Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the above statement?
1,520 views
0 votes
0 votes
Please have a check of this essay for me. Thanks.

It is controversial that a hike price of petrol is an optimal approach to the growing number of vehicles and alarming pollution. From my perspective, however, I am against the solution because of some following reasons.

 

As we all know, petrol is closely attached to a nation’s economy, therefore, a drastic increase in gasoline price brings about negative impacts on people’s lives and, in a larger aspect, on the development of that country. Instead, we should look for some alternatives to the issue. On the one hand, we can impose high tax on any household who possess more than a car. This both encourages carpools amongst families and tightens their bonds. On the other hand, in some countries, people are still not familiar with public transport due to a lack of its quantity and bus routes inaccessible to remote areas. Once these matters are solved, the number of traffic will be instantly reduced.

 

It is obviously true that traffic emits lots of damaging smoke to the air. However, pollution originates from people’s various activities such as the burning of fuels like gas, coal or oil, radiation spills, nuclear accidents and so on. Should we impose high cost on petrol which does harm to the environment, we ought to carry out the same actions for other factors. In my opinion, an escalating price for things out of the control does not change the situation but merely indicates the administrative weakness. In place of surging charge, an improvement of people’s awareness to consume less plays a crucial role in pollution reduction. In addition, measures should be taken to control birth rates as it is the primary cause of overconsumption. Furthermore, a recycling implementation which is beneficial to reducing production emissions has a major contribution to a better environment. With these mentioned alternatives, a rising cost of petrol becomes impossibly applicable.

 

In sum, there are numerous options to tackle air pollution but increasing cost of petrol seems an infeasible approach since it would stagnate a national economy and hence bring down people’s life quality.
by
2 points

Please log in or register to answer this question.

2 Answers

0 votes
0 votes

Chào cậu nhé! :D

Tớ có một số góp ý cho bài viết của cậu. Về câu chủ đề cậu đã paraphase lại được câu của đề bài và đưa ra quan điểm bản thân. Tuy nhiên phần thân bài cậu viết lạc đề rồi. Đây là dạng đưa ra quan điểm về một vấn đề cụ thể, nhưng khổ 1 cậu viết cho giải pháp rồi. Ý đầu tiên của khổ 1, c đưa ra quan điểm rằng "a drastic increase in gasoline price brings about negative impacts on people’s lives and, in a larger aspect, on the development of that country.". T nghĩ những câu sau c nên đưa ra lí do để giải thích idea này, hoặc lấy ví dụ phân tích, thay vì c viết rằng "Instead, we should...".  

Khổ 2 c viết cho pollution, tuy nhiên t thấy câu mở đầu khổ 2 c chưa nêu rõ được ý chính của khổ. Tăng giá xăng có phải là giải pháp tốt nhất để giải quyết vấn đề tăng pollution hay không, chứ traffic không có liên quan gì đến pollution ở đây cả. 

Với lại về mặt từ ngữ, t thấy c sử dụng nhiều từ khó hiểu. T nghĩ c nên sử dụng những từ đơn giản hơn. :)))

Đó là góp ý của t nha!

http://scholarshipplanet.info/check/4352/increasing-petrol-growing-traffic-pollution-problems-extent-disagree-statement

 

1 comment

edited by

I am grateful to your correction, and you get your point there. I should have had supporting ideas and examples to make my points clearer.

I am not conservative. What I mention here is to make us understand each other better. Please do not feel upset about it.

 

I had a misconception that disagreement goes along with some solutions, therefore, I tried to direct my essay to that way. I think I should revise the first paragraph to make it better.

 

In my second paragraph, my main idea is "In my opinion, an escalating price for things out of the control does not change the situation but merely indicates the administrative weakness", and it should have been at the beginning of the paragraph. (my bad)   

 

"traffic emits lots of damaging smoke to the air", this can be seen in real. I just brought about the fact but did not say anything else about the relevance between traffic and pollution. Instead, I tried to offer other options for the issue which proved that an increase in rice was unnecessary. Does it seem OK?

Admittedly, my vocabulary is rather complicated, but I think this question relates to economics, it will be better if I use academic words to discuss the matter.

Once again, I highly appreciated what you did and do not be sad about my arguments.

 

 

0 votes
0 votes

"agree or disagree" tớ thấy hình như bài viết của bạn chưa nêu rõ đc vấn đề 

by
124 points

Related questions