Responsibility for Transport Pollution: Government vs Individuals

Both views are addressed and a shared-responsibility position is introduced, but the freight argument needs a clearer pollution link and the conclusion leaves that position implicit.

Clear paragraphing and signposting support progression, but the explanation linking environmental education to low awareness is unclear, and poor public transport is not fully connected to individual responsibility.

Vocabulary is flexible and mostly precise, with good topic-related collocations such as traffic congestion and sustainable growth, alongside a few awkward or redundant expressions.

A range of complex structures is used with generally good control, but noticeable errors such as subject-verb agreement in the opening sentence occasionally affect accuracy.

Both perspectives are discussed and a clear, consistent opinion is presented and sustained, with relevant explanation and a supporting example, though some ideas remain general and could be extended further.

The essay is logically organised with clear paragraphing, effective use of cohesive devices, and steady progression throughout.

There is a good range of topic-related vocabulary used naturally, with some repetition of key nouns and occasional less precise phrasing.

A variety of complex sentence structures is used with generally good control. A misplaced comma separates the long gerund subject from its verb, but meaning remains clear.

Both views are addressed and developed with a clear, consistently maintained position that responsibility is shared, supported by relevant explanation, though some ideas remain somewhat generalized.

The introduction, opposing views and conclusion follow a logical sequence marked by line breaks and linking expressions. Some linking is mechanical, and “such transportation” has an unclear referent.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible with some precise and less common items such as unregulated and deliberate effort, despite occasional awkward collocations like the huge transportation and erroneous social conscience.

A good range of complex structures, including subordinate clauses, infinitive phrases and passive forms, is used with generally strong control. The error “is to fault” is local and does not prevent understanding.

The response discusses both government and individual responsibility and maintains a clear shared-responsibility position. The government view is framed mainly as blame rather than responsibility for action, while the links to pollution and the transport of goods could be developed more explicitly.

Progression is logical across well-sequenced paragraphs with clear cohesive devices such as 'on the one hand' and 'by and large', although linking is at times mechanical and some referencing is slightly loose.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, using less common items like 'pivotal role', 'curb', and 'alleviate', with only minor lapses in phrasing and some repetition of key terms.

A range of complex structures is used with good control, including conditionals and relative clauses, while occasional awkward constructions such as 'such as buses that use biofuel or bike' slightly reduce precision.