as living condition is much improved

7/30/2019 As Living Condition is Much Improved

1/5

As living condition is much improved, more and more people

own an automobile. When a large number of vehicles hit the

road, arouse many problems. Theres a proposal that private

vehicle s should be banned in crowded country. This idea

has some points but it doesnt mean that it has no

downsides.

Lets look at the advantages. Firstly, banning private

vehicles leads to less congestion. In some overcrowded

places, traffic jam is really a nuisance. Its an obvious wasteof time, and being stuck in a traffic jam makes people easily

fly into a temper. Getting the roads rid of this burdensome

problem is a good thing.

Secondly, fewer vehicles in the street mean less exhaust

emission, hence less air pollution. Almost all private vehicles

are cars and motorbikes (only a small number are bicycle),

which let out carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide. These

hazardous not only are injurious to human health but also

contribute to global warming. Along with air pollution these

vehicles increase noise pollution also. So in order to reduce

pollution to some extent we must avoid using private

vehicles.

Another benefit goes to saving natural resources. Cars and

motorbikes run on gasoline, which is originally deprived form


2/5

the earth. We are now exploiting more oil than the earths

crust can produce; a future energy deficiency is foreseeable.

While scientist is still working on alternative energy, the best

method now is cut down on the use of fossil fuel, especially

the use of automobiles.

The increasing number of private vehicles results in the

increasing need of parking lots, garages, and car

maintenances. With a growing population, more land will be

needed. By banning private vehicles, a lot of land fromparking lots can be saved for houses, school and other

facilities.

Now, lets consider the disadvantages. The first question is

will public vehicles efficient enough to satisfy the need of

travelling for millions of people in an extremely big city? I

think the answer is no. At least for now. Secondly, its the

freedom of travelling that matter. Can you really be happy if

you are totally dependable on someone else to take you

everywhere? Since public vehicles have to travel on

schedules, and it caters to a lot of people, you cannot ask

the driver to stop anywhere you want. Oh, you can if you

take a taxi, but imagine how much it cost if you have to take

taxies all year round? Having your own vehicle is much more

convenient, no waiting, no restricted time, and you can use

it at your disposal.


3/5

Weve just seen both the pros and con of banning private

vehicles. I advocate the proposal. Compare with the

disadvantages, the advantages is tremendous. Solving

congestion and environmental problem is much more

important the personal convenience. However banning

private vehicles at the moment is just impractical, because a

large profit will be lost, since car industry is a giant business

all over the world. Moreover, in a big city, where life is rush

and technology is highly developed; it will only impede theprosperity of the economy there. However the problem of

congestion and pollution cannot be ignored. I think we

should not suddenly and completely ban private vehicles,

but only in some parts of the city, and on certain day (such

as Sunday or holiday). Therefore, it will not shock the city

dwellers. Then the government phase in the practice of

using public transportation, by some means of encouraging,

and of course the system must be of higher quality. Lets

hope for more efficient traffic in the future.

Your argument here is developed in a fairly methodical

fashion, which is great. There is room for development of the

ideas, especially those ideas you have about the

disadvantages of banning cars from cities, to which you

devote only one, albeit your longest, paragraph. More

importantly, you could probably try to elaborate further the

basis of your judgment that the advantages would outweigh


4/5

the disadvantages. At present, you resort merely to

assertion in your concluding paragraph: you assert that the

advantages would be comparatively "tremendous"; and you

assert that solving environmental problems is more

important than considerations of personal convenience.

Perhaps your reasons for thinking that go without saying, but

since we habitually sacrifice the environment for the sake of

personal convenience, making an explicit argument about

why we should not do that would not be a bad idea. You

imply also that some of the disadvantages are seriousenough to warrant postponing implementing the proposal

until some of them can be dealt with. I think that is a good

argument, and for that reason ought to be more explicitly

foregrounded than it is. The place to do that is probably the

thesis, for it is in fact the overarching argument of your

paper. You don't really have a thesis statement at present

(unless one goes looking for one in your conclusion).

Replacing the relative weak final sentence of your first

paragraph with a clear articulation of your overarching

argument would make your reader's task a bit easier; for

instance, it would allow your reader to appreciate that your

initial argumentative claims are being offered in the service

of a more complicated argument than they at first appear to

be.

The other problem with the essay is the significant number


5/5

of language errors. A few examples:

"arouse many problems" is a predicate in want of a subject,

and "crowded country" is an obvious typo for "crowded

cities," and there are other typos; when you are liable to

make grammatical errors, you should be all the more careful

about avoiding typographical ones!

Tense: you use the present tense in describing

circumstances that don't exist; use the conditional. Forexample, instead of "getting rid of this problem is a good

thing," write "getting rid of this problem would be a good

thing."

You have a tendency to use the singular when the plural is

needed: "While scientist is still working" [scientists are];

traffic jam[s] [are]; the pros and con[s]; solving congestion

and environmental problem[s] [are]"

That's not an exhaustive list, but those are the types of

errors that you should be able to avoid with careful

proofreading.

as living condition is much improved

Documents