Essay - The ownership of car should be restricted to one per family / climate change

only one car for a household?

The ownership of car should be restricted to one per family in order to reduce traffic congestion and pollution To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Answer:

The problem of traffic congestion and pollution has been increasing at an alarm rate since last few years all over the world. Thus, many experts come up with the solution that every family should be allowed to have only one vehicle. While, Some people consider that having many vehicles represents their high status. In reality, more vehicle will increase environmental health hazards on human beings.

On the one hand, Due to current progressive industrial development and increased per capita income. Firstly, people consider using other available mode of public transport like bus, train, rickshaw is time consuming and some time not considered to be the safe. Secondly, travelling in public transport is treated as sign of a lower class in the society. In contrary, having more than one vehicle for a family is considered as wealthy status. In addition, ease of getting vehicle-loan through banks help them to become owner of vehicle and can be easily payable in coming month.

on the other hand, some people argue that, Increasing number of vehicles on the road increases air pollution, sound pollution, In addition, to overcome the traffic congestion, robust infrastructure development and broader roads are to be prepared by cutting down the trees which further allows to increase the harmful gases in the environment and these gases are considered as eminent in human organ damage, For Example, Recent study carried out by Environmental Tribunal in New Delhi India elaborate that reduction in number of trees in recent years to develop road infrastructure has increased 30% of Carbon-Di-Oxide, increasing 20% of human deaths due to lung failure in last six months,

From what has been discussed above, I tend to strongly support government initiative to have single ownership of vehicle in each family to save human being from environmental health hazards.

While you did write more than the minimum required word count, you did not follow the discussion format as required. As such, the essay has not provided an appropriate response to the direct question being asked. The question was:

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

You responded:

In reality, more vehicle will increase environmental health hazards on human beings.

You placed your extent response at the end of the essay instead:

I tend to strongly support government initiative

It is clear from the way that you formatted your response that you had no idea as to how to properly discuss this essay based on the given instruction. You failed to create a proper concluding summary and you failed to create a proper prompt restatement. Both formatting errors, plus several other presentation errors will result in a failing score for this essay.

The question is asked at the beginning. The reason you have to give your direct response at the end of the prompt restatement is because you are being a chance to properly outline your discussion paragraphs in the presentation. An example response:

(Students are not allowed to offer their own response examples as student advice and examples tend to be incorrect. The response examples are for contributors only to offer.)

Modern families tend to own more than one automobile per family. This multiple vehicle proprietorship is believed to be one reason for street gridlocks. As such, a proposal has been made to limit the ownership of sedans to only one per household. I strongly support this idea due to two main reasons.

Do not exaggerate your restatement. Stick to the given information. Focus on synonym usage. Indicate the number of reasons or the reasons itself in the last sentence. Complete the summary presentation and outline of the discussion.

Your current discussion is not aligned with the requirements of the discussion. The discussion responses should be related to the strength of your belief in your response to the question. The government has nothing to do with the discussion so they should never be included in the presentation. You may use personal knowledge, commonly known information, or personal experience as the basis for your discussion reasons. Stick only with the facts presented in the original discussion.

This is not a comparative discussion. Only 2 reasons that explain your support for a particular point of view must be presented. Discuss comparative reasons only in A/.D and C/C essays. Opinion essays, such as this one, which have direct questions requiring straight responses do not use multiple angle discussion points.

The concluding summary, as the phrase suggests, should allow you to repeat the previous information in a new manner. It must show the examiner that you are capable of saying the same information in at least 2 different ways, that still keeps the essence of the discussion intact. That is why you cannot offer the strength of your opinion in the summary conclusion. That creates an open ended essay, which will result in a low score for you because you failed to close the essay using the expected format.

At this point, I will not delve into the other errors of your essay. Your presentation was wrong to begin with, so giving you advice based on a wrong presentation will not be helpful to you.

Your sentences are a bit short and end pretty abruptly which makes readers difficult to follow your statement.
I think in the beginning sentence of an essay, you could use words like 'thus/therefore/in addition' later, otherwise it will make the article hard to understand.

Thus, many experts ... While, Some people ...

You misused the linking words here, apart from the usage of "while". it's like you translate it from Chinese or something literally so that it may make sense in your native language but it looks weird in English.

Hi,

Your writing will fare better if you elaborate your arguments. For example your second paragraph states two points about why public transports are not preferred. Rather than just stating your points, you could've describe more about those points. These will give a vibe of a stronger essay while also giving smooth transition within your essay.

Speaking about transition, the last paragraph seems to just jump into conclusion. Not that it is wrong, but you can use some of your previous arguments from the paragraphs before to have a better flow.

@Holt Thanks for the feed back, Appreciate your time. @echo5016 thanks for your feedback