Should governments spend more for construction of railways instead of roads for cars?

IELTS Task 2

governments should spend much money on railways than roads.

To extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

There are a variety of perspectives concerning the whether governments should pay much for construction of railways instead of that of roads in the regions of the world. In my opinion, however, I would say that I completely support the view that governments must pay much attention and finance on railways. In the following, I would point out the reasons why I said as above mentioned.

Firstly, railways is a kind of transportation that is much steadier and safer than cars, scooters and so on. Railways owns itself departure and arrival schedule, except unpredictable disaster occur, generally, it would transport people to the place where they want to go on time. For example, people who are travelling to another city are able to make much clearer detail to plan their timetable according to the easy-getting railways schedule. Secondly, it is much convenient for those who unwilling to drive their own cars to take railways to other places. Most of railways stations are located around city center or the place which own good public transportation. That is, citizens are able to reach stations easily and moving to wherever as their mind. For instance, before travelling to other city, people may concerning the crowed and lacked of parking space. Therefore, they might decide to choose railways as transportation way to other places, instead of driving their cars.

All in all, it is hard to figure out that which kind of transportation way is much better, not to mention to tackle it in the near future. However, I would like to restate my point that governments are ought to spend much money on railways, in terms of its stable and convenient.

Hi. I think that you have clearly introduced your position in the first paragraph, but there are some problems related to your use of words, which made the sentences quite complicating to understand. I also think that for now, it is fine to use some templates for writing the introduction but in general, I think it can be quite disadvantageous when you progress further so maybe try to produce your own version next time :).

Looking further, I find it hard to understand the first point, which is "railways is much safer and steadier than cars". You mentioned "unpredictable disaster" here and this means it is not that safe to be called "much safer", unless the number of railway accidents is much lower than cars. Therefore, I can say this idea has been overgeneralized and should be revised. Your second argument is not strong either, since you overgeneralize again by saying "Most of railways stations are located around city center ...". Can you take some real examples, like some cities in the world? I think you can say that in Japan, train stations are usually located near city center or at important road conjunction, which I think will make more sense :) And when you take example, try to use statement rather than prediction like "people might, they might", because that means your example is strong enough to evaluate the strength of your argument.

I also believe that there are several problems related to your use of grammar. For example:

Railways owns itself departure and arrival schedule (this is a clause, and if you write "except" after it without any clause, that means it is a full sentence), except (wrong use of "except")unpredictable disaster occur, generally, it would transport people to the place where they want to go (redundant) on time.

My fix would be:

Trains are operated based on fixed departure and arrival schedule. Unless unpredictable disasters occur, they would transport people to their desired destination

The format for your essay is incorrect. The Task 2 essay always has a minimum of 2 body paragraphs. That is because you are expected to use at least 2 reasons, fully explained in stand alone paragraphs, to defend your position on the given topic. Your prompt paraphrase should have been composed of 5 sentences. That is because there is a requirement to paraphrase:

- The topic
- POV 1 on the topic
- POV 2 on the topic
- Your position
- Transition sentence

You did not completely provide a correct paraphrase in the introduction. It is only partially correct in presentation. Your reasoning paragraph 1 contains 2 reasons. Since you were already counting out your reasons, you should have used the second reason in a separate stand alone paragraph. While your reasoning is not incorrect, it is not fully explained either. That is why you are required to separate your reasons and use topic sentences instead of numerical counts at the start of each paragraph. The problem that existed in your introduction paraphrase also exists in your concluding paragraph. You should have summarized your supporting reasons in that paragraph to close the essay. As it is, the essay does not have a conclusion and will be seen as an open-ended essay. Points lost all around.

You are supposed to be spelling in British English. Be mindful of the spelling differences between British and American English. Center in America is "centre" in Britain. Earn more LR scores for spelling the British way. "Railways" connote a plural reference so the subject-verb agreement should be "are" instead of "is". There are other existing problems in your essay but those are negligible enough to not have a direct effect on your score. The grammar is imperfect but you remain understood throughout the presentation, which is all that counts towards a good GRA score.