I will appreciate some feedback

[Mdwenzel]

Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

In some countries, governments decide to spend money in railways, others invest in roads. Personally, I think that is better to spend resources in railroads for a few reasons I will expose in the further paragraphs.

First of all, assuming we are talking about modern trains, I think that railways are a better option to spend money on because it leads to the alternative to use of trains instead of cars. In addition, using trains over cars helps with decontamination, and contamination is a major issue nowadays that every government should be worried about. For example, I live in Chile, whose capital city, Santiago, is one of the most contaminated cities over the world. During the last 5 or 6 years, government has been investing in reactivate old railways and it has helped to reduce contamination. Moreover, this investment gives citizens a responsible message, that the government worries about them and future generations.

Secondly, I believe that is cheaper for everyone to use trains rather than cars, and more railroads may promote the use of trains. Using a car carries a lot of expences with it: maintenence, fuel, parking, tolls, among others. On the other hand, using trains may be expensive, but nothing compared with car usage. For instance, here in Chile, a one-way trip to Temuco, that is 660 km. away from Santiago, may cost between 50.000 and 70.000 Chilean pesos depending on the type of car. And a train ticket cost between 30.000 and 40.000, a lot cheaper.

As a conclusion, I think governments should spend their money in railways instead of roads mainly for two reasons. Firstly, it encourages people to leave cars at home and use trains promoting decontamination, and it also gives citizens a cheaper way of transportation.


Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

[David.IELTS.Examiner]

Hello!

Expose reasons? That means the reasons have never been used before.

Change 'contaminated' to 'polluted'.

Overall, I think that your points are quite basic. For example, you seem to assume that cost is the only factor when people are travelling. However, there is nothing really 'bad' in your arguments.

There is a good range of grammar (no conditionals again - why do candidates hate them so much!?) and mistakes are generally minor. There is also a good range of vocabulary, despite some errors.

So, not a bad essay, but it needs some work on arguments and coherence.

All the best,
David

[Mdwenzel]

Hello!

Expose reasons? That means the reasons have never been used before.

Change 'contaminated' to 'polluted'.

Overall, I think that your points are quite basic. For example, you seem to assume that cost is the only factor when people are travelling. However, there is nothing really 'bad' in your arguments.

There is a good range of grammar (no conditionals again - why do candidates hate them so much!?) and mistakes are generally minor. There is also a good range of vocabulary, despite some errors.

So, not a bad essay, but it needs some work on arguments and coherence.

All the best,
David

Tks a lot David, I will be posting again soon.


Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk