To solve traffic problems, governments should tax private car owners and invest in public transport

a solution for the huge number of cars on roads

It is common belief that the governments should put a tax on individual car owners and invest the amount of money to develop the quality of public transportation. However, it is true that this solution is a controversial opinion due to its benefits and drawbacks.

On the one hand, the heavy taxes would make people probably use public transport instead, such as buses,... Additionally they would pay attention to the pollution level caused by their car exhaust fumes, which have a devastating impact on our climate. With this solution, the government could also limit the time and routes that cars are allowed to take to decrease traffic jams in rush hours. Thus, the money from car owners who violate the tax could be used to improve and develop the infrastructure. It will definitely decrease traffic congestion and pollution and high taxes would generate enough money to make essential changes.

However, that solution is not completely beneficial, there are some negative aspects that should be taken into consideration. As a matter of fact, taxes are already high these days so that it would be a heavy burden on car owners. In addition, with a fixed amount of money, it seems to be too high to those people who could not afford to pay, while the rich ones certainly could . As a results, inhabitants' lives would become harder, and several people would not pay the taxes. This solution could be a double-edged sword and might not be used as a long-term plan; it perhaps reduces residents' quality of life.

To sum up, although this aforementioned solution is worth considering to improve the current situation, there still exist some noteworthy disadvantages.

The prompt does not require a true or false response from the writer. Therefore, a statement of validity is not required and thus, will not receive any scoring merit. Respond only as instructed to do so. Added information of the irrelevant kind will not have any scoring consideration. A mere restatement of the instruction would have been better. The restatement is good, but includes non-essential data which will lower its sectional score.

Rather than indicating a comparative phrase of "on the one hand", a clearer reference to the discussion focus of the paragraph would be more helpful to the presentation. Clearly indicate if the advantage or disadvantage will be discussed in the first sentence would be best. This creates the clarity of discussion as required per paragraph:

Topic sentence + reference to A or D = Clear discussion paragraph path

Punctuation marks are never used consecutively in a sentence. These may only be used as a thought seperator in the middle and end of a sentence. A comma can never be followed by ellipses. That shows unfamiliarity with punctuation usage /guidelines, for which penalties shall be applied.

The concluding paragraph is not completely developed. It is less than 40 words and does not really recapitulate the previous presentation. it is nota true summary in the sense of the word.

While the discussion does show merit based on the writer's understanding of the topic, there are still several instances for improvement that can benefit the final score of the presentation.