Sustainable development - government should spend money on railways rather than roads

Funds for the transport area

Whether national budget should go to railway or road construction when it comes to what determines a civilized society is an issue of broad interest. Along with different benefits of building roads, advantages of constructing railways are undeniable.

On the one hand, state authorities should give financial support to roads contributing for several reasons. Firstly, it is believed that people could travel conveniently on roads. Particularly, road users could not only commute independently but also control the vehicles by themselves. In addition, roads are argued to be the national symbol of any country. In fact, when tourists come to foreign nations, it is easily to evaluate the host countries through their road system at the first side. Thus, roads need to be invested more by the governments.

On the other hand, it is claimed that the funds should be allocated to railway system. In fact, railways are said to be more reasonable for the public than roads. For instance, car owners must pay large amounts of money on tax, fuel or car insurance, while train passengers only need to buy a ticket without any worries. Furthermore, public transport seems to be an environmental investment. This means it neither results in air pollution nor fuel consumption as much as private vehicles. Besides, traveling by trains is undoubtedly safer than commuting on roads thanks to the strictly high-technology system.

In conclusion, I believe that while the two systems both need the financial aid of governments, the expenditure should be spent more on railways for the sustainable development in the future.

If it is for IELTS writing test, I think you use "On the other hand" twice, which you could change to something else like : "meanwhile".

I think you could also change "In fact, when tourists come to foreign nations, it is easily to evaluate the host countries through their road system at the first side" to In fact it is easy to evaluate the host countries through their road system at the first side when tourists come to foreign nations."

The "easily" in this statements doesn't feel right. It should change to "easier" or "easy".

Hanh, if I am not mistaken, the prompt you are responding to for this Task 2 essay is an "extent of agreement or disagreement" essay. As such, I can safely say that you did not respond to the essay properly. The prompt is asking you:

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

To which you responded:

benefits of building roads, advantages of constructing railways are undeniable.

This being the normal prompt for this topic, I hate to say this but, you actually would not get a passing score with this essay because you did not accurately respond to the discussion requirements. This is a measured single opinion essay which you discussed as a comparative essay instead. Your writing runs counter to the discussion instructions, which means you will get an automatic failing score for the TA section. As such, there is no possibility that you can pass the test because you showed a lack of English comprehension skills in relation to academic writing.

I am judging your work based on previous experiences that I have had with this prompt. If you are responding to a different prompt then you should have included it with your posting. I can only advice you properly if you provide me with the review instructions for your paper. That is represented by the original prompt requirements as provided to you. Give us a copy of the discussion you will be writing about with your next essay should you decide to post it here. That way you can get relevant advice for your work.