3)Some people think that increasing the cost of fuels is the best way to solve the world's environmental problems.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
One school of thought holds that raising fuel costs is the optimal solution to mitigate environmental problems. In my opinion, however, this will take a toll on the world's economy.
On the one hand, it is understandable why some people believe that by increasing fuels prices, the impact of environmental problems will be effectively tackled. The majority of consumers these days, they say, especially workers who have commuting involved, heavily rely on fuels. Higher prices would discourage them from using a large amount of this energy and they will seek other alternative measures to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide, one of the chief contributors to environmental problems, such as utilizing public transportation. However, this thinking fails to mention that not all areas are possible for public transportation, and residents in remote areas, and rural areas would encounter various problems like inadequate infrastructure, financial resources, and geographical factors. As a result, this likely imposes a burden on users, particularly low-income individuals. This is why stable costs are still instrumental in forming a sustainable and stable market for the workforce.
On the other hand, the argument in favor of balanced prices is further fortified by the fact that fuels are the lifeblood of the economy. It is embedded in economic activity and filtered through various services in which just a change of prices would leave serious repercussions. This can be seen in various companies likely facing inflationary pressure, due to the war between Russia and Ukraine, because the freight costs have risen resulting from higher fuel costs leading to the increase in the cost of shipment. Therefore, the prices of goods are increased by many businessmen to compensate for their payment. This might result in a decline in market share and competition challenges in both national and international trade. This example is a testament to the importance of fuel prices in the global economy.
In conclusion, for the reasons elaborated above, I strongly believe that ensuring stable fuel prices is a crucial part to industries on a wide scale, contributing to the general prosperity.Holt Educational Consultant - / 14,835 
4783 this will take a toll on the world's economy.
It is good that you have a strong thesis statement. However, your direct thesis statement prevented you from meeting a major requirement of the essay, which is the response to the given question. Always respond to the question before presenting the thesis sentence / statement. It creates a stronger rephrasing + writer's opinion.
Your discussion lacks ownership. By that I mean, the lack of first person pronoun usage. The examiner is not interested in the general discussion. He only wants to know about your 2 personal reasons in support of your opinion. You should remember that in this type of essay, you should focus on strengthening your presentation because of the single opinion defense requirement.
It's unnecessary use of the phrase "they say" in the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph and the redundancy in mentioning "consumers these days" along with "heavily rely on fuels." The sentence can be improved by removing the unnecessary phrase and rephrasing it to eliminate redundancy.
The majority of consumers these days, they say, especially workers who have commuting involved, heavily rely on fuels = The majority of consumers, especially workers with commutes, heavily rely on fuel. (Fuels = fuel)
The next sentence is confusing. You mention the 'higher prices', coupled with 'the emission of carbon dioxide' in 1 sentence, but I think you should separate them into 2 sentences. That would be more logical.
