The best way to solve the world's environmental problems is to increase the fuel cost. Do you agree or disagree?

The best way to solve the world's environmental problems is to increase the fuel cost.
Do you agree or disagree?

Pollution is always being considered to be an external problem with the society. People believe that it would be insufficient whether the governments only tackle this issue by growing the gasoline prices sharply. However, I firmly hold view that this solution can bring benefits to the communities due to the restriction on gas use and producing biofuel as an alternative to octane heat source.
To begin with, although environmental problems have been being concerned for a long period, it will be reasonable for authorities to increase the fuel prices in urban areas as they could limit a large number of individuals using chemical power sources. Since less fuel is utilized, it would not be released into the atmosphere and governments will not discuss about ozone layer depletion. Furthermore, most people could not suffer from several diseases such as lung cancer and pneumonia. For example, in Europe, a majority of people travel by public transport such as high-speed railways and buses instead of moving by cars or trains, this can lead to modern cities with fresh air and cutting-edge technology.
Besides, a significant growth of fuel prices will transfer scientists to manufacture biology gasolines. Because the biofuels could become enormous resources in the future and people would not depend heavily on the chemical fuels. In addition, this type of gasoline is very friendly with the environment and do not have any harmful effect to the biodiversity and people’s health. For instance, in Africa citizens often utilize E5 gasoline for their car to run in residential regions instead of using RON 95 or RON 92 gas and the majority of individuals recommend this solution to tackle with deforestation annually.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that it would be great if nations push the prices dramatically because of the limitation gas’s utilizing in arson and creating biofuels as an alternative methods.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"Pollution is always being considered to be an external problem with the society." -> "Pollution is consistently regarded as an external issue affecting society."
Explanation: The phrase "always being considered" is redundant and informal. "Consistently regarded" is more precise and formal, and "affecting society" is a clearer and more appropriate term than "problem with the society."
"grow the gasoline prices sharply" -> "increase gasoline prices significantly"
Explanation: "Grow" is not typically used to describe price changes, and "sharply" can be vague. "Increase significantly" is more direct and appropriate for academic writing.
"I firmly hold view" -> "I firmly hold the view"
Explanation: The phrase "firmly hold view" is grammatically incorrect. Adding "the" corrects the possessive form, making the sentence grammatically correct.
"this solution can bring benefits to the communities" -> "this measure can benefit the communities"
Explanation: "Bring benefits to" is slightly informal and vague. "Benefit the communities" is more direct and formal.
"restriction on gas use" -> "restriction on the use of gas"
Explanation: Adding "the" before "use of gas" clarifies the noun phrase and enhances readability.
"octane heat source" -> "octane-based heat source"
Explanation: "Octane heat source" is unclear and incorrect. "Octane-based heat source" specifies the type of heat source, making the phrase more precise.
"have been being concerned" -> "have been a concern"
Explanation: "Have been being concerned" is grammatically incorrect. "Have been a concern" is the correct form.
"it will be reasonable for authorities to increase" -> "it is reasonable for authorities to increase"
Explanation: "Will be" implies future tense, which is not necessary here. "Is" corrects the tense to the present, aligning with the context.
"could limit a large number of individuals using" -> "could reduce the number of individuals using"
Explanation: "Limit" is not the correct verb here; "reduce" is more appropriate for decreasing the number of individuals. Also, "a large number of" is redundant; "the number of" is more concise.
"would not be released into the atmosphere and governments will not discuss about ozone layer depletion" -> "would not be released into the atmosphere, and governments would not discuss ozone layer depletion"
Explanation: Removing "and" after a comma improves the flow, and "would not discuss" is grammatically correct for hypothetical situations.
"most people could not suffer from several diseases" -> "many people would not suffer from several diseases"
Explanation: "Could not" implies inability, which is incorrect in this context. "Would not" correctly indicates a hypothetical scenario.
"a significant growth of fuel prices" -> "a significant increase in fuel prices"
Explanation: "Growth" is not typically used to describe price changes; "increase" is the correct term.
"transfer scientists to manufacture biology gasolines" -> "encourage scientists to develop biological fuels"
Explanation: "Transfer" is incorrect; "encourage" is the correct verb for motivating action. "Biology gasolines" is incorrect; "biological fuels" is the correct term.
"could become enormous resources" -> "could become significant resources"
Explanation: "Enormous" is too absolute and informal; "significant" is more precise and appropriate for academic writing.
"do not have any harmful effect to the biodiversity and people’s health" -> "pose no harm to biodiversity and human health"
Explanation: "Do not have any harmful effect" is verbose and awkward. "Pose no harm" is more concise and formal.
"tackle with deforestation annually" -> "address deforestation annually"
Explanation: "Tackle with" is informal and incorrect; "address" is the correct verb for dealing with issues like deforestation.
"push the prices dramatically" -> "increase prices significantly"
Explanation: "Push" is informal and vague; "increase" is the correct verb for describing price changes, and "significantly" is more precise than "dramatically."
"limitation gas’s utilizing in arson" -> "limitation on the use of gas in vehicles"
Explanation: "Limitation gas’s utilizing in arson" is grammatically incorrect and unclear. "Limitation on the use of gas in vehicles" corrects these issues and clarifies the context.

