The best way for governments to solve the problem of traffic congestion is by providing free public transport in 24 hours per day, and seven days a week. To what extent do you agree or disagree ?
The best way for governments to solve the problem of traffic congestion is by providing free public transport in 24 hours per day, and seven days a week. To what extent do you agree or disagree ?
one school of thought holds that the best way to cope with traffic congestion is providing 24/7 public transport without aby fee. I disagree with this statement because there are more practical alternatives can be considered.
Admittedly, free transport system for the public has a range of advantages. Chief among them is that it will reduce the amount of vehicle on the road while carry the identical amount of users, this will space up the road for smoother transmit. Furthermore, organized transportation will minimize the rate of accidents, which usually cause major traffic jam, so the flow of the transmition will be ensured.
On the other hand m it still have a variety of difficulties and lead it becomes an impractical application. Firstly, the mobility options are reduced because public transports are unable to transit them to a specific locations, just only the programmed stops. This leading to a waste of time spending on travel. Moreover, this will require a considerable budget just to build the suitable infrastructures and the massive personal vehicles waste, which will be a financial burden for the government.
In conclusion , though having benefits for congestions in traffic , it is still impractical due to the significant budget it demands. So I disagree with the idea that government should provide zero-fare transportation.
Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng
-
"one school of thought holds" -> "one perspective suggests"
Explanation: "One perspective suggests" is a more formal and academically appropriate phrase than "one school of thought holds," which can sound somewhat colloquial and vague. -
"providing 24/7 public transport without aby fee" -> "offering 24/7 public transportation without any fee"
Explanation: "Offering" is more precise than "providing" in this context, and "any" should be "any" to correct the typo. This change also aligns with formal writing standards by avoiding contractions. -
"there are more practical alternatives can be considered" -> "there are more practical alternatives that can be considered"
Explanation: Adding "that" corrects the grammatical structure, making the sentence grammatically correct and more formal. -
"free transport system for the public" -> "free public transportation system"
Explanation: "Free public transportation system" is a more concise and formal way to express the idea, avoiding redundancy. -
"carry the identical amount of users" -> "accommodate the same number of users"
Explanation: "Accommodate the same number of users" is more precise and formal than "carry the identical amount of users," which is awkward and unclear. -
"space up the road for smoother transmit" -> "free up the road for smoother traffic flow"
Explanation: "Free up the road for smoother traffic flow" is a clearer and more accurate description of the intended action, replacing the vague and incorrect "space up the road for smoother transmit." -
"minimize the rate of accidents" -> "reduce the incidence of accidents"
Explanation: "Reduce the incidence of accidents" is a more precise and formal term than "minimize the rate of accidents," which is slightly less specific. -
"which usually cause major traffic jam" -> "which often cause significant traffic congestion"
Explanation: "Cause significant traffic congestion" is a more accurate and formal term than "cause major traffic jam," which is colloquial and imprecise. -
"the flow of the transmition" -> "the flow of traffic"
Explanation: "The flow of traffic" is the correct term, replacing the incorrect and awkward "the flow of the transmition." -
"m it still have" -> "it still has"
Explanation: Corrects the grammatical error from "m it" to "it," and changes "have" to "has" to match the singular subject "it." -
"lead it becomes an impractical application" -> "lead to impractical applications"
Explanation: "Lead to impractical applications" corrects the grammatical structure and clarifies the meaning, avoiding the awkward and unclear original phrasing. -
"public transports are unable to transit them to a specific locations" -> "public transportation cannot transport passengers to specific locations"
Explanation: "Cannot transport passengers to specific locations" is clearer and more precise than "are unable to transit them to a specific locations," which is grammatically incorrect and unclear. -
"just only the programmed stops" -> "only at designated stops"
Explanation: "Only at designated stops" is grammatically correct and more formal than "just only the programmed stops," which is awkward and incorrect. -
"spending on travel" -> "spending time on travel"
Explanation: "Spending time on travel" is the correct phrase, replacing the vague and incorrect "spending on travel." -
"the massive personal vehicles waste" -> "the large number of private vehicles"
Explanation: "The large number of private vehicles" is a clearer and more formal expression than "the massive personal vehicles waste," which is awkward and unclear. -
"which will be a financial burden for the government" -> "which would impose a significant financial burden on the government"
Explanation: "Would impose a significant financial burden on the government" is more precise and formal, improving clarity and appropriateness for academic writing.
Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 5
Band Score for Task Response: 5 – UNDER WORD
-
Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay addresses the prompt by discussing both the advantages and disadvantages of providing free public transport. However, it does not fully engage with the extent to which the writer agrees or disagrees with the statement. The argument is somewhat vague and lacks depth in exploring the implications of the proposal. For instance, while the essay mentions "more practical alternatives," it does not specify what these alternatives are or how they compare to the proposed solution.
- How to improve: To enhance the response, the writer should explicitly state their position on the extent of agreement or disagreement. They could elaborate on the alternatives to free public transport, providing specific examples and discussing their potential effectiveness in addressing traffic congestion.
-
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The position of disagreement is stated in the introduction and conclusion, but the essay lacks consistency in reinforcing this stance throughout the body paragraphs. The phrase "I disagree with this statement" is clear, yet the subsequent discussion introduces points that could be interpreted as supporting the idea of free public transport without adequately countering them.
- How to improve: The writer should ensure that each paragraph consistently reflects their position. They could use topic sentences that clearly align with their disagreement and provide counterarguments to the advantages mentioned. This would help maintain a cohesive argument throughout the essay.
-
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: Ideas are presented, but they are not sufficiently developed or supported. For example, the advantages of free public transport are mentioned, but the discussion lacks depth and specific examples that could strengthen the argument. The points about reduced accidents and road space are valid but require more elaboration and evidence to be convincing.
- How to improve: To improve this aspect, the writer should aim to provide more detailed explanations and examples for each point made. For instance, they could include statistics or studies that support their claims about traffic congestion and public transport. Additionally, extending the discussion of alternatives with concrete examples would enhance the overall argument.
-
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, but there are moments where the focus shifts. For instance, the mention of "massive personal vehicles waste" is somewhat unclear and does not directly relate to the argument against free public transport. This could confuse readers about the main focus of the essay.
- How to improve: The writer should ensure that every point made directly relates to the main argument. They could create an outline before writing to ensure that each paragraph contributes to the overall thesis. Additionally, avoiding vague phrases and ensuring clarity in language will help maintain focus.
Overall, the essay needs to be expanded to meet the word count requirement and to provide a more comprehensive response to the prompt. By addressing these areas of improvement, the writer can enhance their Task Response score significantly.
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, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. However, the logical flow could be improved. For instance, the transition from discussing the advantages of free public transport to the disadvantages is somewhat abrupt. The first body paragraph effectively outlines the benefits, but the second paragraph could more clearly indicate that it is addressing counterarguments. The use of phrases like "On the other hand" helps, but a smoother transition could enhance coherence.
- How to improve: To enhance logical flow, consider using clearer topic sentences that explicitly state the focus of each paragraph. For example, in the second paragraph, starting with a sentence like "Despite its advantages, free public transport presents significant challenges" would clarify the shift in focus. Additionally, using linking phrases such as "In contrast" or "Conversely" can help guide the reader through the argument more effectively.
-
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay uses paragraphs effectively, with each paragraph focusing on a distinct aspect of the argument. However, the second paragraph lacks clarity in its structure. The ideas presented are somewhat jumbled, making it difficult for the reader to follow the argument. For example, the sentence "This leading to a waste of time spending on travel" is awkwardly phrased and disrupts the flow of the paragraph.
- How to improve: To improve paragraph structure, ensure that each paragraph begins with a clear topic sentence followed by supporting details. Additionally, consider breaking down complex ideas into simpler sentences. For instance, instead of combining multiple points into one sentence, separate them for clarity. This will help maintain focus and ensure that each point is fully developed.
-
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay employs some cohesive devices, such as "Admittedly" and "On the other hand," which help to connect ideas. However, the range of cohesive devices is limited, and some transitions are not used effectively. For example, the phrase "this leading to" is grammatically incorrect and disrupts the flow. Furthermore, the use of cohesive devices could be more varied to enhance the overall coherence of the essay.
- How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, consider incorporating a wider range of linking words and phrases, such as "Furthermore," "In addition," "However," and "Consequently." Additionally, ensure that all cohesive devices are grammatically correct. For example, revise "this leading to" to "this leads to" or "this can lead to." Practicing the use of cohesive devices in different contexts will help improve their effectiveness in your writing.
Overall, while the essay demonstrates a good understanding of the topic and presents a clear argument, focusing on improving logical transitions, paragraph structure, and the range of cohesive devices will enhance coherence and cohesion, potentially raising the band score.
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 moderate range of vocabulary. Phrases like "cope with traffic congestion," "public transport," and "financial burden" show an understanding of relevant terminology. However, the vocabulary is somewhat repetitive, particularly in the use of "transport" and "public transport," which could be varied with synonyms such as "public transit" or "commuter services." Additionally, phrases like "massive personal vehicles waste" lack clarity and precision.
