The only way to reduce the amount of traffic in cities today is by reducing the need for people to travel from home to work, education or shopping To what extent do you agree or disagree

The only way to reduce the amount of traffic in cities today is by reducing the need for people to travel from home to work, education or shopping
To what extent do you agree or disagree

There are some contentious arguments whether cutting down the desire for urban citizens to commute to work, education or shopping is the only way to mitigate the amount of traffic. From my perspective, I am partly in favour of this statement. While I believe that it undoubtedly contributes to the decline of traffic, I also think this way is not the sole solution.

On the one hand, the crucial reason why I think that this way is feasible is because the increasing commute to travel, education or shopping leads to the excessive increase of vehicles’ usage. Therefore, reducing the urban dwellers’ need for travel purposes means decreasing the chance for them to go out, resulting in the decline in the amount of traffic on the road, leading to less traffic problems such as traffic congestion, especially during the peak hours.
Despite the reason I mentioned above, I argue there are some other effective approaches to this issue. The first noticeable measure to lessen traffic is that the authorities in these cities should invest a huge amount of budget in enhancing the public transport facilities. By nature, this enables citizens to limit the demand of private vehicles, contributing to the traffic reduction. Another viable solution is that carpooling and shared mobility are encouraged to inhabitants in the cities. This provides a good opportunity for people to use the same vehicle with other people , reducing the traffic volums. For example, some carpooling programs or ride-sharing services such as Grab, Bee, Vinfast and Gojek successfully mitigate the amount of traffic when they encourage their customers to use the vacant in their shared vehicle with other people, reducing the need for private traffic.

In conclusion, while it is true that minimising the necessity for commuting can lead to reduced traffic, other strategies also play a crucial role in addressing this issue. Efficient public transportation systems and the encouragement for shared commuting service could also mitigate the traffic volumes. Therefore, a comprehensive approach that incorporates various feasible measures will be better in reducing this problem than relying solely on reducing travel needs.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

1. "cutting down the desire" -> "reducing the inclination"
   Explanation: "Cutting down the desire" is somewhat informal and vague. "Reducing the inclination" is more precise and formal, fitting the academic style better.

2. "urban citizens" -> "urban residents"
   Explanation: "Urban citizens" is less common and slightly awkward in this context. "Urban residents" is the standard term used in academic and formal writing.

3. "the only way" -> "the sole means"
   Explanation: "The only way" is somewhat informal and colloquial. "The sole means" is more formal and precise, suitable for academic writing.

4. "I am partly in favour of this statement" -> "I partially support this assertion"
   Explanation: "I am partly in favour of this statement" is informal and slightly awkward. "I partially support this assertion" is more formal and academically appropriate.

5. "the increasing commute to travel, education or shopping" -> "the increasing need to travel, attend education, or shop"
   Explanation: "The increasing commute to travel, education or shopping" is grammatically incorrect and awkward. "The increasing need to travel, attend education, or shop" corrects the grammar and clarifies the meaning.

6. "the excessive increase of vehicles’ usage" -> "excessive vehicle usage"
   Explanation: "The excessive increase of vehicles’ usage" is redundant and awkward. "Excessive vehicle usage" simplifies and clarifies the phrase.

7. "reducing the urban dwellers’ need for travel purposes" -> "reducing the need for urban dwellers to travel"
   Explanation: "Reducing the urban dwellers’ need for travel purposes" is verbose and awkward. "Reducing the need for urban dwellers to travel" is more direct and formal.

8. "the decline in the amount of traffic" -> "a reduction in traffic volume"
   Explanation: "The decline in the amount of traffic" is slightly informal and vague. "A reduction in traffic volume" is more precise and formal.

9. "lessen traffic" -> "reduce traffic"
   Explanation: "Lessen" is less commonly used in formal writing and can be replaced with "reduce" for clarity and consistency with academic style.

10. "enhancing the public transport facilities" -> "improving public transportation infrastructure"
    Explanation: "Enhancing the public transport facilities" is somewhat vague and informal. "Improving public transportation infrastructure" is more specific and formal.

11. "the demand of private vehicles" -> "the demand for private vehicles"
    Explanation: "The demand of private vehicles" is grammatically incorrect. "The demand for private vehicles" corrects the preposition error.

12. "traffic volums" -> "traffic volume"
    Explanation: "Traffic volums" is a typographical error. "Traffic volume" is the correct term.

13. "vacant in their shared vehicle" -> "vacancy in their shared vehicles"
    Explanation: "Vacant in their shared vehicle" is awkward and unclear. "Vacancy in their shared vehicles" is clearer and more grammatically correct.

14. "mitigate the traffic volumes" -> "reduce traffic volumes"
    Explanation: "Mitigate" is often used to describe reducing the severity of a problem, not the volume. "Reduce traffic volumes" is more accurate and straightforward.

