Some people believe that car-free days are effective ways to reduce air pollution. However, others argue that there are other ways that are more effective. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Sample Response
Opinions are divided as to whether car-free days effectively tackle air pollution or are merely symbolic gestures requiring more comprehensive action. While car-free days raise public awareness and offer temporary environmental benefits, I believe long-term strategies are more effective in reducing pollution on a larger scale.
Admittedly, car-free days can deliver an immediate reduction in harmful emissions and raise public consciousness about sustainable mobility. First, when private vehicles are temporarily taken off the road, levels of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide decline noticeably. For instance, Bogotá and Paris routinely report clearer skies and improved air quality indices on their respective car-free event days. Moreover, these initiatives allow citizens to experience streets dedicated to walking, cycling, and public transit. Such trial runs can foster positive attitudes toward greener travel. This means that participants who enjoy unpolluted, pedestrian-friendly boulevards may be more inclined to adopt bicycles or buses in their daily routines. Consequently, car-free days can act as catalysts for modest shifts in commuter behaviour.
However, this initiative is ineffective for several reasons, one of which is that the gains produced by one-off bans tend to dissipate almost as soon as restrictions are lifted. This is because traffic volumes can rebound the following day, erasing any emissions savings and leaving long-term pollution levels little changed. Structural solutions, however, provide sustained air-quality improvements that one-day bans simply cannot achieve. To be specific, substantial investment in electric buses, urban rail networks, and extensive bike lanes provides convenient alternatives to car travel while stringent regulations on vehicle emissions can compel manufacturers and motorists alike to reduce their environmental footprint. Norway’s ambitious electric-vehicle incentives and the Netherlands’ world-class cycling infrastructure, for example, have both contributed to sustained decreases in urban smog.
In conclusion, while car-free days can raise awareness and provide short-term relief from air pollution, I believe they are not a sustainable solution on their own. Long-term investment in green technology, improved public transport, and policy reform will have a much more lasting and meaningful impact on reducing air pollution.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Clarify the relationship Original: symbolic gestures requiring more comprehensive action Suggested revision: symbolic gestures that require more comprehensive follow-up Why it matters: The revision makes the relationship between the gestures and further action explicit.
- 2. Specify the benefit Original: temporary environmental benefits Suggested revision: temporary air-quality benefits Why it matters: This phrase identifies the environmental benefit relevant to the prompt.
- 3. Match the time contrast Original: reducing pollution on a larger scale Suggested revision: reducing pollution over the long term Why it matters: The revised phrase aligns more precisely with the essay's short-term versus long-term comparison.
- 4. Use natural collocation Original: deliver Suggested revision: produce Why it matters: "Produce a reduction" is the more natural collocation in this context.
- 5. Use natural collocation Original: public consciousness about sustainable mobility Suggested revision: public awareness of sustainable mobility Why it matters: "Awareness of" is more idiomatic than "consciousness about" here.
- 6. Remove redundant wording Original: their respective car-free event days Suggested revision: their respective car-free days Why it matters: "Event" is unnecessary because "car-free days" already names the occasions.
- 7. Avoid imprecise metaphor Original: Such trial runs Suggested revision: Such temporary experiences Why it matters: The revision describes what citizens experience without implying a formal trial programme.
- 8. Use measured wording Original: unpolluted, pedestrian-friendly boulevards Suggested revision: less-polluted, pedestrian-friendly streets Why it matters: "Less-polluted" avoids the absolute claim that the streets contain no pollution.
- 9. Fix verb collocation Original: adopt bicycles or buses Suggested revision: cycle or take buses Why it matters: People can adopt a habit, but they normally cycle or take a bus.
- 10. State the cause directly Original: is ineffective for several reasons, one of which is that Suggested revision: has limited long-term effectiveness because Why it matters: This revision removes a wordy lead-in and connects the limitation directly to its cause.
- 11. Remove repeated contrast Original: Structural solutions, however, provide Suggested revision: Structural solutions provide Why it matters: The preceding paragraph opening already establishes the contrast, so the second "however" is unnecessary.
- 12. Sentence rewrite Original: To be specific, substantial investment in electric buses, urban rail networks, and extensive bike lanes provides convenient alternatives to car travel while stringent regulations on vehicle emissions can compel manufacturers and motorists alike to reduce their environmental footprint. Suggested revision: To be specific, substantial investment in electric buses, urban rail networks, and extensive bike lanes provides convenient alternatives to car travel. Meanwhile, stringent vehicle-emission regulations can compel manufacturers and motorists alike to reduce their environmental footprint. Why it matters: Splitting the two policy measures makes the long sentence easier to process while preserving both points.
Suggested Rewrites
- symbolic gestures requiring more comprehensive action symbolic gestures that require more comprehensive follow-up
- temporary environmental benefits temporary air-quality benefits
- reducing pollution on a larger scale reducing pollution over the long term
- deliver produce
- public consciousness about sustainable mobility public awareness of sustainable mobility
- their respective car-free event days their respective car-free days
Why this response received Band 8.5
The essay's strongest feature is its direct, thoroughly developed comparison of temporary car-free initiatives with sustained structural measures, supported by specific and persuasive examples. The main limitation is that some signposting is more explicit than necessary in an already clear argument. The priority is to let sentence-to-sentence logic carry more of the cohesion while preserving the response's precise vocabulary and strong grammatical control.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
Both views are explored in depth, and the clear preference for long-term measures is consistently justified with relevant explanation and examples.
Refine the claim that the initiative is 'ineffective' so it matches the more precise conclusion that car-free days have limited short-term value.
Coherence and Cohesion
The argument is easy to follow, with well-shaped paragraphs and clear internal progression from claims to explanation and illustration.
Use fewer overt sequencing phrases where the progression is already evident, particularly in the first body paragraph.
Lexical Resource
Vocabulary is wide, precise, and natural, including effective topic-specific language for emissions, mobility, infrastructure, and policy.
Sustain this precision by avoiding any absolute label, such as 'ineffective,' when the intended meaning is more narrowly qualified.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Complex and varied sentence structures are used flexibly and with consistently high accuracy throughout.
For further refinement, vary the rhythm of longer explanatory sentences with occasional concise statements at key argumentative turns.
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 believe that car-free days are effective ways to reduce air pollution. However, others argue that there are other ways that are more effective. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.