Question: Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
When it comes to development of a country or a city, improving infrastructures for transportation is, undoubtedly, pivotal. Therefore, governments use money for them to improve everyday's commute. In this case, some people may argue that the spending should be made more for railways, compared to, for roads. Although it is necessary to use money for railways, I would not totally agree with the idea of using more expenditure for railways than roads.
The reasons, for disagreeing the given idea, arise from the frequency and usefulness of its usage by the public. Generally, people may use road more frequent than railways. This is because the destination of the public, in most cases, cannot be reached only by train. For example, people may require to commute to the train station by any means and also they may still need to continue the journey in order to reach the final destination after they have alighted from the train. Furthermore, railways can be used only for operating train unlike roads. The later are suitable to use for a variety of transportation forms, such as cars, bicycles and motorcycles.
On the other hand, there could a couple of reasons for people, who are in favour of funding more for railways. One of which could be the carrying capacity of the train. This means that more passengers can travel with train at a time than with car. Another reason may be the less cost to environment of using train. Being able to transport massively by train, it may not be necessary to make extra trips meanwhile cars may need to run more than single trip to accomplish the same amount of task. Therefore, less fuel is required to burn to operate the train, and it seems more environment friendly.
All in all, train transportation seems to have enormous benefits. However, roads are still in an essential role for the public, reaching their different destinies. Therefore, I would not totally support for funding more for constructing railways, in fact, government should not fixed the allocation of budget for specific means of transport. In such way, the improvement can be made, either for railways or for roads, by using those funding whenever necessary for whichever purposes for transportation.
Please evaluate my writing task 2
-
prabhakar reddy
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:36 am
Re: Please evaluate my writing task 2
Question: Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
When it comes to the (Here the article’ the’ is required) development of a country or a city, improving its infrastructure (infrastructures- Though this word is both countable and uncountable, in this context it should be used in singular sense. For example, the infrastructures of the US and China are huge) for transportation is, undoubtedly, pivotal. Therefore, governments spend a lot of (use) money (for them) on it to improve its commutation facilities (everyday's commute). In this case, some people may argue (Where is the argument?) that the spending should be made more (for) on railways than on (compared to, for) roads. Although it is necessary to spend (use) money (for) on railways, I (would) do not totally agree with the idea of (using) incurring more expenditure (for) on railways than roads.( THE INTRODUCTION PART HAS REPETITIVE IDEAS.IT COULD BE WRITTEN LIKE THIS: THOUGH SPENDING MONEY BY THE GOVERNMENTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IS INDISPUTABLY PRUDENT, ALLOCATING FUNDS ONLY ON IMPROVEMENT OF RAILWAYS RATHER THAN ROADWAYS IS DISAGREEBLE, FOR SUCH DISPARITY HAS CERTAIN DRAWBACKS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. (Avoid using ‘ I agree or I disagree’ in the introduction part. Use such expressions in the conclusion part, which will be more effective, since, you must have by then proved your point with your valid views)
The reasons (comma is not necessary) for (disagreeing) my disagreement with (to) the given view (idea) arise from the frequency and (usefulness of it) usage of roadways by the public. Generally, people (may) use (road) roads more (frequent) frequently than railways (. This is because) since, the (destination) points of destinations of the public, in most cases, are far away from the railway stations and those cannot be reached (only) by train, unlike the buses. For example, people may require to commute to the train station by any means ( This sentence is quite ambiguous) and also they may still need to continue the journey in order to reach the final destination after they have alighted from the train.( Structuring of your view is not cohesive). (It would be better, if you put it like this: People alighting from the trains, will have to travel long distances to reach their homes or work places, necessitating them to depend on other modes of transports like buses, taxies or autos, which is another ordeal that they have to face.) Furthermore, railways are meant only for running of trains (can be used only for operating train) unlike roads, (. The later) which are suitable (to use) for a variety of transportation forms, such as cars, bicycles and motorcycles.
On the other hand, there could a couple of reasons for people, who are in favour of funding more for railways.( This sentence is inappropriate. Put it this way: ONE THE OTHER HAND,THERE ARE SOME, WHO VOUCH THE IDEA OF SPENDING MONEY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF RAILWAYS INSTEAD OF RAODWAYS WITH A VIEW THAT TRAINS HAVE THE CAPACITY TO CARRY A LARGE NUMBER OF COMMUTERS, AT ONE GO, UNLIKE THE BUSSES.( One of which could be the carrying capacity of the train. This means that more passengers can travel (with) by train at a time than by (with) car). (Another reason may be the less cost to environment of using train. Being able to transport massively by train, it may not be necessary to make extra trips meanwhile cars may need to run more than single trip to accomplish the same amount of task. This sentence is very confusing. Avoid such ambiguous structures. Read the following version) Another reason, they consider it supportive is that train journey is cheap and economical compared with other modes of road transports and the cost effectiveness in accomplishing the journey for a large number of travelers saves their money, by travelling at a time instead of incurring more number of trips. Therefore, less fuel is required (to burn) to operate (the train) a train and it (seems) is more environment friendly than road transport.
All in all, although train transportation (seems to have-means not really. So avoid using it) has enormous benefits, (. However, roads are still in an) roadways play an essential role (for the public, reaching their different destinies.) in transporting the public to their choicest destinations more effectively than the railways.
(Therefore, I would not totally support for funding more for constructing railways, in fact, government should not fixed the allocation of budget for specific means of transport. In such way, the improvement can be made, either for railways or for roads, by using those funding whenever necessary for whichever purposes for transportation.) This paragraph is meaningless and absurd as it doesn’t make any sense. Write it in the following way: Therefore, I do not agree with the idea of governments funding the development of railways than roadways, despite the fact that railways are more useful to the public in many ways, because of the fact that roadways are more necessary, considering the hassles of public in conveyance from one place to another in cities and villages.
