fbpx

Some people think that the best way to improve road safety is to increase the minimum legal age for driving a car or motorbike. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people think that the best way to improve road safety is to increase the minimum legal age for driving a car or motorbike.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

There is a spreading belief that increasing the minimum legal driving age is the most effective solution to ensure road safety. From my perspective, I completely disagree with this statement, and to support my view, several reasons are outlined below.

On the one hand, I do understand why some people believe that this is the best approach. In fact, younger drivers are not experienced enough to handle dangerous situations on roads. Therefore, they are more likely to have accidents than older drivers. Take Vietnam as an example. According to recent statistics, every year, 40% of traffic accidents in this country result from drivers aged 18 to 20. This means that if the local government increases the minimum legal age for driving a car or motorbike, the number of traffic accidents will decline significantly.

On the other hand, I still opine that this policy is not the most effective solution for two main reasons. First of all, traffic accidents are attributed to a wide range of factors, not just the age of road users. To be specific, drivers in their forties probably cause accidents if they are not careful or do not obey traffic rules. In certain cases, accidents might take place because of poor road designs or bad weather. Second, the combination of other solutions will produce a better outcome. To illustrate, harsh punishments, such as hey fines, driving license suspension and jails, should be imposed on lawbreakers. Moreover, it is necessary to raise public awareness of road safety. Another solution is improving the quality of the existing road systems, for example installing traffic lights at intersections, adding speed bumps and removing potholes.

In conclusion, regardless of any point to the contrary, I can safely say that raising the minimum legal driving age is not the most feasible way to guarantee the safety of road users.


Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

  1. "There is a spreading belief" -> "There is a growing belief"
    Explanation: "Spreading" is not typically used to describe the spread of an idea or belief. "Growing" is more appropriate and commonly used in academic contexts to describe increasing trends or beliefs.

  2. "completely disagree" -> "strongly disagree"
    Explanation: "Completely" can be seen as overly emphatic and informal for academic writing. "Strongly" maintains a formal tone while conveying a similar level of disagreement.

  3. "several reasons are outlined below" -> "the following reasons will be discussed"
    Explanation: "Several reasons are outlined below" is somewhat vague and informal. "The following reasons will be discussed" is more precise and formal, indicating that the author will proceed to present the reasons.

  4. "I do understand why" -> "I acknowledge why"
    Explanation: "I do understand" is conversational and slightly informal. "I acknowledge" is more formal and suitable for academic writing.

  5. "not experienced enough" -> "lacking sufficient experience"
    Explanation: "Not experienced enough" is informal and vague. "Lacking sufficient experience" is more precise and formal, fitting the academic style.

  6. "more likely to have accidents" -> "more prone to accidents"
    Explanation: "More likely to have accidents" is a bit informal and imprecise. "More prone to accidents" is a more formal and academically appropriate phrase.

  7. "Take Vietnam as an example" -> "Consider Vietnam as an example"
    Explanation: "Take" is somewhat informal and colloquial in this context. "Consider" is more formal and suitable for academic writing.

  8. "every year, 40% of traffic accidents" -> "annually, approximately 40% of traffic accidents"
    Explanation: "Every year" is informal and lacks precision. "Annually" is more formal and precise, and "approximately" is used to indicate an estimate, which is more appropriate in academic writing.

  9. "I still opine" -> "I still maintain"
    Explanation: "Opine" is somewhat formal but can be seen as less common in contemporary academic writing. "Maintain" is a more standard term in formal essays.

  10. "drivers in their forties probably cause accidents" -> "drivers in their forties may cause accidents"
    Explanation: "Probably" is less formal and can be seen as speculative. "May" is more neutral and appropriate for academic writing, indicating possibility without certainty.

  11. "harsh punishments, such as hey fines" -> "severe penalties, such as heavy fines"
    Explanation: "Hey" is a typographical error and should be corrected to "heavy." "Severe penalties" is more formal than "harsh punishments," aligning better with academic style.

  12. "jails" -> "incarceration"
    Explanation: "Jails" is informal and specific to a particular type of facility. "Incarceration" is a broader, more formal term suitable for academic writing.

  13. "raising the minimum legal driving age is not the most feasible way" -> "raising the minimum legal driving age is not the most practical approach"
    Explanation: "Feasible" can be seen as slightly informal and less precise in this context. "Practical" is more commonly used in academic discussions about the effectiveness of policies.

These changes enhance the formality, precision, and clarity of the essay, aligning it more closely with academic writing standards.