15. "a comprehensive approach that incorporates various feasible measures" -> "a comprehensive strategy that incorporates multiple feasible measures"
    Explanation: "Approach" is less specific than "strategy," which is more commonly used in formal and academic contexts to describe a planned set of actions. "Multiple" is also more precise than "various."

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Task Response: 7

• Answer All Parts of the Question:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay addresses the prompt by discussing the extent to which the reduction of travel needs can mitigate traffic in cities. The writer presents a balanced view, acknowledging that while reducing the need to travel can help, it is not the only solution. This is evident in the introduction and conclusion, where the writer clearly states their position. However, the essay could benefit from a more explicit discussion of the implications of the statement in the prompt, particularly regarding the effectiveness of reducing travel needs compared to other solutions.
  • How to improve: To enhance the response, the writer should ensure that all parts of the question are explicitly addressed. This could involve providing a more detailed comparison of the effectiveness of reducing travel needs versus other measures, perhaps by including specific examples or statistics that illustrate the impact of these alternatives on traffic reduction.

• Present a Clear Position Throughout:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear position that the writer is "partly in favour" of the statement, which is articulated well in the introduction and conclusion. However, there are moments in the body paragraphs where the argument could be more cohesive. For instance, the transition between discussing the reduction of travel needs and the alternative solutions could be smoother to reinforce the writer’s stance.
  • How to improve: To improve clarity and consistency, the writer should use clearer topic sentences at the beginning of each paragraph that directly relate back to their position. Additionally, reinforcing the main argument throughout the body paragraphs with linking phrases can help maintain the focus on the overall stance.

• Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay presents several ideas regarding traffic reduction, including the reduction of travel needs and the enhancement of public transport. The supporting examples, such as references to carpooling services, are relevant and help to illustrate the points made. However, some ideas could be developed further; for instance, the discussion on public transport could include specific examples of successful cities or statistics that demonstrate its effectiveness.
  • How to improve: To enhance the development of ideas, the writer should aim to provide more detailed examples and explanations. This could involve discussing the potential benefits of improved public transport in more depth or providing data on how carpooling has been successful in other urban areas. Additionally, expanding on the implications of these solutions would strengthen the argument.

• Stay on Topic:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, focusing on the issue of traffic reduction in urban areas. However, there are instances where the discussion could be more tightly aligned with the prompt. For example, the mention of carpooling could be more explicitly linked back to the central argument regarding the necessity of reducing travel needs.
  • How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer should regularly refer back to the prompt throughout the essay. This could be achieved by reiterating how each point made relates to the core argument about the necessity of reducing travel needs and how it compares to other solutions. Additionally, ensuring that each paragraph ties back to the main thesis will help keep the essay on topic.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of the task and presents a well-structured argument. With some refinements in the areas mentioned, the essay could achieve a higher band score.

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. The introduction effectively outlines the writer’s position, stating that they are partly in favor of the statement. The first body paragraph logically supports this position by discussing the relationship between commuting and traffic. However, the transition to the second body paragraph could be smoother. The argument about alternative solutions to traffic is relevant but feels somewhat abrupt, lacking a clear link to the previous paragraph.
  • How to improve: To enhance logical organization, consider using transitional phrases that explicitly connect the ideas between paragraphs. For example, at the end of the first body paragraph, a sentence like "However, there are additional strategies that can also effectively address traffic issues" could serve as a bridge to the next point, making the flow more seamless.

• Use Paragraphs:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay uses paragraphs effectively, with each paragraph focusing on a specific aspect of the argument. The first body paragraph discusses the impact of commuting on traffic, while the second presents alternative solutions. However, the second paragraph could be more clearly delineated in terms of its structure; it contains multiple ideas that could benefit from further separation or clarification.
  • How to improve: Consider breaking down the second body paragraph into two distinct paragraphs: one focused on public transport improvements and another on carpooling and shared mobility. This would allow for a more in-depth exploration of each solution and improve clarity. Each paragraph should ideally start with a clear topic sentence that outlines the main idea.

• Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a reasonable use of cohesive devices, such as "on the one hand," "despite," and "for example," which help to connect ideas within and across sentences. However, there is a tendency to rely on a limited range of cohesive devices, which can make the writing feel somewhat repetitive.
  • How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, incorporate a wider variety of linking words and phrases. For instance, instead of repeatedly using "another" to introduce new ideas, consider alternatives like "in addition," "furthermore," or "moreover." Additionally, using contrasting phrases such as "on the contrary" or "in contrast" can enhance the discussion of differing viewpoints and strengthen the overall coherence of the essay.

By addressing these areas for improvement, the essay can achieve a higher level of coherence and cohesion, potentially raising the band score in this criterion.

