Task 2: More and more vehicles get in use today - fuel price impact on traffic and pollution

Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and polluion problems.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?
What other measures do you think might be effective?

In the era of industrialization, more and more vehicles get in use and create environmental matters to societies. I utterly opposed the increase in the cost of petrol suggested as a solution to the problems above given that will impact all walks of life in one way or another, and there is a better alternative to this daunting task.

To begin with, pumping up the price of petrol or gasoline tantamounts to greater chances of poor people becoming poorer. Logistics and supply chains will suffer from a divergence in price changing that makes all the costs from any products rise. For example, an industry that is close to any level of society like Food and Beverages will demonstrate an upward trend in the money that customers have to pay due to the increased fee in shipping by trains, trucks, or ships. As a result, the lower class will have to purchase their basic needs at a higher amount of money than usual.

However, electric vehicles might be an ideal solution for the high traffic demand and the atmosphere. There is a breadth of means of transportation that do not require gasoline to be activated. One clear example is Tesla's products, the pioneer in producing and manufacturing electrical products in the United States with the ethical purpose of reducing the reliability of humans in petrol power and starting to endorse vehicles run by electrical power to save the environment. Sometimes, the decline in the frequency of searching and taking crude oil to produce gasoline might lead to environmental harms like oil spills. Therefore, laying off the usage of gasoline vehicles to one's used electricity is a better solution.

In conclusion, with higher money paid for petrol, humans will suffer the most in every aspect of their lives, especially at the lower level in society. And, replacing traditional gasoline interdependence vehicles with electrical ones will significantly contribute to a cleaner environment.

Hey there! Thanks for reading, please leave your comment below, your feedback will help me improve my writing skill.

The writer has not relayed an accurate prompt restatement based on the original prompt. He has offered a statement based on his own opinion, which is not related to the task, therefore, making his prompt restatement invalid. His opinion is also not very clearly specified as it does not connect to the information from the original presentation in an understandable manner. He has failed to make the prompt restatement + personal opinion coherent. Thereby failing in 2 sections of the test, within this paragraph, immediately.

Now, while the reasoning paragraphs make better sense than the prompt restatement, the statements are over written. The 320 word count provided here cannot realistically be met during the actual test. The writing also shows that the exam taker is trying to pass the test using only word count instead of coherence and cohesiveness in the presentation. Over-explaining does not help because it causes run-on sentences, which will result in GRA deductions due to forced errors in the presentation. It is always better to write no more than 300 words, with a focus on clarity, rather than exaggerated but pointless references as the current presentation often ends up doing.