Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Sample Response
The allocation of funds for transportation infrastructure is a crucial decision that governments must make to facilitate the movement of people and goods efficiently. Some argue that prioritising investment in railways over roads is the more prudent approach. In this essay, I will present arguments in favour of spending money on railways and demonstrate that this strategy can yield substantial benefits for the nation.
One compelling reason to direct funds towards railways is their potential to reduce traffic congestion and ease the burden on existing road networks. As urban centres grow and populations increase, roads become increasingly congested, leading to traffic delays, increased air pollution, and higher accident rates. By developing and expanding railway systems, governments can offer an alternative mode of transportation, encouraging more people to opt for trains instead of personal vehicles. For example, in Japan, the Shinkansen high-speed rail system has significantly reduced travel times between major cities, resulting in decreased road traffic and improved overall transportation efficiency.
Moreover, investing in railways can enhance sustainability and mitigate environmental impacts. Trains are generally more energy-efficient compared to cars, trucks, and buses, which rely on fossil fuels. By promoting rail travel, governments can lower carbon emissions and contribute to global efforts to combat climate change. For instance, in several European countries, governments have invested heavily in modernizing and expanding their railway networks to encourage eco-friendly transportation choices, resulting in decreased carbon footprints and a cleaner environment.
Finally, prioritising developing railways has the potential for spurring economic development and regional connectivity. Efficient and well-connected rail networks facilitate the movement of goods and people between different regions, promoting trade and commerce. This, in turn, attracts investments and creates job opportunities in various sectors. For instance, in China, the extensive development of high-speed rail lines has played a pivotal role in connecting remote regions to major economic hubs, fostering economic growth, and reducing regional disparities.
In conclusion, directing government funds towards railway infrastructure presents numerous significant benefits, including alleviating traffic congestion, reducing environmental impact, and fostering economic development. By investing in railways, governments can create a more sustainable, efficient, and interconnected transportation system that benefits both citizens and the environment.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Place the adverb precisely Original: facilitate the movement of people and goods efficiently Suggested revision: facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods Why it matters: Moving 'efficient' before 'movement' removes possible modifier ambiguity.
- 2. Use concise wording Original: yield substantial benefits for the nation Suggested revision: deliver substantial national benefits Why it matters: The replacement expresses the same result more directly.
- 3. Use a clearer comparison Original: increased Suggested revision: greater Why it matters: 'Greater' describes a higher level of pollution without implying a stated time comparison.
- 4. Use concise transport wording Original: offer an alternative mode of transportation Suggested revision: provide an alternative mode of transport Why it matters: The replacement is slightly more concise while preserving the meaning.
- 5. Use the natural collocation Original: decreased Suggested revision: reduced Why it matters: 'Reduced traffic' is the more natural collocation for lower traffic volume.
- 6. Use the comparative structure Original: more energy-efficient compared to Suggested revision: more energy-efficient than Why it matters: A comparative adjective takes 'than' rather than 'compared to' in this construction.
- 7. Keep British spelling consistent Original: modernizing Suggested revision: modernising Why it matters: The essay otherwise uses British spelling, so 'modernising' improves consistency.
- 8. Use a natural adjective Original: decreased Suggested revision: smaller Why it matters: A carbon footprint is normally described as larger or smaller rather than decreased.
- 9. Use parallel noun structure Original: prioritising developing railways has the potential for spurring Suggested revision: prioritising railway development can spur Why it matters: The revision corrects the gerund sequence and the unnatural 'potential for spurring' construction.
- 10. Use the uncountable noun Original: investments Suggested revision: investment Why it matters: 'Investment' is normally uncountable when referring generally to incoming capital.
- 11. Remove the list comma Original: fostering economic growth, and reducing Suggested revision: fostering economic growth and reducing Why it matters: A comma should not separate the final two coordinated participial phrases.
- 12. Avoid stacked quantity adjectives Original: numerous significant benefits Suggested revision: numerous benefits Why it matters: 'Numerous' already emphasises the extent of the benefits, making the second adjective unnecessary.
Suggested Rewrites
- facilitate the movement of people and goods efficiently facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods
- yield substantial benefits for the nation deliver substantial national benefits
- increased greater
- offer an alternative mode of transportation provide an alternative mode of transport
- decreased reduced
- more energy-efficient compared to more energy-efficient than
Why this response received Band 8.0
The response gives a clear and consistently supported preference for railway investment, developing congestion, environmental, and economic benefits through relevant international examples. Its main limitation is that the comparison with road spending remains largely implicit; the priority is to explain why these benefits justify diverting limited funds from roads, while tightening the occasional awkward construction in an otherwise highly controlled essay.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
The position is direct and fully developed through three relevant benefits, each supported by a specific international example.
Make the comparative judgement explicit by explaining why limited funding should be redirected from roads rather than simply added to railways.
Coherence and Cohesion
The essay progresses smoothly through three focused arguments, with clear paragraphing and well-managed cohesive devices.
Strengthen the connection between the final body paragraph and the central spending comparison before moving to the conclusion.
Lexical Resource
A wide, precise vocabulary handles transport, environmental, and economic ideas flexibly, with only rare awkward phrasing.
Replace prioritising developing railways has the potential for spurring with prioritising railway development can spur for greater naturalness.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A wide range of complex structures is used accurately throughout, with only an isolated awkward construction.
Keep gerund and infinitive patterns parallel when describing policy priorities and their potential effects.
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
Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.