In the modern world, car ownership is regarded as a right. However, some argue that governments should try to reduce the number of cars on the road by improving public transport, as the growing number of cars on the road cause traffic congestion and pollution. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
40 minutes, 250 words at least.
Cars are one of the most used vehicles on the road. However, this
augmenting (1) trend has created been creating numerous hazardous effects (2) on humans as well as on the environment. Hence, (Do not use concluding words in the introduction.) some people suggest I believe that the government ought to provide more improve (develop) public transport to mitigate car traffic. To my mind, this is the most suitable method to curtail the private machinery on roads as by reducing the number of private cars will not only solve the predicament of traffic congestion but environmental and road issues will also be shaken off. (If your opinion is the same as that of some people, it is better to write your opinion only. This will reduce the size of the introduction and help you avoid word repetition.)
1. Wrong word choice. Augment = to increase in size. A trend never augments.
2. Hazard is a noun. You need to write an adjective with effects. Its hazardous.
Undoubtedly, pollution is
the a major concern of today’s society. If the number of personal cars will not bring are not brought down to a certain level, it will be infeasible to take breath breathe in the polluted air. Since all cars produce a plethora of harmful gases such as carbon dioxide, (3) it is essential to find an alternative an economically viable solution. Thereby, Therefore, it is argued that the government should launch more public transport air-conditioned buses and build metros (4) so that fossil fuels, which are scarce, are consumed at a lower rate and the problem of poisonous gases can be alleviated. emergence of deleterious gases can alleviate (5). For instance, a single bus which commutes 50 to 60 people at a time which will obviously produce lesser pollution than 50 cars in which only one or two people sit in each of them.
3. Please put things in logical order. Cars –> Pollution –> Breathe –> Find solution. If the number of cars is not brought down immediately, our environment will be polluted with obnoxious gases such as carbon dioxide. This will hamper (obstruct) normal breathing and people will suffer from numerous diseases such as Asthma and Cancer. Thus, it is essential to find a viable and long-term solution to this problem.
4. You’ve mentioned public transport at several places. However, you’ve not mentioned what exactly constitutes public transport. Be specific in your response.
5. Alleviate = To make something bad (usually pain) less severe. You can’t alleviate the emergence of something. You can alleviate a problem.
There is a serious lack of lexical resources in the above paragraph.
Another prime reason is the
bottleneck (I don’t think traffic is bottleneck.) serious traffic on roads. It is thought by many that (Since this is also your thought, there is no need to write these redundant words.) public transport such as buses, trains should be opted to reduce the extent of jams. To encourage this habit, the government should impose high taxes on cars. By this pursuit, amount the number of cars (Amount is used with uncountable nouns. Cars are countable. The amount of water.) will automatically reduce. Moreover, people should facilitate (wrong word. This does not fit here.) with low bus and trains fares, luxurious services during traveling to entice people. (This sentence does not make any sense. This will reduce the GR score.) This exercise will eventually deduce reduce traffic on roads.
In conclusion, although everyone has a right to ride a car, it is imperative to have
traffic road (What’s that?). By increasing public road services (What are public road services?) (Poor LR) , government would certainly be able to overcome the above said turmoil.