self-studying so really need someone to correct my essay. Thank you

[trantrang]

Some people think international car-free days are an effective way of reducing air pollution, others think there are some other ways. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

The issue of air quality improvement has generated a heated debate among environment protectors for some time already, and it has recently gained traction among the general public. While some people might argue that broadcasting car-free days around the world can be seen as a considerably effective way to lower carbon emission, I lean towards the viewpoint that there are several other solutions, which brings long-term sustainable improvement to our environment.

On the one hand, I think the international car-free day is one of the reasonable ways to reduce air pollution. In fact that, when everyone around the world takes part in this day at the same time, it could contribute to cut significantly carbon emission from driving car. Furthermore, by enjoying these days, individuals could be a part of factors in increasing awareness of the environment protection for others. To take myself as an example, I was known a cycling bike day from my sister last year, and I took part in cycling team after that. Until now, I am still keeping this habitat in that day.

On the other hand, I strongly believe that there are several other solutions, which could be perfectly alternative ways to improve air quality. First of all, there is ample convincing evidence that planting more trees could be seen as a positive way. This will ensure that air environment could be fresher and cleaner, especially in urban areas. Secondly, by investing more budget state into the public transportation system, the government could raise the number of bus and subway users, which means that the number of people using private car would extremely down in long-term time. Finally, if the government promotes residents/ dwellers to access purely electric vehicles using, the carbon pollution could be cut down significantly in the future. To take Norway as an example, Norway’s government promoted their citizens to use electric-car up to 10.000 cars across the country, which contribute to reducing 50 percent of carbon emission over five years.
In conclusion, it is understandable that international free-car days are a necessary action for air condition change, but in my opinion, only when applying other solutions can we totally improve the quality of the environment

[David.IELTS.Examiner]

Hello!

What a great question!

The second main paragraph is significantly shorter than the first and the conclusion is too short, particularly compared to the introduction.

The Norwegian example is completely untrue. 5 million Norwegians could not possibly reduce their emissions by 50% by only using 10,000 electric cars!!!

The idea of more investment in public transport is not explained. (Like most candidates, you assume that people WILL (=100% for sure) use public transport. This is simply untrue.)

In the conclusion, you do not explain why a car-free day is essential.

Overall, grammar and vocabulary are quite good, but not used effectively to create a good argument. Points are often unclear and/or unexplained.

All the best,
David

[trantrang]

Thank you very much. I will improve my essay.