The view that providing free public transport could resolve traffic jams

solution for the traffic jams

The best way for governments to solve the problem of traffic congestion is providing free public transport in 24 hours per day, and seven days a week. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is argue that the multiple choice for national leaders to resolve the issue of traffic jam is allowing their inhabitants to access public transport free of charge in every time. In my opinion, I strongly disagree with this view.

It is understandable why some might hold the view that free public transport could deal with the difficulties of traffic congestion. Their rationale is that when people do not have to pay to use these types of transport, they would use it more frequently and traffic congestion would no longer appear and as a consequence, this action could reduce heavy traffic in rush hours when the number of private vehicles is rising. However, I believe that this is a shortsighted view. In fact, this could lead to a shortage of public transport and buses and trains would become overcrowded. Thus, the government would have to channel their money into upgrade these means of transport, which could be a financial constraint for them because there are many sectors such as healthcare or education need this budget.

In addition, I am definitely convinced that traffic jam could be resolved if the authorities can ban several types of transports such as large trucks in certain time frames. Consequently, the number of vehicles on roads would be controlled effectively, which will ease the traffic flow. Another solution might be that the government should improve road systems by building roads wider and more flyovers, which could allow more vehicles to travel and help curb traffic jams.

In conclusion, there are sufficient grounds to reject the view that providing free public transport could resolve traffic jams. It is my genuine belief that a better option is to improve the road traffic.

Hi, I think you should double check your essay for grammar mistakes. There are quite many mistakes in there. For example: it is "argue", etc. Besides, the topic asked you "to what extent do you agree or disagree" and didn't ask you "what solutions".

The prompt paraphrase needs work. It is confusing to read and does not follow the original theme of the presentation. I am not sure where you got the idea that this is an argument (it is a discussion) and that there is a multiple choice of solutions (there aren't). You did get the extent response right though so, good work on that. However, your extent response is lacking. There should have been 2 topics outlined as to why you disagree with the view.

In the reasoning paragraphs, the solution that you presented is out of place. That is not a discussion requirement and as such, will result in a word deduction on your part. You will only be scored for the parts that you wrote which coincide with the discussion requirements as presented. So, rather than having a score based on 285 words, you will have a score based on 209 words instead. That means, your essay is now under the word count and appropriate word percentage deductions will be applied. Needless to say, the deduction will result in an immediate failing score on your part. It will be difficult to recover from that type of penalty as you even have spelling, grammar, along with C&C errors in the presentation, that will also result in points deductions.

Further review of your work shows me that you have only 1 actual reasoning discussion based on your actual opinion. The first half, is an explanation of the public point of view which is unnecessary. There should have been a 2nd related succeeding paragraph presentation to complete the 2 reasoning paragraph requirement for the extent essay. The examiner only wants to know the 2 reasons you do not support the given statement. He doesn't need you to explain the topic to him. He is already familiar with it.

tks you guys for your helpful comment, I will try to perform better in my next essays.