The best way to reduce the amount of traffic in cities today is by reducing the need for people to travel from home for work, education and shopping.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
MY ANSWER:
It is a common belief that in order to curb traffic volume, it is vital for people to reduce their need for daily commuting. Personally, I think that although this solution does benefit the traffic in some ways, it would be unworkable and there are more acceptable methods.
Although distant working and shopping have been more and more popular these day, reducing the need for people to commute is impractical. No matter how efficiently technology allow people to work, study or carry out only transactions, most of us still prefer face-to-face interations, perpetuating the need to travel. For example, business choose to hold direct meetings in lieu of online meetings, except during the covid 19 pandemic, since face-to-face interactions enable them to discuss more clearly and effectively, not to mention tons of disadvantages of distant working. Therefore, with our society still putting a significant amount of importance on real life day-to-day conversations and interactions, the proposed scheme would not work.
Instead of gorvernment reducing the need for people to commute daily, facilitating public tranport may be a more superior alternative solution. If people choose public transport to travel, not only does it help to commute without causing congestion, but it also reduces the amout of emission released from private vehicles. Take Japan as an example, by investing significantly in building elevated and underground railways, Japan has managed to reduce traffic volume considerably, easing congestion on road. As a result, by upgrading facilities of puplic transport, people will be more encouraged to use and thus, protect the atmostphere.
In conclusion, although reducing the need of people's daily commuting to alleviate traffic is beneficial to some extents, I am convinced that improving public transport has more advantages that are worth consideration
@nnlinh2610Holt Educational Consultant - / 14,835 
4783 This is an extent essay that requires the writer to define his response based on the measured / emotional descriptions often associated with this prompt. The writer actually failed to address the prompt correctly in 2 instances:
1. He does not restate what areas of life need to reassessed in order to curb the amount of trafficl
2. He does not indicate the degree of his disagreement with the statement and the reasons for this disagreement.
Therefore, the essay has not met the task accuracy requirements as required for the prompt restatement + writer's opinion section. That paragraph will meet with a failing preliminary TA score. The lack of clear opinion and proper response format has already doomed the final score to a failing one. Once the prompt restatement + writer's opinion is incorrect, the essay is no longer within passing consideration.