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 aspects of the prompt: increasing fuel costs as a solution to environmental problems and whether the writer agrees or disagrees with this approach. It discusses limiting gasoline use and promoting biofuels as alternatives.
- How to improve: While the essay covers the main points, it could benefit from deeper exploration of counterarguments or alternative perspectives to demonstrate a more thorough consideration of the issue.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear stance that increasing fuel costs can be beneficial for addressing environmental issues, advocating for both reduced gasoline usage and the promotion of biofuels.
- How to improve: To enhance clarity, ensure that each paragraph consistently supports this position without deviating or introducing conflicting viewpoints.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents ideas clearly, such as the environmental benefits of reduced gasoline consumption and the potential of biofuels. However, some ideas lack elaboration or specific evidence to strengthen arguments.
- How to improve: Provide more detailed examples and empirical evidence to substantiate claims about the benefits of higher fuel costs and the effectiveness of biofuels in mitigating environmental impacts.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic by discussing the implications of increasing fuel costs on environmental solutions. However, there are instances of vague or unclear connections between points.
- How to improve: Maintain a direct link between each argument and its relevance to the central theme of fuel costs as a solution to environmental issues, avoiding tangential discussions.

Overall, the essay effectively addresses the prompt by advocating for increased fuel costs as a measure to combat environmental problems, supported by examples and arguments. To achieve a higher band score, focus on providing more comprehensive analysis, including a balanced consideration of counterarguments, and ensure that all points are well-developed with specific, relevant evidence.

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. It begins with an introduction that presents the topic and the writer’s opinion. Each body paragraph discusses a distinct aspect of the argument: the potential benefits of increased fuel costs on reducing pollution and promoting biofuels. The conclusion effectively summarizes the main points and reiterates the writer’s stance.
- How to improve: To enhance logical flow, consider structuring each body paragraph more clearly around a central idea. Ensure smooth transitions between sentences and paragraphs to improve coherence.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay is divided into three paragraphs: an introduction, a body paragraph discussing pollution reduction, and another discussing biofuel production. Each paragraph maintains a coherent focus on its respective topic.
- How to improve: While the essay employs appropriate paragraphing, it could benefit from more detailed development within each paragraph. Each main idea could be further expanded with supporting examples or evidence to strengthen the argument.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay employs cohesive devices such as linking words ("however," "furthermore," "besides," "in addition") and cohesive references ("this solution," "this type of gasoline"). These devices help connect ideas within and between sentences, aiding in coherence.
- How to improve: To enhance cohesion, consider using a wider variety of cohesive devices such as pronouns ("it," "these," "those") and synonyms for repeated words ("fuel," "gasoline"). This can prevent the essay from sounding repetitive while maintaining clarity.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a structured approach to addressing the prompt with clear main points and adequate paragraphing, improvements in logical coherence, detailed paragraph development, and varied use of cohesive devices could elevate the score to a higher band. Continued practice in these areas will further enhance the clarity and effectiveness of the essay’s structure 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 moderate range of vocabulary, including terms like "pollution," "biofuel," "depletion," "biodiversity," and "deforestation." These words are generally appropriate in context but lack depth and variation. For instance, terms like "chemical power sources" and "octane heat source" could be more precisely substituted or explained.
- How to improve: To enhance lexical resource, strive for a broader spectrum of vocabulary that includes more nuanced synonyms and expressions. For example, instead of repeatedly using "fuel," consider terms like "energy sources," "combustibles," or "petroleum products" where appropriate. This can enrich the essay’s lexical variety and sophistication.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay occasionally uses vocabulary precisely, such as "biofuels" and "biodiversity." However, there are instances of imprecise usage, like "gasoline" when referring to different types of fuel (e.g., E5 gasoline versus RON 95), which could lead to ambiguity.
- How to improve: Aim for more precise vocabulary by clearly defining technical terms and using them consistently. For example, specify types of fuel clearly (e.g., bioethanol, biodiesel) instead of general terms like "gasoline" to avoid confusion and demonstrate a deeper understanding of the topic.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: Spelling is generally accurate, with a few minor errors such as "biofuels" (written as "biology gasolines"). However, these errors do not significantly detract from overall clarity.
- How to improve: Continue to focus on spelling accuracy by proofreading carefully and using tools such as spell-check to catch minor errors. Developing a habit of reviewing work for spelling before submission can further improve accuracy.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a reasonable command of vocabulary and spelling, further enhancement in both breadth and precision of vocabulary could elevate the lexical resource score. Ensuring consistent and accurate spelling will also contribute to a more polished presentation.

