English guide
Get a Band 7.5 sample answer for IELTS Writing Task 2 on renewable technology with full scoring breakdown and vocabulary highlights
What this guide covers
Search answer
Get a Band 7.5 sample answer for IELTS Writing Task 2 on renewable technology with full scoring breakdown and vocabulary highlights
Related guides:
Some people think that increasing the price of fuel for cars is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems. Others believe that non-car alternatives should be encouraged instead. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Arguments are presented but lack development and cohesion.
The increasing traffic and pollution problems are serious issues that need to be addressed. Some people suggest raising fuel prices to solve these problems, while others believe in promoting alternatives to cars. Both views have merits but I think promoting alternatives is better.
Raising fuel prices can reduce the number of cars on the road. When fuel is expensive, people will think twice before driving. This can lead to less traffic and pollution. However, this method may not be fair to those who cannot afford other transportation options. Poor people will suffer the most from higher fuel prices.
On the other hand, promoting alternatives to cars can be more effective. Governments can invest in public transportation and create bike lanes. This will give people options besides driving. Moreover, walking and cycling are good for health. If more people use these alternatives, there will be less traffic and pollution.
In conclusion, while raising fuel prices may help, promoting alternatives to cars is a better solution. It is fairer and more effective in the long run.
Scoring Breakdown:
Arguments are extended and supported with relevant examples.
The growing traffic and pollution problems have become a global concern, prompting debates on the most effective solutions. While some advocate for increasing fuel prices to deter car usage, others argue for promoting non-car alternatives. Both approaches have merits, but I firmly believe that focusing on alternatives offers a more sustainable and equitable solution.
Proponents of raising fuel prices argue that this measure can significantly reduce the number of vehicles on the road. Higher fuel costs can discourage unnecessary car trips, leading to a decrease in both traffic congestion and air pollution. For instance, countries like Norway have implemented fuel taxes to curb car usage effectively. However, this approach may disproportionately affect low-income individuals who rely heavily on private transportation. Moreover, increasing fuel prices alone does not address the root cause of the problem, which is the lack of viable alternatives.
In contrast, promoting non-car alternatives can provide a more comprehensive solution. Governments can invest in expanding public transportation networks, making them more accessible and efficient. Additionally, creating dedicated bike lanes and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure can encourage more people to adopt these modes of transportation. For example, cities like Amsterdam have successfully reduced car dependency by prioritizing cycling infrastructure. Furthermore, these alternatives not only alleviate traffic and pollution but also contribute to public health and well-being.
In conclusion, while raising fuel prices may offer a short-term solution, promoting non-car alternatives is a more sustainable and inclusive approach. By investing in public transportation and pedestrian infrastructure, governments can address the root causes of traffic and pollution while benefiting society as a whole.
Scoring Breakdown:
Arguments are well-supported with relevant, extended examples.
The escalating traffic congestion and environmental degradation caused by vehicular emissions have sparked intense debates on the most effective mitigation strategies. While some contend that escalating fuel prices is the panacea, others assert that fostering non-car alternatives is pivotal. This essay will critically evaluate both perspectives before advocating for the latter.
Proponents of fuel price hikes posit that this economic deterrent can curtail unnecessary vehicular use. By making fuel prohibitively expensive, governments can compel motorists to reconsider their travel choices, potentially reducing both traffic volumes and emissions. Empirical evidence from Singapore's Electronic Road Pricing system demonstrates the efficacy of this approach, with congestion decreasing by 15% following implementation. However, this strategy is not without its detractors. Critics argue that such measures disproportionately burden lower-income households who lack viable alternatives, potentially exacerbating socioeconomic inequalities.
Conversely, advocates for non-car alternatives propose a more holistic solution. By investing in comprehensive public transportation networks and pedestrian infrastructure, governments can provide viable alternatives to private vehicle use. The success of cities like Copenhagen, where 62% of commuters cycle to work due to extensive bike lanes and traffic calming measures, exemplifies this approach. Moreover, such initiatives yield ancillary benefits including improved public health and reduced healthcare costs.
In conclusion, while fuel price increases may offer short-term relief, cultivating non-car alternatives presents a more equitable and sustainable solution. Governments should prioritize investments in public transportation and active transport infrastructure to address the multifaceted challenges of traffic congestion and environmental degradation.
Scoring Breakdown:
Practice makes perfect. Get your own IELTS Writing Task 2 response scored by AI on English AIdol and receive detailed feedback to help you improve your score.