fbpx

Some people think that in order to deal with the problem of congestion in cities, privately owned vehicles should be banned in city centers, while others consider this to be an unrealistic solution. Discuss both sides and give your opinion

Some people think that in order to deal with the problem of congestion in cities, privately owned vehicles should be banned in city centers, while others consider this to be an unrealistic solution.
Discuss both sides and give your opinion

In recent times, there is widespread belief that individual vehicles should be banned in the city centers to reduce traffic congestion, while others claim that it is an improbable solution. Although there are valid points supporting the former, I hold the personal belief that banning private vehicles have more negative effects. In this essay, I will explore both perspectives prior to expressing my own viewpoint.
There are several reasons why some believe that to combat traffic jam, privately owned vehicles should be limited in city centers. First and foremost, there is no denying that if personal vehicles is prohibited from entering city centers, traffic congestion will be decreased dramatically . Furthermore, reducing the number of individual vehicles means less carbon emissions, improving air quality and protecting human health.
On the other hand, I believe that there are many other solutions without banning vehicles. Companies should allow employees to have flexible working hours so that fewer people do not commute at the same time, decreasing the number of vehicles on the road during rush hours. There is no denying that some people depend on their cars for work, especially those who deliver food or goods need on time. Should they be late, they can make customers unhappy and lose their jobs, leading to increase unemployment. Instead of it, the government should encourage carpooling, allowing people working and living near each other to commute to work together.
In conclusion, while some hold the view that privately owned vehicles should be prohibited to deal with the problem of congestion in the cities, I strong believe that other solutions can be implemented to solve this problem.


Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

  1. "In recent times" -> "Recently"
    Explanation: "Recently" is a more concise and formal alternative to "In recent times," which is slightly redundant and less commonly used in academic writing.

  2. "there is widespread belief" -> "there is a widespread belief"
    Explanation: Adding "a" before "widespread belief" corrects the grammatical structure, making the phrase more grammatically correct and formal.

  3. "banning private vehicles have" -> "banning private vehicles has"
    Explanation: "Banning private vehicles" is a singular noun phrase and thus requires the singular verb "has" to maintain grammatical accuracy.

  4. "to combat traffic jam" -> "to combat traffic congestion"
    Explanation: "Traffic congestion" is the more precise term for describing the issue, replacing the less formal "traffic jam."

  5. "privately owned vehicles should be limited" -> "private vehicles should be restricted"
    Explanation: "Restricted" is a more formal and precise term than "limited," which is somewhat vague and less formal.

  6. "there is no denying that if personal vehicles is prohibited" -> "it is undeniable that if personal vehicles are prohibited"
    Explanation: "It is undeniable" is a more formal expression than "there is no denying," and "are" corrects the subject-verb agreement error.

  7. "will be decreased dramatically" -> "will significantly decrease"
    Explanation: "Will significantly decrease" is a more formal and academically appropriate way to express the expected outcome.

  8. "Companies should allow employees to have flexible working hours" -> "Employers should permit employees flexible working hours"
    Explanation: "Employers" is more specific and formal than "Companies," and "permit" is more formal than "should allow."

  9. "fewer people do not commute at the same time" -> "fewer commuters travel at the same time"
    Explanation: "Fewer commuters travel at the same time" is more precise and avoids the awkward construction of "do not commute."

  10. "need on time" -> "must arrive on time"
    Explanation: "Must arrive on time" is more specific and formal than "need on time," which is vague and informal.

  11. "Should they be late, they can make customers unhappy and lose their jobs" -> "If they are late, they risk disappointing customers and losing their jobs"
    Explanation: "If they are late, they risk disappointing customers and losing their jobs" is more formal and precise, avoiding the casual tone of "Should they be late."

  12. "Instead of it" -> "Instead, it"
    Explanation: "Instead, it" is grammatically correct and more formal than "Instead of it," which is awkward and informal.

  13. "I strong believe" -> "I strongly believe"
    Explanation: "Strongly" is the correct adverb form to modify "believe," correcting the grammatical error.

  14. "privately owned vehicles should be prohibited" -> "private vehicles should be prohibited"
    Explanation: Removing "privately owned" simplifies the phrase and maintains the formal tone, as "private" is sufficient to convey the intended meaning.

