The proliferation of private cars on the roads in many parts of the world has led to serious problems of pollution and may contribute to global warming. Some people think that governments should spend money for the development of public transportation systems in order to help alleviate this problem. Others think it is better to spend money for the development of electric and other types of cars that may cause less pollution. Do you think it is better for governments to spend money developing public transportation or developing new kinds of cars?
Sample Response
Pollution from automobiles is a major concern in the modern society, especially due to the increasing number of cars on the road. This is one of the major causes for the climate change problem the world is facing today. To address this issue, it is better for the governments to build a reliable and convenient public transportation infrastructure instead of spending money on the development of pollutionless cars. Bases for my views this solution is economical and social. From the economical perspective, public transportation systems are cheaper choices for the people and affordable for all classes of the society. For instance, the MRT system in Singapore helps millions of people to travel daily with comfort and convenience. In addition, it generates revenue for the government as it requires one-time capital investment to set up a mass transportation system like a metro train system and to get a recurring income thereafter. In addition, such a transport system helps the public to save money in travelling and reducing their cost of living. From the social perspective, public transport system helps the society in many ways. Less traffic on road means fewer accidents, and thus creates a safety living environment. Moreover, the roads are freely available for critical life-saving services like fire accidents, medical emergency and police operations. Also, a public transport system helps to unite all classes of people in the society by providing a uniform means of commuting. On the other hand, the private vehicles, which are of different quality and cost for the rich, average and the poor, displays the economic gap within the public in society. In conclusion, even though pollutionless cars are good for the environment, a good public transport system is a better choice for its residents because it is not only environment-friendly but also accessible for all in the community. Hence governments should spend money to develop robust public transport systems.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Remove unnecessary article Original: in the modern society Suggested revision: in modern society Why it matters: “Society” takes no article when used in this general sense.
- 2. Use natural cause phrase Original: causes for the climate change problem Suggested revision: causes of climate change Why it matters: “Cause of” is the correct noun-preposition pattern, and “problem” is redundant.
- 3. Use general plural Original: for the governments Suggested revision: for governments Why it matters: No particular governments have been identified, so the definite article is unnecessary.
- 4. Use uncountable infrastructure Original: a reliable and convenient public transportation infrastructure Suggested revision: reliable and convenient public transport infrastructure Why it matters: “Infrastructure” is uncountable here and does not take “a”.
- 5. Use precise vehicle term Original: pollutionless cars Suggested revision: low-emission cars Why it matters: “Low-emission” is the natural term for vehicles that cause less pollution.
- 6. Choose correct adjective Original: From the economical perspective Suggested revision: From an economic perspective Why it matters: “Economic” relates to the economy, whereas “economical” means inexpensive.
- 7. Use concise phrase Original: cheaper choices for the people Suggested revision: cheaper options for people Why it matters: The revision is more natural and removes an unnecessary article.
- 8. Use natural general noun Original: all classes of the society Suggested revision: all sections of society Why it matters: “Sections of society” is the conventional expression for social groups.
- 9. Use adverbial form Original: travel daily with comfort and convenience Suggested revision: travel comfortably and conveniently each day Why it matters: Adverbs modify the manner of travel more naturally than the noun phrase.
- 10. Add missing article Original: requires one-time capital investment Suggested revision: requires a one-time capital investment Why it matters: The singular count phrase “capital investment” requires an article.
- 11. Fix preposition Original: save money in travelling Suggested revision: save money on travel Why it matters: The standard expression is “save money on” an expense.
- 12. Make verbs parallel Original: and reducing their cost of living Suggested revision: and reduce their cost of living Why it matters: The coordinated verbs after “helps the public to” must be parallel.
Suggested Rewrites
- in the modern society in modern society
- causes for the climate change problem causes of climate change
- for the governments for governments
- a reliable and convenient public transportation infrastructure reliable and convenient public transport infrastructure
- pollutionless cars low-emission cars
- From the economical perspective From an economic perspective
Why this response received Band 6.0
The response states a clear preference for public transport and develops accessible economic and social benefits with a useful Singapore example. However, much of the support concerns cost, safety, and social equality rather than the pollution problem central to the choice, while cleaner cars receive almost no direct comparison and the essay lacks paragraph breaks. Prioritise comparing how each option would reduce emissions, traffic volume, and long-term environmental harm.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Detailed feedback by IELTS writing criterion after the annotated essay.
Task Response
A clear position is supported by several developed benefits of public transport, but environmental comparison with cleaner cars is limited and some support is only indirectly relevant.
Compare the two options directly in terms of emissions reduction, congestion, adoption costs, and likely long-term impact.
Coherence and Cohesion
The ideas follow an understandable economic-to-social sequence and use signposting, but the single long paragraph and repeated linking phrases weaken organisation.
Create separate paragraphs for the environmental comparison, economic case, social case, and conclusion, using one focused claim in each.
Lexical Resource
A good range of transport, economic, and social vocabulary is used, though several imprecise or unnatural expressions limit lexical accuracy.
Replace phrases such as pollutionless cars, safety living environment, and roads are freely available with precise academic alternatives.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Varied sentence structures convey the argument clearly, but errors in agreement, articles, parallel forms, and sentence construction occur regularly.
Proofread long sentences for subject-verb agreement and parallel verb patterns, especially when describing costs, benefits, and public services.
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
The proliferation of private cars on the roads in many parts of the world has led to serious problems of pollution and may contribute to global warming. Some people think that governments should spend money for the development of public transportation systems in order to help alleviate this problem. Others think it is better to spend money for the development of electric and other types of cars that may cause less pollution. Do you think it is better for governments to spend money developing public transportation or developing new kinds of cars?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.