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 other measures do you think might be effective?
Growing traffic and pollution is no doubt one of the biggest issues today. Pollution problems from vehicles are starting to rise significantly worldwide. To be able to solve these problems, only increasing the price of petrol would not be enough.
It is undeniable that the major cause to pollution is vehicles. We need to look into a bigger picture, and not just in one aspect. Traffic congestion has been contributing to pollution; this is because there are too many cars running on the street than what the area could hold. The government could issue policies to increase tax for cars limiting car usage, or owned per family. For instance, a few years ago a policy was issued in Thailand – to deduct tax for first-time car buyers. This one policy made a huge contribution to traffic congestion in Thailand, especially Bangkok during peak hours. Hence the policy was cancelled a year after.
Government could also establish a policy where cars entering business areas, or CBDs to pay extra fees. In addition, parking fees should be increased in town and decreased in the outer suburb areas. This way would decrease the number of cars and lower congestion in highly populated district. One of the countries that has been going by this policy is Singapore. Citizens driving into the country’s CBD would have to pay extra fees, encouraging them to use public transport.
As stated above, promoting the usage of public transport could also decrease congestions. Affordable transporting price could be an aspect to grab citizen’s attention. However, the public transport system in the particular country has to be efficient enough – for example, set schedule, GPS to track vehicles, and how clean they are kept. Otherwise not as many people would be attracted to use it.
In conclusion, increasing the price of petrol is not enough to solve congestion and pollution problems. The government could consider increasing tax for cars, establishing policies to charge extra fees to enter CBD areas, and promote people to use public transport rather than their cars.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-02 | happyhappy | 89 | view |
| 2019-11-17 | julieehung | 67 | view |
| 2019-10-15 | Chi Hoang | 73 | view |
| 2019-10-13 | Chi Hoang | 73 | view |
| 2019-08-30 | ghikar | 78 | view |
- 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 other measures do you think might be effective? 84
- Some people believe that it is good to share as much information as possible in scientific research, business and the academic world. Others believe that some information is too important or too valuable to be shared freely. 61
- The chart below shows the total number of minutes (in billions) of telephone calls in the UK, divided into three categories, from 1995-2002. 78
- The pie chart shows the main reasons why agricultural land becomes less productive. The table shows how these causes affected three regions of the world during 1990s. 73
- The three pie charts below show the changes in annual spending by particular UK school in 1981, 1991 and 2001.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 67
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 601, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
..., especially Bangkok during peak hours. Hence the policy was cancelled a year after. ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 345, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Otherwise,
... vehicles, and how clean they are kept. Otherwise not as many people would be attracted t...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, look, so, as to, for example, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, no doubt
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 13.1623246493 144% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 7.85571142285 153% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 7.30460921844 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 24.0651302605 54% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 41.998997996 102% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.3376753507 192% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1746.0 1615.20841683 108% => OK
No of words: 340.0 315.596192385 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13529411765 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29407602571 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78107793197 2.80592935109 99% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 176.041082164 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.570588235294 0.561755894193 102% => OK
syllable_count: 529.2 506.74238477 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 0.809619238477 618% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 16.0721442886 131% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.2975951904 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.4585590275 49.4020404114 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.1428571429 106.682146367 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.1904761905 20.7667163134 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.61904761905 7.06120827912 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 3.4128256513 176% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.130473879509 0.244688304435 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0451919354121 0.084324248473 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0629195217835 0.0667982634062 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0906080050023 0.151304729494 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0661452812308 0.056905535591 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 13.0946893788 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 50.2224549098 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.3001002004 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.4159519038 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.66 8.58950901804 101% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 78.4519038076 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 9.78957915832 66% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.1190380762 83% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.