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 the author’s disagreement with the notion that increasing the minimum legal age for driving is the best way to improve road safety. The introduction sets the stage for the argument, and the body paragraphs provide a balanced view by acknowledging the opposing perspective before presenting the author’s reasons for disagreement. The use of specific statistics from Vietnam strengthens the argument and shows engagement with the topic.
    • How to improve: To enhance the response, the author could include a more explicit acknowledgment of the potential benefits of raising the driving age, even if only to refute them. This would demonstrate a more nuanced understanding of the topic and could lead to a more comprehensive discussion.
  • Present a Clear Position Throughout:

    • Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear position against raising the minimum legal driving age, which is evident from the consistent use of phrases like "I completely disagree" and "I still opine that this policy is not the most effective solution." The author effectively contrasts their viewpoint with the opposing argument, which helps reinforce their stance.
    • How to improve: To further strengthen the clarity of the position, the author could use transitional phrases to guide the reader through the argument more smoothly. For example, explicitly stating "While some argue that…" before presenting the counterargument would enhance the flow and clarity of the essay.
  • Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:

    • Detailed explanation: The essay presents several well-supported ideas, such as the multifactorial nature of traffic accidents and the importance of alternative solutions like harsher penalties and improved road infrastructure. The use of specific examples, like statistics from Vietnam, adds credibility to the argument. However, some points could be more thoroughly developed, particularly the alternative solutions mentioned.
    • How to improve: The author could elaborate on the alternative solutions by providing examples or case studies that illustrate their effectiveness. For instance, discussing a country or region where stricter penalties or improved road conditions have led to a decrease in accidents would provide stronger support for these claims.
  • Stay on Topic:

    • Detailed explanation: The essay remains largely focused on the topic of road safety and the minimum legal driving age. The author does not deviate from the main argument and consistently ties back to the central theme of road safety throughout the essay. However, the introduction of multiple solutions could be seen as slightly tangential if not connected back to the main argument.
    • How to improve: To maintain tighter focus, the author could briefly link each alternative solution back to the central argument about age, explaining how these solutions address the root causes of road accidents more effectively than simply raising the driving age. This would reinforce the relevance of each point to the overall argument.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 8

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 8

  • Organize Information Logically:

    • Detailed explanation: The essay is well-structured, presenting a clear argument against increasing the minimum legal driving age. The introduction effectively sets the stage for the discussion, and the body paragraphs are organized into two main sections: one acknowledging the opposing viewpoint and the other presenting the author’s argument. The use of transition phrases like "On the one hand" and "On the other hand" aids in guiding the reader through the argument. However, while the points are logically sequenced, the connection between the examples and the main argument could be more explicit. For instance, the statistics from Vietnam could be better tied back to the overarching argument about the multifaceted nature of road safety.
    • How to improve: To enhance logical flow, consider adding explicit links between examples and the main argument. For instance, after presenting the statistics, you could directly state how this supports the idea that age is not the sole factor in road safety. Additionally, using more varied transition phrases can help maintain the reader’s engagement and clarify the relationships between ideas.
  • Use Paragraphs:

    • Detailed explanation: The essay effectively uses paragraphs to separate ideas, with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. Each paragraph focuses on a specific aspect of the argument, which aids readability. The first body paragraph discusses the opposing viewpoint, while the second elaborates on the author’s stance, showcasing a clear division of ideas. However, the second body paragraph could benefit from clearer topic sentences that outline the main point of each paragraph more explicitly.
    • How to improve: Strengthen the topic sentences in each body paragraph to clearly indicate the main idea being discussed. For example, in the second body paragraph, a topic sentence stating, "There are more effective solutions to improve road safety than simply raising the driving age" would provide a clearer focus for the reader. Additionally, consider using concluding sentences that summarize the main point of each paragraph to reinforce the argument.
  • Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:

    • Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a good use of cohesive devices, such as "therefore," "for example," and "moreover," which help to connect ideas and maintain flow. The use of cohesive devices contributes to the overall clarity of the essay. However, there is some repetition in the types of cohesive devices used, particularly in the second body paragraph, where similar phrases are employed to introduce examples and reasons.
    • How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, consider incorporating a wider range of linking words and phrases. For instance, instead of repeatedly using "for example," you could use alternatives like "such as," "to illustrate," or "for instance." Additionally, using more complex cohesive devices, such as "in contrast" or "consequently," can enhance the sophistication of the writing and improve the overall coherence of the essay.

Overall, this essay demonstrates a strong command of coherence and cohesion, with clear organization and effective use of paragraphs and cohesive devices. By focusing on the suggestions provided, the writer can further enhance the clarity and sophistication of their argument.

