Some people think it is more important to spend public money on roads and motorways than on public transport systems such as railways and trams. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Opinions are divided on whether allocating funds for public means of transportation is wiser than using these money for constructing more highways and roads. Personally, I approve the view of developing public transportation since it is cheaper and is more friendly to the environment.

Firstly, improving public transportations helps reduce congestion. Since one bus or tram can take about 20 passengers at once while private vehicles can only fetch one or two, it is apparent that increasing the availability of public transportation can significantly lessen the number of private cars. As a result, traffic jam is likely to be considerably curbed. One might argues that erecting more highways can do just the same. However, investing in public means of transportation is much more affordable, therefore it is not sound to chose such a cost-ineffective approach that produce the same result. Moreover, building highways takes many years to finished while generating more busses or trams on the already available tracks only required a short time to add more vehicles.

To add more credence to my assertion, I note the fact that spending on public transport is also eco-friendly lifestyle. Researchers have shown that emission from transportations generated a major part of the overall toxic gases that are released from human activities. Because of this, enegendering the masses to use less private vehicles by developing public means of transportations can cut down on air pollution. For example: in Japan, residents usually take an undergrounds to work because they offer easy access and are cheap at the same time. As a result, Japan boast the top position in the global table of countries with the most qualified atmosphere. On the contrary, allocating money to widen road systems is doing the opposite since it stimulate people to move in a longer routines.

In conclusion, I believe that the merits of building more roads pale to the supreme of investing in public transportations.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

Errors and Improvements:

"Opinions are divided on whether allocating funds for public means of transportation is wiser than using these money for constructing more highways and roads." -> "There is a debate regarding the wisdom of allocating funds for public transportation versus using them for constructing more highways and roads."
Explanation: The original sentence is somewhat informal and could be phrased more formally for academic writing by using "there is a debate" instead of "opinions are divided" and by using "these funds" instead of "these money."
"Personally, I approve the view of developing public transportation since it is cheaper and is more friendly to the environment." -> "Personally, I support the development of public transportation due to its cost-effectiveness and environmental friendliness."
Explanation: "Approve" is more commonly used in contexts of granting permission, while "support" is more appropriate for expressing one’s agreement with an idea. Additionally, "is more friendly" can be improved to "is more environmentally friendly" for clearer expression.
"Firstly, improving public transportations helps reduce congestion." -> "Firstly, improving public transportation helps alleviate congestion."
Explanation: "Public transportations" should be corrected to "public transportation" as it is an uncountable noun. Also, "reduce congestion" can be replaced with "alleviate congestion" for a more formal tone.
"Since one bus or tram can take about 20 passengers at once while private vehicles can only fetch one or two…" -> "Given that one bus or tram can accommodate approximately 20 passengers at once, whereas private vehicles typically accommodate only one or two…"
Explanation: This revision clarifies the comparison between the capacity of public transport and private vehicles, while also improving the formality of the language.
"As a result, traffic jam is likely to be considerably curbed." -> "As a result, traffic congestion is likely to be significantly reduced."
Explanation: "Traffic jam" is a more colloquial term, while "traffic congestion" is a more formal alternative. "Curbed" is replaced with "reduced" for clarity and formality.
"One might argues that erecting more highways can do just the same." -> "One might argue that constructing more highways can achieve similar results."
Explanation: "Argues" should be corrected to "argue" for grammatical accuracy. Additionally, "erecting" is replaced with "constructing" for a more formal and precise term.
"However, investing in public means of transportation is much more affordable, therefore it is not sound to chose such a cost-ineffective approach that produce the same result." -> "However, investing in public transportation is much more cost-effective. Therefore, choosing such a cost-ineffective approach that produces the same result is not sound."
Explanation: This revision clarifies the argument by separating the reasons for choosing public transportation and criticizing the alternative approach. "Public means of transportation" is simplified to "public transportation," and "chose" is corrected to "choose."
"Moreover, building highways takes many years to finished while generating more busses or trams on the already available tracks only required a short time to add more vehicles." -> "Moreover, constructing highways takes many years to complete, whereas adding more buses or trams to existing tracks requires only a short time."
Explanation: The original sentence contains grammatical errors and awkward phrasing. "Finished" is corrected to "complete," and "required" is changed to "requires" for grammatical accuracy.
"To add more credence to my assertion, I note the fact that spending on public transport is also eco-friendly lifestyle." -> "To further support my assertion, it is important to note that investing in public transport promotes an eco-friendly lifestyle."
Explanation: "Credence" is replaced with "support" for clarity, and "eco-friendly lifestyle" is clarified to "promotes an eco-friendly lifestyle" for better expression.
"Because of this, enegendering the masses to use less private vehicles by developing public means of transportations can cut down on air pollution." -> "As a result, encouraging the public to use fewer private vehicles by improving public transportation can reduce air pollution."
Explanation: "Enegendering" is corrected to "encouraging," and "public means of transportations" is simplified to "public transportation" for clarity and conciseness.
"For example: in Japan, residents usually take an undergrounds to work because they offer easy access and are cheap at the same time." -> "For example, in Japan, residents typically use underground trains for commuting due to their accessibility and affordability."
Explanation: The original sentence contains grammatical errors and awkward phrasing. "Undergrounds" is corrected to "underground trains," and "easy access and are cheap at the same time" is simplified to "accessibility and affordability."
"Japan boast the top position in the global table of countries with the most qualified atmosphere." -> "Japan boasts the top position in the global ranking of countries with the highest air quality."
Explanation: "Qualified atmosphere" is replaced with "highest air quality" for clarity and precision. "Table" is replaced with "ranking" for a more formal term.
"On the contrary, allocating money to widen road systems is doing the opposite since it stimulate people to move in a longer routines." -> "Conversely, allocating money to expand road systems has the opposite effect, as it encourages longer commutes."
Explanation: "Stimulate people to move in longer routines" is awkward and unclear. "Stimulate" is replaced with "encourage," and "routines" is replaced with "commutes" for clarity and precision.
"In conclusion, I believe that the merits of building more roads pale to the supreme of investing in public transportations." -> "In conclusion, I believe that the benefits of investing in public transportation outweigh the merits of building more roads."
Explanation: "Pale to the supreme" is unclear and awkward. "Outweigh the merits" is a clearer and more precise expression of the comparison between public transportation and road construction.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 5