MY COMMENTS
Your sentence structures are poor. Some sentences are insensible.
Your views are not presented in proper way.
Your vocabulary is poor.
It’s riddled with grammatical holes.
No cohesion is maintained. Connectivity is lost everywhere.
Sentences lack elegance.
Your essay stands for 6.5 band, given a lenient view or else it stands for 6 band.
Checked by
Prabhakar reddy
Professor of English and IELTS Tutor.
FOR ANY FURTHER CLARIFICATIONS AND DOUBTS, PLEASE CONTACT ME THROUGH E.Mail: preddy2407@gmail.com or on SKYPE ID. prabhakar.reddy2407 or by Phone +919550724029
When it comes to the (Here the article’ the’ is required) development of a country or a city, improving its infrastructure (infrastructures- Though this word is both countable and uncountable, in this context it should be used in singular sense. For example, the infrastructures of the US and China are huge) for transportation is, undoubtedly, pivotal. Therefore, governments spend a lot of (use) money (for them) on it to improve its commutation facilities (everyday's commute). In this case, some people may argue (Where is the argument?) that the spending should be made more (for) on railways than on (compared to, for) roads. Although it is necessary to spend (use) money (for) on railways, I (would) do not totally agree with the idea of (using) incurring more expenditure (for) on railways than roads.( THE INTRODUCTION PART HAS REPETITIVE IDEAS.IT COULD BE WRITTEN LIKE THIS: THOUGH SPENDING MONEY BY THE GOVERNMENTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IS INDISPUTABLY PRUDENT, ALLOCATING FUNDS ONLY ON IMPROVEMENT OF RAILWAYS RATHER THAN ROADWAYS IS DISAGREEBLE, FOR SUCH DISPARITY HAS CERTAIN DRAWBACKS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. (Avoid using ‘ I agree or I disagree’ in the introduction part. Use such expressions in the conclusion part, which will be more effective, since, you must have by then proved your point with your valid views)
The reasons (comma is not necessary) for (disagreeing) my disagreement with (to) the given view (idea) arise from the frequency and (usefulness of it) usage of roadways by the public. Generally, people (may) use (road) roads more (frequent) frequently than railways (. This is because) since, the (destination) points of destinations of the public, in most cases, are far away from the railway stations and those cannot be reached (only) by train, unlike the buses. For example, people may require to commute to the train station by any means ( This sentence is quite ambiguous) and also they may still need to continue the journey in order to reach the final destination after they have alighted from the train.( Structuring of your view is not cohesive). (It would be better, if you put it like this: People alighting from the trains, will have to travel long distances to reach their homes or work places, necessitating them to depend on other modes of transports like buses, taxies or autos, which is another ordeal that they have to face.) Furthermore, railways are meant only for running of trains (can be used only for operating train) unlike roads, (. The later) which are suitable (to use) for a variety of transportation forms, such as cars, bicycles and motorcycles.
On the other hand, there could a couple of reasons for people, who are in favour of funding more for railways.( This sentence is inappropriate. Put it this way: ONE THE OTHER HAND,THERE ARE SOME, WHO VOUCH THE IDEA OF SPENDING MONEY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF RAILWAYS INSTEAD OF RAODWAYS WITH A VIEW THAT TRAINS HAVE THE CAPACITY TO CARRY A LARGE NUMBER OF COMMUTERS, AT ONE GO, UNLIKE THE BUSSES.( One of which could be the carrying capacity of the train. This means that more passengers can travel (with) by train at a time than by (with) car). (Another reason may be the less cost to environment of using train. Being able to transport massively by train, it may not be necessary to make extra trips meanwhile cars may need to run more than single trip to accomplish the same amount of task. This sentence is very confusing. Avoid such ambiguous structures. Read the following version) Another reason, they consider it supportive is that train journey is cheap and economical compared with other modes of road transports and the cost effectiveness in accomplishing the journey for a large number of travelers saves their money, by travelling at a time instead of incurring more number of trips. Therefore, less fuel is required (to burn) to operate (the train) a train and it (seems) is more environment friendly than road transport.
All in all, although train transportation (seems to have-means not really. So avoid using it) has enormous benefits, (. However, roads are still in an) roadways play an essential role (for the public, reaching their different destinies.) in transporting the public to their choicest destinations more effectively than the railways.
(Therefore, I would not totally support for funding more for constructing railways, in fact, government should not fixed the allocation of budget for specific means of transport. In such way, the improvement can be made, either for railways or for roads, by using those funding whenever necessary for whichever purposes for transportation.) This paragraph is meaningless and absurd as it doesn’t make any sense. Write it in the following way: Therefore, I do not agree with the idea of governments funding the development of railways than roadways, despite the fact that railways are more useful to the public in many ways, because of the fact that roadways are more necessary, considering the hassles of public in conveyance from one place to another in cities and villages.
MY COMMENTS
Your sentence structures are poor. Some sentences are insensible.
Your views are not presented in proper way.
Your vocabulary is poor.
It’s riddled with grammatical holes.
No cohesion is maintained. Connectivity is lost everywhere.
Sentences lack elegance.
Your essay stands for 6.5 band, given a lenient view or else it stands for 6 band.
Checked by
Prabhakar reddy
Professor of English and IELTS Tutor.
FOR ANY FURTHER CLARIFICATIONS AND DOUBTS, PLEASE CONTACT ME THROUGH E.Mail: preddy2407@gmail.com or on SKYPE ID. prabhakar.reddy2407 or by Phone +919550724029