Topic of restricting air travel:feel like writing long today

[yhjsaber]

Some people believe that air travel should be restricted because it causes serious pollution and uses up the world’s fuel resources .To what extent do you agree or disagree?

People hold different views as to whether or not air travel should be limited. Although the air pollution and the scarcity of fuel resources caused by airplanes are becoming increasingly serious, I would argue that restricting the use of aircraft would not improve the status quo significantly and may hinder the global economic development.

Admittedly, the enormous amount of planes flying in the sky every day produce exhaust gases and unbearable noises that are detrimental to both the environment and the health of citizens. Many major cities such as Shanghai and New York, where a large portion of their international trade is based on air transport, suffer from the extremely low quality of air and dangerously high-pitched noises deriving from the giant flying machines in the sky. In addition, the rate at which these machines consume the precious fossil fuels is also staggering, raising huge concerns that if we continued with the increasing use of airplanes, we would accelerate more quickly towards the point where energy crisis leads to server conflicts around the world. Therefore, it is reasonable for people to claim that air travel should be retrained for the sake of our environment and quality of life.

However, I believe that the effect of restricting air travel on reducing pollution and diminishing the consumption of petrol is temporary. The saved fuels could always be allotted to promote the use of private cars and cargo ships, which can further deteriorate the environment. Moreover, as global economy relies heavily on the air transport, which is more time-saving than other modes of transportation, limiting air travel would likely cause crucial problems to many global businesses and hence, slowing down or even reversing the international economic growth. On the other hand, if cleaner substitutes such as solar energy and nuclear power could be promoted to replace the fossil fuels, current situation would be improved tremendously. In fact, the use of these green and limitless energy sources would not only purify our environment, but also strengthen the global peace we enjoy at the moment, as nobody wants to fight over clean and inexhaustible energy.

In conclusion, restricting air travel is too narrow an approach and may adversely affect the global economy. Utilizing cleaner solar and nuclear power, on the other hand, is a more efficient method to tackle pollution and energy shortage – they can bring long lasting benefits to environment protection and peace keeping.

[durai]

hi Yhjsaber,

its really big essay around 402 words, I don't prefer to look such big essays,

but some repeated words

air 9
travel 5
energy 5
global 5
environment 5
use 4
restricting 3
fuels 3
more 3
pollution 3

words are repeated because you wrote many words.

second half of second supporting paragraph is off topic, because they didn't ask for any solutions , examiner would reduce these words and penalize in task response, so I would suggest to write around 270 words, means every single sentence should be closely related to topic.

but overall you essay looks really good, you may score around band 7 -7.5

[yhjsaber]

Thank you Durai,

I thought so as I wrote the second part of paragraph two, I felt like I if I were not to give a better alternative, it would affect the integrity of the essay. Anyway, I will try to shorten my essay. I have worked so hard trying to improve my grammar. Now it seems that making a concise one is what I should be focusing on.