Some people think that in order to deal with the problem of congestion in cities, privately owned vehicles should be banned in city centers, while others consider this to be an unrealistic solution. Discuss both views & give your opinion.
40 minutes, 250 words at least.
Banning private vehicles in city centers to solve the issue of traffic congestion is considered
as a practical measure by a fair amount number of people (1). However, (There is no need for this cohesive device. Overuse will reduce the band score.) others assert that this solution is completely infeasible. I completely agree with the latter view.
1. “Amount” is used with uncountable nouns. For countable, use NUMBER. “People” is a countable noun. Moreover, you can write in ACTIVE voice: Many people consider banning private vehicles in city centers will solve the issue of traffic congestion.
On the one hand, advocates of the former view
that privately owned vehicles need to be forbidden from central areas of big cities (write concisely) believe that the burgeoning traffic can be controlled to a great extent by implementing this policy. (Active voice: … believe that this policy can play an instrumental role in controlling the traffic.) This is because (2) the traffic jams in cities mainly occur due to private cars. If these automobiles are prohibited from entering into main congested areas of (be more specific in your communication) cities, then there would be increased availability of roads to the pedestrians, cyclists and public transport to motorists, resulting in a reduction in traffic jams number of vehicles. For instance, government of city Madrid in Spain has adopted the approach of debarring private cars from central areas; consequently, they have successfully controlled the problem of ever-increasing traffic. The example is not strong enough. It does not explain the idea in a specific manner. Let us write more specifically: For instance, the city of Madrid has imposed a ban on private vehicles in the city center from 9 am to 5 pm. This has reduced the transportation time from two hours to just 15 minutes and has saved a tremendous number of man hours from being wasted in traffic.
2. When you shift from the idea sentence to explanation sentence, do not use a cohesive device. This is not necessary.
On the other hand, I believe that this solution is entirely irrational due to various reasons. Primarily, by adopting this strategy, it would be extremely difficult for the commuters to reach their workplaces on time because they will
completely have to completely rely on public transport, which would consumes their plenty of time, resultantly, (poor connection) they may get late to their offices. (Let us break this into two sentences. You’ve crammed a number of ideas in one sentence and they are poorly connected. … public transport which consumes plenty of time. This often results in delays in reaching office and spending precious time in transportation.) Furthermore, the most important repercussion of this approach is that it would bother those who have some health issues such as physically disabled ones and excessively obese patients (These are not ISSUES. Write ISSUES only. … issues such as physical disability and obesity ….) since traveling by public transport would be inconvenient to them. Therefore, several predicaments, which this method may engender, (put this within commas. It is not a part of the main sentence and is giving additional information. Thus, it is a modifier.) make it an unrealistic solution.
To conclude, although banning of private automobiles from city centers would reduce traffic congestion greatly, I firmly believe that it will cause a lot of inconvenience to people, due to which it is considered as an irrational solution.
Please subscribe to my Youtube Channel.
Contact me for writing polished and effective Statement of Purpose.
Contact me for Editing Services and Document Writing Services.