Some people think that cars should be banned from large cities. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Sample Response
Two common problems usually faced by a big city - traffic jam and air pollution, which are caused by many factors. However, most people tend to blame a large number of private cars as the greatest contributing factor which leads to the some people’s opinion claiming that the cars must be prohibited in the town. Although this statement seems plausible, I totally disagree that this kind of vehicle should be banned from the metropolis.
The cars are not only beneficial for the citizen as a user but also for the state, in increasing its income. If the existence of the cars in the large city is forbidden by the government, there will not be car trade in that town which consequently will reduce total sales of cars nationwide. This finally will decrease nation's earning because car companies will drop their production for that country and the tax revenue from the car sales will diminish automatically. Furthermore, this will also reduce annual car-tax revenue in which for some countries, this kind of tax is their main earning source.
On the other hand, this will cause another problem, for the car owners in particular, in which the government should be involved to overcome this problem. By banning the use of cars in the big city, cars owned by the city inhabitants will be useless and eventually they must sell their cars because this can harm them financially. If we look at the large total number of cars must be sold and the fact that the owners do not want to sell their cars at a lower price, this might be a difficult problem to be solved.
Finally, a huge budget must be allocated to improve the alternative vehicles in the city and many countries will not be able to eventually do it successfully. The car is considered as one of the most useful inventions ever and banning them is not a pragmatic solution. We should rather take alternative initiatives to reduce the traffic jam and air pollution in big cities.
Personally, I strongly believe that prohibiting people to drive cars in big cities will generate some problems both for the state and the owners. Even though the cars contribute to the occurrence of traffic jam and air pollution in some cities, it must be the other ways to combat those problems without banning the existence of cars, such as creating underground transportation and green energies as a car fuel.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Clarify individual benefit Original: beneficial for the citizen as a user Suggested revision: beneficial to individual citizens Why it matters: The revision uses the correct preposition and a natural reference to car users.
- 2. Correct benefit structure Original: for the state, in increasing its income Suggested revision: to the state by increasing its revenue Why it matters: The parallel structure requires 'beneficial to' and 'by' to explain how the benefit arises.
- 3. Refer to car use Original: existence of the cars in the large city Suggested revision: use of cars in a large city Why it matters: The proposed policy concerns using cars rather than their mere existence.
- 4. Correct noun phrase Original: there will not be car trade Suggested revision: there will be no car trade Why it matters: The negative determiner 'no' forms the natural noun phrase here.
- 5. Add determiner and plural Original: decrease nation's earning Suggested revision: decrease the nation's earnings Why it matters: The possessive noun needs a determiner and 'earnings' is normally plural in this sense.
- 6. Use production collocation Original: drop Suggested revision: reduce Why it matters: Companies 'reduce' production when manufacturing less.
- 7. Remove unnecessary article Original: from the car sales Suggested revision: from car sales Why it matters: 'Car sales' is used generally here and does not need 'the'.
- 8. Repair relative clause Original: in which for some countries, this kind of tax is their main earning source Suggested revision: which is a main source of income for some countries Why it matters: The replacement removes the duplicated reference and creates a grammatical relative clause.
- 9. Use additive transition Original: On the other hand, this will cause another problem Suggested revision: Moreover, this will cause another problem Why it matters: The paragraph adds a further objection to a ban rather than presenting an opposing view.
- 10. Simplify problem clause Original: in which the government should be involved to overcome this problem Suggested revision: that the government would need to address Why it matters: The revision uses a clear relative clause and the natural verb 'address'.
- 11. Choose precise adjective Original: will be useless Suggested revision: will become unusable Why it matters: 'Become unusable' describes the claimed effect of the policy more precisely.
- 12. Clarify financial purpose Original: because this can harm them financially Suggested revision: to avoid financial loss Why it matters: The infinitive phrase clearly links selling the cars to the owners' intended financial outcome.
Suggested Rewrites
- beneficial for the citizen as a user beneficial to individual citizens
- for the state, in increasing its income to the state by increasing its revenue
- existence of the cars in the large city use of cars in a large city
- there will not be car trade there will be no car trade
- decrease nation's earning decrease the nation's earnings
- drop reduce
Why this response received Band 6.5
The essay maintains a clear disagreement and develops several relevant consequences of a ban, particularly lost tax revenue, costs to owners, and investment in public transport. Its main limitation is that some reasoning is repetitive or only partly convincing, while frequent grammatical and collocational errors reduce precision. The highest-priority improvement is to select fewer, stronger arguments and support each with a specific explanation or example in more accurately controlled sentences.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
A clear position is maintained throughout and supported by several relevant arguments, although some claims are overgeneralised or not fully substantiated.
Strengthen the case by developing two or three central reasons with specific evidence rather than relying on broad assumptions about national car sales.
Coherence and Cohesion
The essay is logically paragraphised and progresses from the position through distinct supporting reasons, but some transitions and references are imprecise.
Use transitions that accurately show addition or progression and replace vague references such as repeated 'this' with explicit nouns.
Lexical Resource
There is sufficient range to discuss taxation, transport policy, and environmental problems, but awkward collocations and word-form choices occur regularly.
Improve precision with natural forms such as 'traffic congestion', 'national revenue', 'public transport', and 'renewable fuel'.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
The response attempts varied complex structures, but frequent errors with articles, agreement, clause construction, and verb patterns limit control.
Edit sentences for complete clause structure and accurate patterns, especially 'prohibit people from driving' and 'there must be other ways'.
Write this task while it is fresh
Try the same task now. It helps you remember the feedback and write better next time.
IELTS Writing Task 2
Some people think that cars should be banned from large cities. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.