word choice. Additionally, practicing paraphrasing sentences can also aid in expanding vocabulary usage.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains instances of imprecise vocabulary usage, such as "healthcare transportation," which is not a commonly used term. It seems the writer intended to refer to "emergency transportation" or "medical transport." Additionally, the phrase "the significant improvement in India’s air quality during the COVID-19 pandemic" could be more accurately expressed as "the notable reduction in pollution levels in India during the COVID-19 pandemic," which clarifies the context.
- How to improve: To enhance precision, the writer should focus on using terms that are widely recognized and contextually appropriate. Reading academic articles or reliable sources on environmental issues can provide insights into the correct terminology. Furthermore, revising sentences to ensure clarity and accuracy will help in using vocabulary more precisely.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The spelling in the essay is generally accurate, with only minor errors such as "furthermore" (which should be capitalized as it begins a new sentence) and "healthcare transportation," which is not a spelling error but rather a misuse of terms. The overall spelling demonstrates a good command of the language, contributing positively to the essay’s readability.
- How to improve: To further enhance spelling accuracy, the writer should proofread the essay carefully, focusing on capitalization and the correct use of terms. Utilizing spell-check tools and engaging in regular writing practice can also help reinforce correct spelling habits. Additionally, maintaining a personal list of commonly misspelled words can be beneficial for future essays.

In summary, while the essay achieves a Band 6 for Lexical Resource, there are clear areas for improvement. By expanding vocabulary range, enhancing precision in word choice, and ensuring correct spelling, the writer can work towards achieving a higher band score in future IELTS writing tasks.

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 instance, the phrase "if cars were banned for a day, many individuals who commute to work by car would be unable to attend work" effectively uses a conditional structure to express a hypothetical situation. However, the essay also contains several instances of simpler sentence constructions that could be enhanced for greater variety. For example, the sentence "It is widely believed that international car-free days are an effective method for reducing air pollution" is straightforward and could be varied by incorporating more complex clauses or varying the sentence beginnings.
- How to improve: To diversify sentence structures, the writer can incorporate more complex sentences that include subordinate clauses, participial phrases, or varying sentence lengths. For example, instead of starting multiple sentences with "It is," the writer could begin with adverbial phrases or use inversion for emphasis. Practicing combining shorter sentences into more complex ones can also enhance the overall range.
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, the phrase "India’s air quality increased is over 50%" contains a grammatical error; it should be "India’s air quality increased by over 50%." Additionally, punctuation errors are present, such as the lowercase "f" in "furthermore" at the beginning of a sentence, which should be capitalized. The use of commas is also inconsistent, particularly in longer sentences where they could help clarify meaning.
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, the writer should carefully proofread their work to catch errors in verb forms and punctuation. Utilizing grammar-checking tools can help identify common mistakes. Furthermore, practicing sentence diagramming can aid in understanding where commas are necessary for clarity. The writer should also focus on ensuring that subject-verb agreement is maintained throughout the essay.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a solid command of grammatical range and accuracy, focusing on diversifying sentence structures and enhancing grammatical precision will help elevate the writing to a higher band score.

Bài sửa mẫu

It is widely believed that international car-free days are an effective method for reducing air pollution. While there are some benefits to this practice, I concur with this perspective due to the advantages it presents.

On the one hand, the primary reason why some individuals believe holding car-free days globally is essential is that it could lead to a substantial improvement in air quality. This is exemplified by the significant improvement in India’s air quality during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was estimated that India’s air quality improved by over 50% during the shutdown. Furthermore, a personal transportation-free day would allow individuals to engage in more physical exercise throughout the day. It is recommended to dedicate at least 30 minutes daily to exercise, which would be more feasible if people bike or walk to work.

On the other hand, there are a variety of reasons why people disagree with this notion. For instance, if cars were banned for a day, many individuals who commute to work by car would be unable to attend work, potentially leading to understaffing in companies. Many rural and suburban areas have insufficient public transportation, and alternative modes of transportation, such as buses and taxis, may not be viable. Additionally, individuals may not have the necessary financial resources to access healthcare transportation, ambulances, or helicopters, so personal vehicles would be the sole means of accessing hospitals.

In conclusion, considering the aforementioned advantages, I believe that international car-free days would be beneficial due to the environmental benefits they produce.