- How to improve: To enhance vocabulary range, the writer should incorporate synonyms and related terms. For instance, instead of repeating "public transport," consider using "public transit" or "commuter systems." Additionally, the writer could explore more descriptive adjectives and adverbs to enrich their arguments, such as "efficient public transport" or "significant financial implications."
-
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: There are instances of imprecise vocabulary usage that detract from the clarity of the arguments. For example, "this will space up the road for smoother transmit" is unclear; "space up" is not a standard phrase, and "transmit" should likely be "traffic flow." Furthermore, "this leading to a waste of time spending on travel" is awkwardly phrased and could be better articulated.
- How to improve: To improve precision, the writer should focus on using established phrases and clearer expressions. For example, instead of "space up," they could say "free up space on the road." Additionally, revising sentences for clarity, such as changing "this leading to a waste of time spending on travel" to "this leads to wasted time during travel," would enhance precision.
-
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains several spelling errors that affect readability. Words like "aby" (should be "any"), "transmit" (should be "traffic"), and "infrastructures" (should be "infrastructure") indicate a need for careful proofreading. Additionally, the phrase "On the other hand m it still have" contains a typographical error ("m" should be removed).
- How to improve: To enhance spelling accuracy, the writer should implement a proofreading strategy. This could involve reading the essay aloud to catch errors, using spell-check tools, or writing drafts and revising them after a short break to approach the text with fresh eyes. Additionally, practicing spelling common academic vocabulary can help reduce errors in future essays.
Overall, while the essay demonstrates a foundational understanding of the topic and vocabulary, there is significant room for improvement in range, precision, and spelling accuracy. By expanding vocabulary, refining word choice, and enhancing proofreading practices, the writer can work towards achieving a higher band score in Lexical Resource.
Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 5
Band Score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 5
-
Use a Wide Range of Structures:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a limited variety of sentence structures. For instance, the use of simple sentences predominates, such as "I disagree with this statement because there are more practical alternatives can be considered." This sentence lacks complexity and could be improved by incorporating subordinate clauses or varied sentence openings. Additionally, phrases like "the best way to cope with traffic congestion is providing" could be restructured for clarity and grammatical accuracy.
- How to improve: To enhance the range of structures, consider using more complex sentences that combine ideas. For example, instead of saying "this will space up the road for smoother transmit," you could say, "this would create more space on the roads, allowing for smoother traffic flow." Incorporating relative clauses, conditional sentences, and varied sentence lengths will also contribute to a more sophisticated writing style.
-
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains several grammatical errors and punctuation issues. For example, "there are more practical alternatives can be considered" is grammatically incorrect; it should be "there are more practical alternatives that can be considered." Additionally, phrases like "this leading to a waste of time spending on travel" lack proper verb forms and clarity. Punctuation errors, such as the unnecessary space before the comma in "In conclusion , though having benefits for congestions in traffic," detract from the overall professionalism of the writing.
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, focus on subject-verb agreement and the correct use of articles and prepositions. For instance, "the mobility options are reduced" could be rephrased to "the options for mobility are limited." Regular practice with grammar exercises and reviewing basic rules will help. For punctuation, ensure that commas are placed correctly, and consider reading the essay aloud to catch any awkward phrasing or errors. Using tools like grammar checkers can also provide immediate feedback on common mistakes.
By addressing these areas, the overall quality of the essay can be significantly improved, potentially raising the band score in Grammatical Range and Accuracy.
Bài sửa mẫu
One perspective suggests that the best way to cope with traffic congestion is by providing 24/7 public transportation without any fee. I disagree with this statement because there are more practical alternatives that can be considered.
Admittedly, a free public transportation system has a range of advantages. Chief among them is that it will reduce the number of vehicles on the road while accommodating the same number of users. This will free up the road for smoother traffic flow. Furthermore, organized transportation will minimize the incidence of accidents, which often cause significant traffic congestion, ensuring a better flow of traffic.
On the other hand, it still has a variety of difficulties and can lead to impractical applications. Firstly, mobility options are reduced because public transportation cannot transport passengers to specific locations, only at designated stops. This leads to a waste of time spent on travel. Moreover, implementing a free public transportation system would require a considerable budget to build the necessary infrastructure, as well as address the large number of private vehicles that would still be on the road, which would impose a significant financial burden on the government.
In conclusion, although there are benefits to reducing traffic congestion, it is still impractical due to the significant budget it demands. Therefore, I disagree with the idea that the government should provide a zero-fare transportation system.