IELTSNetwork.com

Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
What others measures do you think might be effective?

There has been a colossal upsurge in population worldwide, and with subsequent increase in cars on the road, has led to traffic congestion and pollution. It is disagreed that an increase in price of petrol will help in curbing these problems. This will be proven by analyzing how an increase in fuel price will have no effect on traffic and pollution problems.

Firstly, cars and many machines run on petrol. In spite of increased petrol price, people will continue to use their vehicles as there is no alternative available for petrol. Secondly, it is believed that people who are rich,will continue to spend on petrol. Thus, it is evident from above that an increase in petrol price is not best way to tackle these issues.

Our Government should strengthen the public transport in order to get rid of traffic and pollution problems. Public transport should be made cheaper so that an average person can afford it. For example, in New Delhi, the capital of India, traffic is managed efficiently because of the metro train, which is affordable for the average person. There should be a separate lanes for bicycles, cars and heavy load vehicles like trucks. This will help in reducing traffic congestion. In addition, people should use electric cars instead of cars which run on petrol. Factories should dwell on solar energy. This will help in reducing pollution to a large extent as factories emit harmful gases like carbon monoxide.

Overall, it is clear that increasing the price of petrol isn’t the best way to control traffic and pollution problems. It is recommended that people should make more use of renewable resources like solar and wind energy.

Not a bad effort. I will give you an evaluation based on the band criteria available on the IELTS website.

For Task Response, I would like to be able to say that your answer "addresses all parts of the task", but there is one small part of the question that you did not address: that is, the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement. You indicate that you agree, but you should indicate the degree of agreement, for example, "to a large extent I agree" or "I agree, with some reservations", or "I wholeheartedly agree". Your opinion is one of the critical elements of the question, and if you fail altogether to present your opinion, the examiner will decide that your answer "addresses the task only partially...". He or she will have no choice but to award you the band that corresponds to that description. More likely though he or she will think "addresses all parts of the task although some parts may be more fully covered than others" is a better fit.

For the rest of the essay your arguments are good and if you addressed this one deficiency the best fitting band descriptor would be

" addresses all parts of the task
• presents a clear position throughout the response
• presents, extends and supports main ideas, but there may be a tendency to over-generalise and/or supporting ideas may lack focus"

I should say also that your use of the weak passive form here (It is disagreed that) is not good. I know some well meaning teacher will have told you to use passive voice in an academic essay, but there are times, and this is one of them, when first person voice is much better and clearer. "In my opinion" or "I agree to some extent". there are some other weak passive forms here too. Keep in mind that clarity is essential.

Your essay generally holds together well it "logically organises information and ideas" and "there is clear
progression throughout"

However, the second paragraph uses a lazy sequencing device (firstly, secondly). This is NOT good and is considered to be "mechanical". For this reason your answer might not meet the band descriptor "manages all aspects of cohesion well" and you will get the band below this.

In terms of lexical resources, not bad at all. You use a good range of words, with some precision, although some words are imprecise or incorrect, like "factories should dwell on solar energy" "dwell" is used incorrectly here. Overall, though I think the examiner is likely to choose this description: "uses a sufficient range of vocabulary to allow some flexibility and precision". I note however that this is pretty close to the ban below that.


Grammar is good, in terms of range, and shows "a variety of complex structures". However there are quite a few small errors. There are several article errors for example. "is not best way to tackle these issues" Article "the" is missing. Or: "There should be a separate lanes for bicycles" No article is required for plural nouns.