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 such as "contentious arguments," "mitigate," "excessive increase," and "viable solution." However, there are instances of repetition and limited variation in word choice, particularly in phrases like "the amount of traffic" and "the need for travel." The use of synonyms or alternative expressions could enhance the lexical variety.
  • How to improve: To improve, the writer should aim to incorporate a broader range of synonyms and phrases. For example, instead of repeatedly using "the amount of traffic," alternatives like "traffic levels," "traffic volume," or "road congestion" could be employed. Additionally, exploring more sophisticated vocabulary related to urban planning and transportation could elevate the essay’s lexical resource.

• Use Vocabulary Precisely:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay contains some precise vocabulary, such as "public transport facilities" and "carpooling." However, there are instances of imprecise usage, such as "the excessive increase of vehicles’ usage," which could be more clearly stated as "the excessive use of vehicles." The phrase "the chance for them to go out" is also vague and could be more directly expressed.
  • How to improve: To enhance precision, the writer should focus on clarity and conciseness. For example, replacing "the chance for them to go out" with "the opportunity to travel" would convey the intended meaning more effectively. Additionally, reviewing the essay for phrases that could be simplified or clarified will improve overall precision.

• Use Correct Spelling:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay generally demonstrates good spelling, with only a few minor errors such as "volums," which should be corrected to "volumes." However, the presence of such errors can detract from the overall impression of the essay.
  • How to improve: To improve spelling accuracy, the writer should implement a proofreading strategy, such as reading the essay aloud or using spell-check tools before submission. Additionally, maintaining a personal list of commonly misspelled words and reviewing them regularly can help prevent similar mistakes in the future.

Overall, while the essay meets the basic requirements for lexical resource, there is significant room for improvement in vocabulary range, precision, and spelling accuracy. By focusing on these areas, the writer can enhance their score in this criterion.

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 phrases. For example, the use of "While I believe that it undoubtedly contributes to the decline of traffic, I also think this way is not the sole solution" showcases a complex structure that effectively contrasts two ideas. However, there are instances of repetitive structures, particularly in the opening sentences of paragraphs, which could be improved for greater variety. The phrase "the crucial reason why I think that this way is feasible" is somewhat formulaic and could benefit from rephrasing to enhance engagement.
  • How to improve: To diversify sentence structures, consider incorporating more varied introductory phrases and conjunctions. For example, instead of starting multiple sentences with "the reason why," try using phrases like "One significant factor is…" or "An important aspect to consider is…". Additionally, integrating more passive voice constructions or varying the placement of clauses can add complexity to your writing.

• Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:

  • Detailed explanation: The essay generally maintains a good level of grammatical accuracy, but there are some notable errors. For instance, the phrase "the excessive increase of vehicles’ usage" is awkward and could be simplified to "the excessive use of vehicles." Additionally, there are punctuation issues, such as the missing comma before "especially during the peak hours" in the sentence "leading to less traffic problems such as traffic congestion, especially during the peak hours." This omission can lead to confusion in reading.
  • How to improve: To enhance grammatical accuracy, pay attention to common errors such as awkward phrasing and subject-verb agreement. For example, ensure that plural nouns are correctly matched with plural verbs. For punctuation, review the rules regarding the use of commas, especially in complex sentences and lists. Reading your essay aloud can help identify where natural pauses occur, indicating where commas may be needed.

By addressing these areas for improvement, you can further enhance the clarity and effectiveness of your writing, potentially raising your band score in future assessments.

Bài sửa mẫu

There are some contentious arguments about whether cutting down the desire for urban residents to commute to work, education, or shopping is the only way to mitigate the amount of traffic. From my perspective, I partially support this assertion. While I believe that it undoubtedly contributes to the decline of traffic, I also think this approach is not the sole solution.

On the one hand, the crucial reason why I think that this approach is feasible is that the increasing need to travel for work, education, or shopping leads to excessive vehicle usage. Therefore, reducing the urban dwellers’ need for travel means decreasing the chances for them to go out, resulting in a decline in the amount of traffic on the road and leading to fewer traffic problems such as congestion, especially during peak hours.

Despite the reasons I mentioned above, I argue there are some other effective approaches to this issue. The first noticeable measure to lessen traffic is that the authorities in these cities should invest a significant amount of budget in improving public transportation infrastructure. By nature, this enables citizens to limit the demand for private vehicles, contributing to traffic reduction. Another viable solution is that carpooling and shared mobility should be encouraged among inhabitants in the cities. This provides a good opportunity for people to use the same vehicle with others, reducing traffic volumes. For example, some carpooling programs or ride-sharing services such as Grab, Bee, Vinfast, and Gojek successfully mitigate traffic when they encourage their customers to use the vacancy in their shared vehicles with others, reducing the need for private transport.

In conclusion, while it is true that minimizing the necessity for commuting can lead to reduced traffic, other strategies also play a crucial role in addressing this issue. Efficient public transportation systems and the encouragement of shared commuting services could also mitigate traffic volumes. Therefore, a comprehensive strategy that incorporates multiple feasible measures will be better in reducing this problem than relying solely on reducing travel needs.