Some people think an international car-free day is an effective way to reduce air pollution. Others think there are more effective ways to do this. Discuss both sides and give your opinion.

40 minutes, 250 words at least.

Answer:

Today, many cities are suffering from air pollution. Therefore, people have different views whether (You’re suggesting two opposite views. It is advisable to use “WHILE X, Y” construction. Also, you should not use therefore. It signals conclusion of an argument and you’ve not developed any argument here.) while some people support international car-free days are as an answer to this problem or , others think alternative measures are more effective. In my opinion, an international car-free day alone is insufficient to address the problem and other methods, such as the use of electric vehicles and renewable energy sources, are seems promising in the long run. (You’ve repeated international car free day and other measures in both sentences. This could have been avoided. While some people support international car-free days to curb this menace, others think alternative measures such as the use of renewable energy and electric vehicles are more effective. I believe the former approach is insufficient to find a long-term solution.)

Proponents of international car-free days the former view (avoid repetition) believe that these events help to reduce air pollution in cities. It is their argument that (These words are redundant. It is obvious that this is their argument.) Private vehicle’s exhaust is a major source of the pollution and therefore by giving them up for a day would result in a (missing article and preposition) drop in the pollution levels. Although these events (this is not an event) may help to cut down car gas vehicular emissions, (Although this step/ approach may provide immediate/ short-term respite,) this step may not be an effective solution because the emission numbers would continue to increase as long as fuel-based cars run on roads. (To build a strong logic, let us separate the two approaches on the time scale. Although this approach may provide short-term respite, it is not a long-term solution to the menace of pollution.) In fact, switching from fossil fuel-powered vehicles to electric vehicles would help in lowering carbon emissions as electric engines does do not emit any gas gases. (any = singular. Use a singular noun.)

The above paragraph is weak on task achievement. You are supposed to elaborate on the benefits of international vehicle-free days. You’ve switched to the benefits of other methods in the latter part. This is wrong.

Advocates of alternative methods to tackle the air pollution problem believe that adaptation of renewable energy sources is a productive permanent solution. It is their view that (Of course, it is their view. No need to write this.) Powered by coal, electric power stations (power stations generate electricity. No need to write electric.) remain the biggest source of annual greenhouse gas emissions and, thus, (put interruptors within commas) governments’ focus should be to bring down the emissions in this sector. In my opinion, (if these are statistics, they can’t be your opinion. Statistics are numbers.) statistics are very clear that moving away from the coal-based energy generation model to renewal sources such as wind or solar energy would reduce greenhouse gasses by 24.6%. This is because, unlike coal, wind turbines or solar panels from does do not produce any gases during the energy generation process.

The arguments in BP 2 are stronger than those in BP 1.

In conclusion, international car-free days are not an effective way to solve the problem of air pollution. In fact, the increased presence of electric cars (Note the construction: the X of Y.) and shift from coal to renewable sources of energy would put an end to carbon emissions.