Some people think an international car-free day is an effective way of reducing air pollution, others think there are some other ways. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Sample Response
The impediments in transport and commute have assuaged to a great extent. However, it has aggravated the environmental conditions. To this, where some people consider having an international car-free as an effective measure, I consider it wouldn’t be a very substantial way of mitigating the menace of the environment.
The population has been soaring higher than ever before and so is the proportional growth of technological advancements. The more science proliferates, the less arduous has life become and more facile and luxurious we have made it in all grades of life, unfortunately, downgrading the most prime resource, our environment. The cars, the buses, the means of transport have immensely mushroomed, exacerbating the quality of the air we breathe. The people who believe going with a particular car-free day often contend that would decrease the pollution and intensity of the smoke and hazardous pollutants released from the incomplete combustion. Hence, taking a day off from cars would be extenuating loads of such contaminants which are detrimental to the respiration of our environment.
The other significant argument contradicts that such measures would be barely efficacious in rendering protection to the environment. It would just be a negligible halt in dissuading the pace of atmospheric contaminants. It would rather impede the day to day routine activities which might curb the economy to a certain extent as from the environmental protection perspective, it wouldn’t really be an effective practice. Following Euro-5 norms and other effective guidelines alike would be much more beneficial. Usage of CNGs, taking care of complete combustion and using less hazardous constituents in manufacturing the means of transportation are better alternatives.
In conclusion, it could be summed up that with respect to the extent of pollution that is prevalent at present, going for one-day prevention is rather inept.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Use natural collocation Original: soaring higher Suggested revision: rising rapidly Why it matters: The verb 'soar' already expresses a sharp rise, so 'higher' is redundant.
- 2. Clarify the trend Original: proportional growth of technological advancements Suggested revision: rapid pace of technological advancement Why it matters: The original phrase incorrectly treats technological advancements as a quantity growing proportionally.
- 3. Correct the collocation Original: proliferates Suggested revision: advances Why it matters: Science advances or develops; it does not naturally 'proliferate' in this context.
- 4. Use clear wording Original: and more facile and luxurious we have made it in all grades of life Suggested revision: and the more comfortable and luxurious we have made it in all areas of life Why it matters: 'Facile' and 'grades of life' are inaccurate choices for describing everyday comfort.
- 5. Avoid double superlative Original: the most prime resource Suggested revision: a vital resource Why it matters: 'Prime' already expresses highest importance and should not be intensified with 'most.'
- 6. Fix list structure Original: The cars, the buses, the means of transport Suggested revision: Cars, buses and other means of transport Why it matters: The revised list removes unnecessary articles and clearly marks the final item as the broader category.
- 7. Use precise growth verb Original: immensely mushroomed Suggested revision: increased dramatically Why it matters: 'Mushroomed' does not combine naturally with 'immensely' here.
- 8. Clarify support Original: going with a particular car-free day Suggested revision: supporting an international car-free day Why it matters: 'Going with' is vague and 'particular' does not identify the international proposal clearly.
- 9. Add the subject Original: contend that would Suggested revision: contend that it would Why it matters: The subordinate clause needs the subject pronoun 'it.'
- 10. Clarify pollutant levels Original: the pollution and intensity of the smoke and hazardous pollutants Suggested revision: pollution and the concentration of smoke and hazardous pollutants Why it matters: 'Intensity' is not the natural measure for smoke and pollutants in this context.
- 11. Remove the article Original: the incomplete combustion Suggested revision: incomplete combustion Why it matters: The general process of incomplete combustion does not require the definite article.
- 12. Use precise reduction Original: would be extenuating loads of such contaminants Suggested revision: would reduce the volume of such contaminants Why it matters: 'Extenuating loads' is not an idiomatic way to describe reducing pollutants.
Suggested Rewrites
- soaring higher rising rapidly
- proportional growth of technological advancements rapid pace of technological advancement
- proliferates advances
- and more facile and luxurious we have made it in all grades of life and the more comfortable and luxurious we have made it in all areas of life
- the most prime resource a vital resource
- The cars, the buses, the means of transport Cars, buses and other means of transport
Why this response received Band 6.5
The response maintains a clear opinion and gives relevant consideration to both the proposed car-free day and alternative measures, with generally logical paragraph-level progression. Its main limitation is the persistent use of strained, imprecise wording and awkward sentence construction, which sometimes obscures otherwise sensible ideas. Prioritise natural collocations and clearer sentence structures while developing each argument with a more direct explanation of how it reduces pollution.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
Both views and a clear opinion are addressed, with relevant reasons and alternatives, though some development is broad rather than sharply focused.
Explain each proposed measure more directly by showing why its pollution impact would be substantial or limited.
Coherence and Cohesion
The four-paragraph structure and overall progression are logical, but some long sentences and transitions make the argument feel laboured.
Use shorter idea sequences and ensure each sentence advances the paragraph's central claim without unnecessary detours.
Lexical Resource
The response displays a broad vocabulary, but frequent strained collocations and imprecise choices reduce naturalness and clarity.
Prefer accurate combinations such as reducing emissions and protecting air quality over elaborate expressions whose meanings are uncertain.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A mix of complex structures is attempted, but recurring article, clause, and sentence-construction errors weaken control.
Build complex sentences from clearly controlled main and subordinate clauses, then check articles and subject-verb relationships.
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 an international car-free day is an effective way of reducing air pollution, others think there are some other ways. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.