Littering in cities is an increasing problem which needs to be dealt with. Some people think that steeper fines is the best way to deal with the problem.
To what extent do you agree?
As population density rises in cities, littering in streets is increasing and now it’s getting out of control. Unfortunately, governments across the World could not find any proved solution to solve this issue. Some people recommend extraordinary high fines to curb this social malpractice; however some counter argues this strategy. It is argued that high financial fines would not only discourage people from littering, they would also help to finance counter –littering campaigns.
High financial fines are considered most effective punishment to discourage people. It is argued that if a person is fined more than he can afford to pay, he would never repeat that mistake again. For example, in Europe, introduction of high traffic fines dramatically reduced traffic violations. Therefore, it is recommended that if a violator is fined an amount which is multiple of his salary, he would refrain from littering again. Thus, the argument of high amount of fine is duly supported.
Collection of higher funds would help governments finance their counter littering campaigns at a higher magnitude than they are doing now. Although, punishments help stop people from wrong doings, educating people would also help curb this practice further. There is no doubt that governments require funds to run campaign and educate people about benefits and disadvantages of littering campaigns. Therefore, it is recommended that higher fines should be introduced so that government could collect more funds to help themselves.
An increase in littering in cities can be curbed by introduction of excessive and unbearable fines to violators. Those fines would also help governments boost their awareness campaigns. Thus, the argument of higher fines is supported.
Please benchmark my essay with band 9
Please benchmark my essay with band 9
Limited free classes and unlimited best IELTS material at below link
https://www.facebook.com/pages/IELTS-No ... 3123916148
https://www.facebook.com/pages/IELTS-No ... 3123916148
-
goldcoastielts
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2020 1:34 am
- Location: Gold Coast, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Please benchmark my essay with band 9
Visit ThisCourse for IELTS and PTE!!
Homepage: https://www.this-course.com
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbVrKy ... LmQirBfSTw
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thiscoursesocial/
Thanks for your submission saqibali!! Please see my rewrite below ...
INTRO:
As population density rises in cities, littering in streets is increasing and IS NOW getting out of control. Unfortunately, governments across the world HAVE not BEEN ABLE TO find any proveN solutionS to solve this issue. Some people recommend extraordinarILY high fines to curb this social malpractice; however, THERE ARE ALSO some counterARGUMENTS AGAINST this strategy. It is argued that high financial fines would not only discourage people from littering, BUT would also help to finance counter–littering campaigns.
B1:
LARGE financial fines are considered THE most effective punishment to discourage people. It is argued that if a person is fined more than he can afford to pay, he would never repeat that mistake again. For example, in Europe, THE introduction of LARGE traffic fines dramatically reduced traffic violations. Therefore, it is recommended that if a violator is fined an amount which is LARGE COMPARED TO his salary, he would refrain from EVER littering again. Thus, the argumentS SUPPORTING LARGE fineS is WELL supported.
B2:
THE collection of higher funds would help governments finance their counter littering campaigns at a higher magnitude than they are doing now. Although (no comma here) punishments help stop people from DOING THE WRONG THING, educating people would also help curb this practice further. There is no doubt that governments require funds to run campaignS and educate people about THE benefits and disadvantages of littering campaigns. Therefore, it is recommended that higher fines should be introduced so that governmentS could collect more funds to help FUNDING INITIATIVES.
CONC:
IN CONCLUSION, an increase in littering in cities can be curbed by THE introduction of excessive and HARD TO BEAR fines to violators. Those fines would also help governments boost their awareness campaigns. Thus, the argument IN SUPPORT of higher fines is supported.
Advice:
1. You don't need to repeat the subject in the very first sentence ('littering'). Also, don't use contractions like 'it's'. 'IT IS' is better.
2. Be careful where you use capitals. 'World' does not need a capital 'W'.
3. Be careful about plural and articles, there are a number of errors in B1 and B2.
4. Try to use a better variety of linking words. All the linking words in this essay are single word (however, thus, therefore..). It sounds very formulaic.
TA: 6.5
G: 6.5-7.0 (to many simple errors)
V: 7.0
CC: 5.5-6.0
Homepage: https://www.this-course.com
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbVrKy ... LmQirBfSTw
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thiscoursesocial/
Thanks for your submission saqibali!! Please see my rewrite below ...
INTRO:
As population density rises in cities, littering in streets is increasing and IS NOW getting out of control. Unfortunately, governments across the world HAVE not BEEN ABLE TO find any proveN solutionS to solve this issue. Some people recommend extraordinarILY high fines to curb this social malpractice; however, THERE ARE ALSO some counterARGUMENTS AGAINST this strategy. It is argued that high financial fines would not only discourage people from littering, BUT would also help to finance counter–littering campaigns.
B1:
LARGE financial fines are considered THE most effective punishment to discourage people. It is argued that if a person is fined more than he can afford to pay, he would never repeat that mistake again. For example, in Europe, THE introduction of LARGE traffic fines dramatically reduced traffic violations. Therefore, it is recommended that if a violator is fined an amount which is LARGE COMPARED TO his salary, he would refrain from EVER littering again. Thus, the argumentS SUPPORTING LARGE fineS is WELL supported.
B2:
THE collection of higher funds would help governments finance their counter littering campaigns at a higher magnitude than they are doing now. Although (no comma here) punishments help stop people from DOING THE WRONG THING, educating people would also help curb this practice further. There is no doubt that governments require funds to run campaignS and educate people about THE benefits and disadvantages of littering campaigns. Therefore, it is recommended that higher fines should be introduced so that governmentS could collect more funds to help FUNDING INITIATIVES.
CONC:
IN CONCLUSION, an increase in littering in cities can be curbed by THE introduction of excessive and HARD TO BEAR fines to violators. Those fines would also help governments boost their awareness campaigns. Thus, the argument IN SUPPORT of higher fines is supported.
Advice:
1. You don't need to repeat the subject in the very first sentence ('littering'). Also, don't use contractions like 'it's'. 'IT IS' is better.
2. Be careful where you use capitals. 'World' does not need a capital 'W'.
3. Be careful about plural and articles, there are a number of errors in B1 and B2.
4. Try to use a better variety of linking words. All the linking words in this essay are single word (however, thus, therefore..). It sounds very formulaic.
TA: 6.5
G: 6.5-7.0 (to many simple errors)
V: 7.0
CC: 5.5-6.0