Band Score for Task Response: 5

Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively addresses all aspects of the prompt by presenting a clear opinion on whether public money should prioritize roads and motorways over public transport systems. The writer maintains a consistent stance throughout the essay, arguing in favor of developing public transportation.
- How to improve: While the essay provides a clear opinion, it could enhance its response by further exploring potential counterarguments or alternative perspectives. Including a brief acknowledgment of opposing views and providing a rebuttal could strengthen the argumentation.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear and consistent position in favor of investing in public transportation over roads and motorways. The writer effectively expresses their opinion in the introduction and reinforces it with supporting arguments in the body paragraphs.
- How to improve: To further enhance clarity, the writer could explicitly state their position in the thesis statement of the introduction, ensuring that it is unmistakably clear to the reader from the outset.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents ideas regarding the benefits of public transportation in reducing congestion and promoting environmental sustainability. Examples such as the comparison between the capacity of public transport and private vehicles and the impact on air pollution in Japan support the argument.
- How to improve: To extend and support ideas more effectively, the writer could provide additional evidence, statistics, or real-life examples to further bolster their argument. Including data on the economic benefits or societal impacts of investing in public transportation could strengthen the argumentation.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay predominantly stays on topic by addressing the prompt’s focus on the allocation of public funds between roads/motorways and public transport systems. While the essay briefly mentions the environmental benefits of public transport, it remains relevant to the overall argument.
- How to improve: To ensure strict adherence to the topic, the writer could refrain from delving too deeply into tangential points, such as the comparison between public transport and private vehicles. Focusing solely on the allocation of public funds as outlined in the prompt would enhance topic relevance.

Overall, while the essay effectively presents a coherent argument in favor of investing in public transportation, it could further improve by considering counterarguments, explicitly stating the thesis, providing additional evidence, and maintaining strict topic relevance. These enhancements would contribute to a more comprehensive and compelling response.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 6

Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a reasonably logical organization of information. It begins with a clear introduction stating the writer’s position and proceeds to present two main points supporting this stance. Each paragraph contains a distinct argument and is followed by relevant supporting details. However, there are instances where the flow of ideas could be smoother. For instance, the transition between the first and second body paragraphs could be improved to create a more seamless progression of arguments.
- How to improve: To enhance logical coherence, consider using transition words or phrases between paragraphs to establish clearer connections between ideas. Additionally, ensure that each paragraph focuses on a single main point and that supporting details directly relate to the topic sentence.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay employs paragraphs to organize ideas, with each paragraph dedicated to a specific argument or supporting detail. However, there are areas where paragraph structure could be refined for greater effectiveness. For instance, the second paragraph contains multiple ideas about reducing congestion but could be broken down into smaller paragraphs to improve readability and clarity.
- How to improve: Aim for clear topic sentences at the beginning of each paragraph to signal the main idea. Additionally, consider breaking longer paragraphs into shorter ones to prevent overwhelming the reader with too much information at once.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay utilizes some cohesive devices, such as transition words like "firstly" and "moreover," to connect ideas within and between sentences. However, the variety and effectiveness of cohesive devices could be enhanced to improve coherence further. For instance, while transition words are used, they are sometimes repetitive or not used consistently throughout the essay.
- How to improve: Broaden the range of cohesive devices used, including conjunctions, pronouns, and transitional phrases, to create smoother connections between sentences and paragraphs. Ensure that cohesive devices are used consistently and appropriately to maintain coherence and cohesion throughout 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 commendable range of vocabulary, incorporating various terms such as "allocating funds," "curbed," "cost-ineffective," "credence," "assertion," "eco-friendly," "emission," "qualified atmosphere," and "stimulate." These words are generally used appropriately within the context of the essay, showcasing a good attempt to employ a diverse vocabulary to convey ideas effectively.
- How to improve: To further enhance the range of vocabulary, consider incorporating more sophisticated synonyms and idiomatic expressions where appropriate. Ensure that the usage of vocabulary aligns closely with the intended meaning to avoid potential ambiguity or misinterpretation.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: While the essay utilizes a wide vocabulary, there are instances where vocabulary could be used more precisely. For example, phrases such as "one might argues" should be corrected to "one might argue," and "enegendering" should be "encouraging." Additionally, some expressions could benefit from more precise word choices to convey ideas more accurately.
- How to improve: Aim for greater precision in vocabulary usage by carefully selecting words that precisely convey the intended meaning. Proofreading and revising can help eliminate imprecise language and refine the essay’s clarity and coherence.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates some spelling errors and inconsistencies, such as "enegendering" (should be "encouraging"), "transportations" (should be "transportation"), "toxic gases that are released from human activities" (should be revised for clarity and conciseness), and "undergrounds" (should be "subways"). These errors slightly detract from the overall quality of the essay.
- How to improve: To improve spelling accuracy, utilize tools such as spell checkers and proofreading techniques to identify and correct spelling errors systematically. Enhance vocabulary retention and familiarity through regular reading and writing practices.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a strong grasp of vocabulary with an appropriate level of complexity for a Band 7 score, refining precision in vocabulary usage and enhancing spelling accuracy will contribute to further improving the lexical resource criteria in future essays. Keep practicing to refine these language skills and aim for consistency and accuracy in expressing ideas.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 6

Use a Wide Range of Structures:
- Detailed explanation: The essay exhibits a moderate range of sentence structures, including simple, compound, and complex sentences. Simple structures dominate the essay, with occasional instances of compound sentences. Complex structures are limited, such as in the sentence "One might argue that erecting more highways can do just the same," which contains a subordinate clause. However, there is a lack of variety in sentence beginnings and lengths, resulting in a somewhat monotonous rhythm.
- How to improve: To enhance the variety and effectiveness of sentence structures, strive for a more balanced mix of simple, compound, and complex sentences. Introduce varied sentence beginnings, such as participial phrases, introductory clauses, or inverted sentences, to add dynamism to the writing. Additionally, experiment with different sentence lengths to create a more engaging flow and rhythm.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: Overall, the essay demonstrates a satisfactory level of grammatical accuracy, but there are noticeable errors throughout. For instance, there are issues with subject-verb agreement ("investing in public means of transportation is much more affordable, therefore it is not sound to chose such a cost-ineffective approach") and tense consistency ("generating more buses or trams on the already available tracks only required a short time to add more vehicles"). Punctuation is also inconsistently applied, with missing commas in compound sentences and incorrect usage of colons.
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, pay close attention to subject-verb agreement and maintain consistency in verb tenses throughout the essay. Proofread carefully for punctuation errors, particularly focusing on the correct placement of commas in compound sentences and the appropriate use of colons for introducing lists or explanations. Consider utilizing grammar-checking tools or seeking feedback from peers to identify and correct recurring errors effectively. Additionally, review grammar resources and practice applying grammatical rules in various contexts to strengthen proficiency.

Bài sửa mẫu

Opinions vary on whether it’s wiser to allocate funds for public transportation or to invest in constructing more highways and roads. Personally, I support the development of public transportation due to its cost-effectiveness and environmental friendliness.

Firstly, improving public transportation helps alleviate congestion. Given that one bus or tram can accommodate approximately 20 passengers at once, whereas private vehicles typically accommodate only one or two, it’s clear that increasing the availability of public transportation can significantly reduce the number of private cars on the road. As a result, traffic congestion is likely to be significantly reduced. One might argue that constructing more highways can achieve similar results. However, investing in public transportation is much more cost-effective. Therefore, choosing such a cost-ineffective approach that produces the same result is not sound. Moreover, constructing highways takes many years to complete, whereas adding more buses or trams to existing tracks requires only a short time.

To further support my assertion, it is important to note that investing in public transport promotes an eco-friendly lifestyle. As a result, encouraging the public to use fewer private vehicles by improving public transportation can reduce air pollution. For example, in Japan, residents typically use underground trains for commuting due to their accessibility and affordability. Japan boasts the top position in the global ranking of countries with the highest air quality. Conversely, allocating money to expand road systems has the opposite effect, as it encourages longer commutes.

In conclusion, I believe that the benefits of investing in public transportation outweigh the merits of building more roads.