Railways vs roads - I consider both traffic systems equally important to our societies.

Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads.To what extent do you agree or disagree?

more support for roads or railways?

Some people believe that governments should invest more money in railways rather than road systems. Personally, I disagree with this point of view because I consider both traffic systems equally important to our societies.

On the one hand, I agree with the idea that states need to build well-functioned railways. Such public traffic system can help to cope with traffic problems, such as traffic congestion and car accidents. In Taiwan, for instance, our local governments have planned to spend lots of fiscal budget building railways. This policy certainly solve the problem of traffic jam, which had bothered local residents seriously. Another benefit of railway is that it is more eco-friendly. Trains powered by electricity do not generate harmful emissions and excessive carbon dioxide.as a result, railways can also help to protect our environment.

Nevertheless, there are still some difficulties which can not be dealt with by trains. Firstly, railways must be built in areas with huge population, or they would not be financially efficient. Secondly, some regions, such as mountainous countrysides, are not appropriate to develop such public transport but more suitable to rely on roads. For instance, construction companies could find it hard to build railways on the hills. Finally, railway stations are located in fixed places but each individual person might have his or her destination. Even we take trains reaching the station nearby our destination, we still need to travel to there by cars or vehicles depending on roads.

In conclusion, railways are so essential that governments should develop them, but I believe that we would have a more convenient society with well-developed roads.

Kevin, let's get one thing straight here. When you are given an opinion essay to write, specially one that specifically asks for the extent of your agreement or disagreement with a topic, such as in this case, you must signify that in the opening statement. You must choose only one point of view to discuss because of the descriptive instruction "OR" in the original prompt. The inclusion of the word "OR" means that you will discuss only the side that you support, not both sides.

The way that you discussed this essay clearly shows that you do not understand the instructions provided and will cause an automatic failure of this essay in the actual test process. Your essay response does not accurately represent the requirements you were provided with and therefore, cannot be considered for grading past the first portion of the scoring criteria. You cannot be graded on the remaining sections when you have already failed to properly understand the English instructions for the discussion essay. There is no use in scoring the remaining parts since it is obvious that you do not understand the discussion topic and instructions you were provided. The correct approach to this essay would have been:

There are some people who support the idea that the government should spend more money on the development of railway systems. Others believe that the government money would be better spent on developing road ways. In my opinion, I agree that the government should spend more money on developing the roads to a certain extent.

Use 2 paragraphs to defend your stance then conclude the essay by saying; "In conclusion, I would like to reiterate there is a requirement for the building of more roads as opposed to railways. This is supported by the fact that... In the end..."