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 sides of the argument regarding the banning of privately owned vehicles in city centers to alleviate congestion. The first body paragraph outlines the reasons supporting the ban, such as reduced traffic and improved air quality. The second body paragraph presents the opposing view, emphasizing alternative solutions like flexible working hours and carpooling. However, the essay could benefit from a more balanced exploration of both perspectives, as the argument against the ban is less developed than the argument for it.
    • How to improve: To enhance the response, the writer should aim to provide more detailed examples and arguments for the viewpoint that supports banning vehicles. Additionally, the opposing viewpoint could be elaborated with more specific reasons or statistics to strengthen the discussion.
  • Present a Clear Position Throughout:

    • Detailed explanation: The writer clearly states their position against the ban in the introduction and reiterates this stance in the conclusion. However, the phrase "I hold the personal belief that banning private vehicles have more negative effects" could be more assertively articulated. The use of "I believe" could be replaced with a stronger declaration to reinforce the position.
    • How to improve: To maintain a clear and consistent position, the writer should use more definitive language throughout the essay. Phrases like "I strongly believe" or "It is evident that" can help assert the writer’s viewpoint more convincingly.
  • Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:

    • Detailed explanation: The essay presents several ideas, such as the benefits of reducing traffic and carbon emissions, and the importance of flexible working hours. However, the support for these ideas is somewhat limited. For instance, while the essay mentions that banning vehicles would improve air quality, it does not provide any data or examples to substantiate this claim. The discussion on alternative solutions is also brief and lacks depth.
    • How to improve: To improve the development and support of ideas, the writer should include specific examples, statistics, or studies that reinforce their arguments. For instance, citing a city that successfully reduced congestion through flexible working hours or carpooling could provide stronger support for the claims made.
  • Stay on Topic:

    • Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, addressing the issue of congestion in cities and the debate over banning private vehicles. However, the discussion on the negative effects of banning vehicles could be more focused. The mention of job loss could be tied more directly to the overall argument against the ban rather than presented as a separate point.
    • How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer should ensure that each point made directly relates back to the central question of whether banning vehicles is a viable solution. Linking each argument back to the main topic will help reinforce the relevance of the discussion throughout the essay.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a good understanding of the topic and presents a clear opinion. However, by expanding on the arguments, providing more substantial support, and maintaining a consistent focus, the writer can enhance the overall effectiveness of their response.

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, beginning with an introduction that outlines the topic and states the author’s opinion. The body paragraphs are organized to discuss both sides of the argument, which is a strength. However, the transition between the two perspectives could be smoother. For example, the shift from discussing the benefits of banning vehicles to presenting alternative solutions feels abrupt. The ideas within paragraphs are generally well-developed, but some points could benefit from further elaboration to enhance clarity and logical progression.
    • How to improve: To improve logical organization, consider using clearer topic sentences that explicitly state the main idea of each paragraph. Additionally, incorporating transitional phrases such as "On the contrary" or "In contrast" can help guide the reader through the argument more fluidly. Ensuring that each paragraph flows logically into the next will strengthen the overall coherence of the essay.
  • Use Paragraphs:

    • Detailed explanation: The essay effectively uses paragraphs to separate different ideas, which aids readability. The introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion are distinct, which is a positive aspect. However, the second body paragraph could be divided into two separate paragraphs: one focusing on the argument against banning vehicles and another on alternative solutions. This would allow for a more focused discussion of each point and enhance the clarity of the argument.
    • How to improve: To improve paragraphing, ensure that each paragraph contains a single main idea supported by relevant details. When introducing a new idea or argument, start a new paragraph to give it the attention it deserves. This will help the reader follow your line of reasoning more easily.
  • Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:

    • Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a reasonable use of cohesive devices, such as "first and foremost," "on the other hand," and "in conclusion." These phrases help to connect ideas and indicate the structure of the argument. However, there is a tendency to rely on a limited range of cohesive devices, which can make the writing feel repetitive. For instance, the phrase "there is no denying that" appears multiple times, which detracts from the overall variety of language.
    • How to improve: To diversify cohesive devices, consider incorporating synonyms or alternative phrases to express similar ideas. For example, instead of repeatedly using "there is no denying that," you could use "it is evident that" or "undoubtedly." Additionally, using a mix of conjunctions (e.g., "however," "moreover," "consequently") will enhance the flow of ideas and make the writing more engaging.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of the task and presents a coherent argument. By focusing on improving the logical flow, refining paragraph structure, and diversifying cohesive devices, the essay can achieve an even higher level of coherence and cohesion.

