Please give comments on my ielts task 2? which band can i achieve with this essay? thank you in advance

Question

People think that government should increase the cost of fuel for cars and other vehicles to solve environmental problems. Give your opinion.It is a commonly held view that an upsurge in the price of petrol for transportation means can tackle environmental issues, and that government should implement the policy. While it is true that the action could hamper certain repercussions of environmental impact, I highly believe that the aforementioned solution is flawed.It is undoubtedly that raising fuel prices for vehicles brings great assets. By doing so, many private car users may restrict the quantity and length of their journeys so as to compensate for the increased expenditure. This action plays a contributing factor to the decline of greenhouse effect since gas emissions from cars or personal vehicles are considered to be the major factor for atmospheric contamination. Furthermore, public transportations will be more frequently utilized by individuals as a result of expensive car fuel, therefore, not only lowering gas output but also mitigating traffic congestion during peak times.However, a raise in petrol prices may only play a stopgap solution, not to mention being counterproductive in some circumstances. For instance, it can engender critical conflict between citizens and national authorities as some depend wholly on private vehicles for a living and could not avail themselves of public transport such as a freelance driver for Grab or Uber. Moreover, higher taxes on fuel will soon deem to be incompetent of exhaustively addressing environmental problems as the world population is growing rapidly and society is becoming populous over the decades. Not everyone will forgo employing cars or motorbikes despite having to pay large sums on fuel prices.To recapitulate, even though boosting the cost of petrol can hinder and resolve environmental influence to some extent, government should consider having other alternatives which are more efficient like implementing environmentally-friendly vehicles or introducing free bus systems to the public.

AlpheccaStars · Accepted Answer

It is a commonly held view that an upsurge in the price of petrol for transportation means (unnatural expression) can tackle environmental issues, (That makes no sense at all. How can upsurges in anything tackle issues? Only individuals, organisations or governments can do this.) and that government should implement the policy. (What policy are you referring to?) While it is true that the action (What action are you referring to?) could hamper certain repercussions of environmental impact, (I do not understand this. The writing is poor English.) I highly believe that the aforementioned (Please remove this word from your vocabulary list. It is stilted, unnatural and very antiquated.) solution (What solution are you referring to?) is flawed.

When you write "the policy" "the action" and "the solution" you must have introduced it in your previous sentences. You have not clearly stated any of these things. Do not let the reader guess what you are talking about.

Here is clear writing:

It is a commonly held view that a policy of raising the taxes on petrol will create incentives leading to a cleaner environment, and all governments should take actions to implement such a policy.

In that sentence, the policy and actions are defined.

It is undoubtedly that (Ungrammatical) raising fuel prices for vehicles brings great assets. (wrong word, wrong usage. Assets are things of value that you own like a house or a car.) By doing so, many private car users (wrong word) may restrict the quantity (wrong word) and length of their journeys so as to compensate for the increased expenditure. (wrong word) This action plays (wrong word) a contributing factor to the decline of greenhouse effect (wrong usage. The greenhouse effect is a property of certain gasses in their absorption and emission of electromagnetic radiation. It will not change, since the physical properties of such gasses do not change. ) since ~~gas~~ carbon dioxide emissions from cars or personal vehicles are considered to be the major factor for increasing the percentage of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. ~~atmospheric contamination~~. Furthermore, public transportations (wrong form - transportation is non-count,) will be more frequently utilized by individuals as a result of expensive car fuel, (comma splice error, ungrammatical sentence) therefore, not only lowering gas output but also mitigating traffic congestion during peak times. (reducing traffic jams is off-topic. Focus all your words directly on the topic.

Here is an example paragraph:

Raising prices on fuel will have an immediate effect of lowering levels of undesirable greenhouse gas emissions that are responsible for global warming and environmental degradation. This is because drivers who have a fixed budget for transportation expenses will reduce the number and length of trips that they make in order to compensate for the higher fuel costs. Some may also stop commuting by private cars and take public transportation to and from school or work. Both of these actions, which avoid additional transportation costs, will serve to lessen CO2 emissions and fumes that contribute to smog and air pollution. It will not only stem the rise of global warming, but also improve local air quality.

However, a raise (wrong word. Raise is a verb. Rise is the noun) in petrol prices may only ~~play~~ be (wrong word) a stopgap solution, not to mention being counterproductive in some circumstances. For instance, it can ~~engender~~ (wrong word,) cause / create a critical conflict between citizens and national authorities as some, such as a freelance driver for Grab or Uber, depend ~~wholly~~ on private vehicles for a living and could not avail themselves of public transport ~~such as a freelance driver for Grab or Uber.~~ Moreover, higher taxes on fuel will soon deem (wrong verb or wrong form) to be incompetent (wrong word) of ~~exhaustively~~ addressing environmental problems as the world population is growing rapidly and society is becoming populous over the decades. Not everyone will forgo employing cars or motorbikes despite having to pay large amounts of money for fuel. ~~sums on fuel prices.~~

To recapitulate, (Wrong word. A recapitulation is a restatement of what you have said previously. Clearly, this sentence is not a recapitulation, since you never proposed any other solutions.) even though boosting the cost of petrol can hinder and resolve environmental influence (wrong phrase ) to some extent, ~~government should consider having~~ (wrong word) ~~other alternatives which are more efficient like implementing~~ (wrong word) ~~environmentally-friendly vehicles or introducing free bus systems to the public.~~ (Do not introduce any new ideas or arguments in the conclusion. Put all of them in the body paragraphs and summarize them in the conclusion.)

Please give comments on my ielts task 2? which band can i achieve with this essay? thank you in advance

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions