In some large cities, people have to pay a fee when they drive their cars into the city center, in a policy to reduce the number of cars in the city
Give reasons in support of, and opposing this policy, and give your opinion.
I'm pro free access to all cities
Traffic regulation in large cities has caused controversy since drivers are compelled to pay a fee whenever they commute to the city centers by cars. Although some opinions have supported the policy because it reduces car accidents, others have been in opposition to the traffic strategy in term of high-cost expenses. In my opinion, car owners should have had free access to all cities due to their citizen privilege.
In particularly, whoever acknowledged that collisions have been attributable to car numbers has embraced the policy due to its concern. This strategy confines commuters to public transports which alleviates both congested roads and car crashes in big cities. Indeed, in the past few decades, thousands of people perished in vehicle collisions, and these figures alerted city dwellers cautions.
Even though people conceded the practical nature of the plan, they have been elusive to confront the financial struggle every month which is extended by this payment. Commuters traveling to cities have not managed to tackle the high-cost expense; therefore, this law has deliberately augmented their monthly invoices. Consequently, car owners are remaining in exasperation with the transportation rule.
Neither did the policy lessened the number of cars in big cities, nor it restricted commuters to public carriers. Hence, I believe that drivers ought not to pay for the road assessment because it is inequitable and insufficient.
In conclusion, road payment has approached awareness from the community who concern about vehicle collisions, whereas others have questioned the effectiveness of the strategy because it originated the risen price. However, no matter how practical the plan is, the commuters commuting to cities should not pay for road assessment.
Holt Educational Consultant - / 11,211 3650
Han you delivered a wonderful prompt paraphrase and direct response to the instructions provided in the essay. The fact that you remembered to follow the discussion outline you presented in your reasoning paragraphs shows that you have improved in your writing skills. The only thing that is missing from your reasoning paragraph presentations are the transition sentences. The transition sentence shows a higher degree of writing skill as you are able to show that you can relate your first topic to the next topic in the conversation. This prepares the reader for the change in discussion slant and also, allows you to properly close the current reasoning paragraph. That does not take away the fact that you did a good job writing the reasoning paragraphs though.
I found your personal opinion to be lacking in discussion development because you used only 2 sentences in that paragraph. It could have been better developed in presentation for a higher C&C score. Now, while your language skills still need some work, it is not so bad that the essay would come across as confusing or stressful to read. In fact, the errors in GRA consideration are so minimal and does not really stress out the reader. Your topic and discussion remained clear despite the sentence development and presentation errors so I do not doubt that you would get a decent score in that regard as well.