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 reasonable variety of sentence structures. It includes simple, compound, and complex sentences, albeit with occasional errors in sentence construction and coherence. For instance, there are sentences with complex clauses ("People believe that it would be insufficient whether the governments only tackle this issue by growing the gasoline prices sharply") and simpler declarative sentences ("In conclusion, I strongly believe…"). However, some sentences lack clarity or coherence, impacting overall effectiveness.
- How to improve: To enhance variety and effectiveness, consider using more transitional phrases to connect ideas cohesively. Additionally, practice constructing complex sentences more consistently, ensuring each sentence contributes clearly to the overall argument without ambiguity or awkward phrasing.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally maintains grammatical accuracy, though there are noticeable errors throughout. These errors include subject-verb agreement issues ("Pollution is always being considered to be an external problem"), incorrect verb forms ("I firmly hold view"), and inconsistent punctuation usage ("Since less fuel is utilized, it would not be released into the atmosphere and governments will not discuss about ozone layer depletion"). While there are attempts at complex structures, they are sometimes marred by grammatical inaccuracies.
- How to improve: Focus on improving grammatical accuracy by reviewing fundamental grammar rules, particularly regarding verb forms and subject-verb agreement. Pay attention to consistent use of punctuation, especially commas and conjunctions in complex sentences. Practicing sentence structure and reviewing corrections systematically can help refine these skills.

In conclusion, while the essay demonstrates an ability to use a range of structures and generally accurate grammar, there is room for improvement in coherence, sentence clarity, and grammatical precision. With targeted practice and attention to these areas, the essay can achieve a higher band score by enhancing overall clarity and precision in expressing complex ideas effectively.

Bài sửa mẫu

Pollution is consistently regarded as an external issue affecting society. People believe that it would be insufficient if governments only tackled this issue by increasing gasoline prices significantly. However, I firmly hold the view that this measure can benefit the communities due to the restriction on the use of gas and the development of biofuels as an alternative to octane-based heat sources.

To begin with, although environmental problems have been a concern for a long period, it is reasonable for authorities to increase fuel prices significantly in urban areas as this could reduce the number of individuals using chemical power sources. With less fuel being utilized, harmful emissions would not be released into the atmosphere, and governments would not need to address ozone layer depletion. Furthermore, many people would not suffer from several diseases such as lung cancer and pneumonia. For example, in Europe, a majority of people travel by public transport such as high-speed railways and buses instead of using cars or trains, leading to modern cities with fresh air and advanced technology.

Moreover, a significant increase in fuel prices could encourage scientists to develop biological fuels. These fuels could become significant resources in the future, posing no harm to biodiversity and human health. For instance, in Africa, citizens often utilize E5 gasoline for their cars to run in residential regions instead of using RON 95 or RON 92 gas, and the majority of individuals recommend this solution to address deforestation annually.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that it would be beneficial if nations increased fuel prices significantly to limit the use of gas in vehicles and to promote the development of biofuels as alternative sources.