Is government penalizing people who use their own cars the best way to traffic / pollution problems?

Topic:

Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems.

To what extent do you agree or disagree? What other measures do you think might be effective?

It is understandable that many people believe that the increase in the cost of petrol is the most effective solution to the growing traffic and pollution issues. From my perspective, I partly agree with this theory because I think there are other measures which are applicable to this situation.

The growth in the price of petrol may bring some benefits to the traffic and the environment. Firstly, it will force a part of the residents to use other sources of energy which are cheaper and more environmentally friendly. For instance, more and more citizens will travel to work by bike or

the rich will adapt to buy an electronic car. Consequently, positively affect our surroundings as it will reduce the amount of CO2 emissions as well as other exhaust gas from traditional transportations which use petrol. Secondly, it will promote the developments of useful technologies which can be used instead of gasoline engines.

However, there are still some possible solutions which do not involve the increase in petrol price. First of all, the governments should encourage the residents to use eco-transportations, especially bicycles. These means of transport do not produce harmful gas to the environment and also reduce the traffic jams in rust hours. The Netherlands is the country which most successfully applied this paradigm and it becomes one of the most livable cities without air pollution. To achieve so, propagation should be used widely for the citizens to understand more about the advantages of bikes and therefore create a bicycle-societies. Furthermore, working tools should be quickly replaced by modern technologies, which are more productive and also friendlier to the environment.

To reiterate, I believe that despite the benefits that the increase in petrol price creates with the traffic and pollution issues, it is not sustainable and there are more effective ways to solve these problems.

It is important that the essence of the original topic presentation is preserved in the rewording of the writer. That means, the writer should avoid making personal opinion references such as "it is understandable" when depicting the topic presentation. That is because such statements create an immediate discussion presentation where it is not needed nor required. The original topic must be a simple restatement, devoid of the writer's point of view. The point of view should be stated only when depicting his personal opinion in the later part of the paragraph.

When stating his opinion, the writer must avoid making a statement of uncertainty such as "I think" because the score of the paragraph will also depend on the clarity and strength of his response to the question. When uncertain references are made, that indicates that the writer does not have a clear opinion of the given topic. Additionally, he must not restate the last instruction provided for the writing. Instead, a specific solution should have been indicated as the secondary response topic for the 2 discussion paragraphs.

When expanding on a presented reason, it is important that the writer avoids presenting a secondary topic towards the end of the paragraph that he will not have the space nor time to properly build up in relation to the previously presented statement. That creates an under developed paragraph presentation and causes deductions in the cohesiveness and coherence score. It is better to have one fully developed explanation than one fully developed and one merely mentioned topic sentence in a paragraph. This could very well be the reason the essay may receive an overall failing score.

@phanhuusang
I have a few sugestions for your essay. Hope it helps!

- "consequently, positively affect our surroundings..." => this sentence doesn't have subject, which is gramaticallywrong
- "...solutions which do not involve the increase in pertrol" => I think this sentence is not natural, try another way
- rust hours => rush hours
- the "working tools" idea => not persuasive and clear, alo not separate from other ideas. Since most of your ideas are not well developed (just circling on "environmental friendliness"), you may not receive high marks.