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 like "traffic congestion," "carbon emissions," and "air quality." However, the use of vocabulary is somewhat repetitive, particularly with phrases like "privately owned vehicles" and "individual vehicles," which could be varied further to enhance the essay’s lexical diversity. Additionally, the phrase "I hold the personal belief" could be simplified to "I believe," which would make the writing more fluid.
    • How to improve: To improve lexical range, the writer should incorporate synonyms and varied expressions. For example, instead of repeatedly using "vehicles," alternatives such as "cars," "automobiles," or "transportation" could be employed. Additionally, using phrases like "traffic issues" or "road congestion" instead of solely "traffic congestion" would add variety.
  • Use Vocabulary Precisely:

    • Detailed explanation: The essay contains some imprecise vocabulary usage, such as "improbable solution," which could be better expressed as "unrealistic solution" to align with the prompt. The phrase "leading to increase unemployment" should be corrected to "leading to an increase in unemployment" for grammatical accuracy and clarity.
    • How to improve: To enhance precision, the writer should ensure that word choices accurately reflect the intended meaning. Reviewing synonyms and their connotations can help in selecting the most appropriate words. Furthermore, proofreading for grammatical structures will improve clarity; for example, ensuring that phrases are grammatically complete and correctly formed will enhance the overall quality of the writing.
  • Use Correct Spelling:

    • Detailed explanation: The essay generally displays good spelling, but there are a few errors, such as "strong believe," which should be "strongly believe." Additionally, "have more negative effects" should be "has more negative effects" to maintain subject-verb agreement.
    • How to improve: To improve spelling and grammatical accuracy, the writer should engage in regular proofreading practices. Reading the essay aloud can help catch errors that may be overlooked when reading silently. Utilizing spell-check tools and practicing writing exercises that focus on common spelling and grammar pitfalls can also be beneficial.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of the topic and presents both sides of the argument, there is room for improvement in vocabulary range, precision, and spelling accuracy. By incorporating a wider variety of vocabulary, ensuring precise word choices, and enhancing spelling and grammatical correctness, the writer can work towards achieving a higher band score in the Lexical Resource criteria.

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 example, phrases like "if personal vehicles is prohibited from entering city centers" and "while others claim that it is an improbable solution" showcase the use of conditional and contrasting structures effectively. However, there are instances of repetitive structures, particularly in the use of simple sentences, which could limit the overall range.
    • How to improve: To enhance the variety of sentence structures, the writer could incorporate more compound-complex sentences and varied introductory phrases. For instance, instead of repeatedly starting sentences with "There are" or "I believe," the writer could use participial phrases (e.g., "Considering the impact on air quality, reducing individual vehicles…") or adverbial clauses (e.g., "Although some argue against it, banning private vehicles could…"). This would not only diversify the sentence structures but also improve the flow of ideas.
  • Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:

    • Detailed explanation: The essay contains several grammatical inaccuracies that detract from its overall clarity. For example, "if personal vehicles is prohibited" should be "if personal vehicles are prohibited" to match subject-verb agreement. Additionally, there are punctuation issues, such as the missing comma before "leading to increase unemployment" and the unnecessary space before the period in "decreased dramatically .". These errors indicate a need for more careful proofreading and attention to detail.
    • How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, the writer should focus on subject-verb agreement and ensure that singular and plural forms are used correctly throughout the essay. Regular practice with grammar exercises, particularly those focused on common pitfalls (like subject-verb agreement and punctuation rules), would be beneficial. Furthermore, a thorough proofreading process, possibly reading the essay aloud or using grammar-checking tools, could help identify and correct these errors before submission.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of the topic and presents a clear argument, addressing the highlighted areas for improvement will enhance the grammatical range and accuracy, potentially raising the band score in this criterion.

Bài sửa mẫu

In recent times, there is a widespread belief that individual vehicles should be banned in city centers to reduce traffic congestion, while others claim that it is an improbable solution. Although there are valid points supporting the former, I hold the personal belief that banning private vehicles has more negative effects. In this essay, I will explore both perspectives prior to expressing my own viewpoint.

There are several reasons why some believe that to combat traffic congestion, privately owned vehicles should be restricted in city centers. First and foremost, there is no denying that if personal vehicles are prohibited from entering city centers, traffic congestion will significantly decrease. Furthermore, reducing the number of individual vehicles means less carbon emissions, improving air quality and protecting human health.

On the other hand, I believe that there are many other solutions without banning vehicles. Employers should permit employees flexible working hours so that fewer commuters travel at the same time, decreasing the number of vehicles on the road during rush hours. It is undeniable that some people depend on their cars for work, especially those who deliver food or goods that need to arrive on time. If they are late, they risk disappointing customers and losing their jobs, leading to increased unemployment. Instead, the government should encourage carpooling, allowing people working and living near each other to commute to work together.

In conclusion, while some hold the view that privately owned vehicles should be prohibited to deal with the problem of congestion in cities, I strongly believe that other solutions can be implemented to solve this problem.

Bài viết liên quan

IELTS Writify

Chấm IELTS Writing Free x GPT

Lưu ý

Sắp bảo trì server

Để đảm bảo tính ổn định của web, web sẽ thực hiện backup dữ liệu hàng ngày từ 3h-3h30 sáng

Rất mong quý thầy cô và học viên thông cảm vì bất tiện này