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 "spreading belief," "effective solution," and "traffic accidents." However, the vocabulary is somewhat repetitive, particularly with phrases like "minimum legal age" and "traffic accidents," which appear multiple times without variation. This limits the overall lexical diversity.
    • How to improve: To enhance vocabulary range, consider using synonyms or related phrases. For instance, instead of repeatedly stating "traffic accidents," you could use "road incidents," "collisions," or "vehicular mishaps." Additionally, incorporating more varied expressions for "effective solution" could enrich the essay.
  • Use Vocabulary Precisely:

    • Detailed explanation: The essay generally uses vocabulary correctly, but there are instances of imprecise usage. For example, the phrase "hey fines" appears to be a typographical error and should likely read "heavy fines." Additionally, the phrase "to be specific" could be replaced with "for instance" or "for example" to enhance clarity.
    • How to improve: To improve precision, it is crucial to proofread for typographical errors and ensure that word choices are contextually appropriate. Consider using a thesaurus to find more precise synonyms and to check the meanings of words to avoid misusage.
  • Use Correct Spelling:

    • Detailed explanation: The essay contains a notable spelling error with "hey fines," which detracts from the overall impression of lexical accuracy. Other words are spelled correctly, indicating a generally good grasp of spelling.
    • How to improve: To enhance spelling accuracy, practice writing and proofreading essays multiple times before submission. Utilize spell-check tools and consider reading the essay aloud to catch errors that may be overlooked during silent reading. Regular practice with vocabulary lists can also help reinforce correct spelling.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of lexical resource, there are areas for improvement in vocabulary range, precision, and spelling accuracy. By incorporating varied vocabulary, ensuring precise word usage, and diligently checking for spelling errors, the overall quality of the writing can be significantly enhanced.

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, complex sentences such as "In fact, younger drivers are not experienced enough to handle dangerous situations on roads" effectively convey nuanced ideas. Additionally, the use of conditional structures in "if the local government increases the minimum legal age for driving a car or motorbike, the number of traffic accidents will decline significantly" showcases the writer’s ability to express hypothetical scenarios. However, there is a slight over-reliance on certain structures, particularly the use of simple and compound sentences, which can make the writing feel somewhat repetitive.
    • How to improve: To further diversify sentence structures, consider incorporating more varied complex sentences and using inversion for emphasis, such as "Never have I seen such a disregard for traffic rules." Additionally, experimenting with different sentence openings (e.g., starting with adverbial phrases) can enhance the flow and interest of the writing.
  • Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:

    • Detailed explanation: The essay generally exhibits strong grammatical accuracy, with only minor errors present. For example, the phrase "harsh punishments, such as hey fines" contains a typographical error ("hey" should be "heavy"). Punctuation is mostly correct, with appropriate use of commas to separate clauses and items in lists. However, there are instances where clarity could be improved, such as in the phrase "the combination of other solutions will produce a better outcome," which could benefit from a clearer antecedent for "other solutions."
    • How to improve: To enhance grammatical accuracy, careful proofreading is essential. Focus on common pitfalls, such as typographical errors and ensuring that all nouns and verbs agree in number. Additionally, consider revising sentences for clarity, ensuring that each idea is expressed as clearly as possible. For instance, rephrasing "the combination of other solutions" to specify what those solutions are could help eliminate ambiguity.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a high level of grammatical range and accuracy, with room for improvement in diversifying sentence structures and refining grammatical precision.

Bài sửa mẫu

There is a growing belief that increasing the minimum legal driving age is the most effective solution to ensure road safety. From my perspective, I strongly disagree with this statement, and the following reasons will be discussed to support my view.

On the one hand, I acknowledge why some people believe that this is the best approach. In fact, younger drivers often lack sufficient experience to handle dangerous situations on the roads. Therefore, they are more prone to accidents than older drivers. Consider Vietnam as an example. According to recent statistics, annually, approximately 40% of traffic accidents in this country result from drivers aged 18 to 20. This suggests that if the local government increases the minimum legal age for driving a car or motorbike, the number of traffic accidents could decline significantly.

On the other hand, I still maintain that this policy is not the most practical approach for two main reasons. First of all, traffic accidents are attributed to a wide range of factors, not just the age of road users. To be specific, drivers in their forties may cause accidents if they are not careful or do not obey traffic rules. In certain cases, accidents might occur because of poor road designs or adverse weather conditions. Second, a combination of other solutions will likely produce a better outcome. To illustrate, severe penalties, such as heavy fines, driving license suspension, and even incarceration, should be imposed on lawbreakers. Moreover, it is essential to raise public awareness of road safety. Another solution is improving the quality of existing road systems, for example, by installing traffic lights at intersections, adding speed bumps, and removing potholes.

In conclusion, regardless of any opposing viewpoints, I can confidently say that raising the minimum legal driving age is not the most feasible way to guarantee the safety of road users.

Bài viết liên quan

Some people believe teenagers should focus on all subjects equally, whereas other people think that they should concentrate on only those subjects that they find interesting and they are best at. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Some people believe teenagers should focus on all subjects equally, whereas other people think that they should concentrate on only those subjects that they find…

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