Urbanization has brought the term traffic congestion into existence. A school of thought believes that traffic can only be controlled by limiting daily commuters' need for travel. However, I am not convinced that this is the only or the best way. Though it has some impact, other measures are required. Apparently, reasons that substantiate the claim that "the less frequently people travel in a city, the they create" - require thorough analysis. Firstly, city dwellers commute daily primarily for their , shopping and social needs. Some of these could be done from home as the advancement of technology has made it possible to learn, work and shop online. This will reduce traffic to a certain extent. To illustrate, a survey conducted by the Australian Traffic Authority outlines that 75% of commuters in private cars travel for , and it is clear that if people can work from home, do online shopping and enrol in online courses, traffic congestion would be reduced, if not solved. However, working from home is not permissible for a great number of professionals such as nurses, builders, doctors, police and so on. Therefore, they must travel to and from their workplaces daily. Moreover, online learning cannot replace the classroom-based education system, and online shopping is yet to substitute the traditional shopping method. Thus it is evident that controlling the necessity of travel for the day-to-day activities of citizens is not the only way to manage traffic problems. Improving public transportation, carpooling and encouraging pedestrians and cyclists could be some great solutions. To conclude, limiting city dwellers' needs for their daily commute may help control traffic problems to some extent, but other measures should be in place. The government should encourage people to use eco-friendly transportation like cycles to tackle bad traffic.
Reducing City Traffic by Limiting the Need to Travel
The only way to reduce the amount of traffic in cities today is by reducing the need for people to travel from home to work, shopping and education. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Annotated response
3 correction notes
Overall assessment
Why this response received Band 6.5
The response maintains disagreement and supports it with relevant discussion of remote activities, essential travel and alternative measures. However, the single continuous paragraph weakens grouping and makes the argument harder to follow. Some imprecise wording and errors in noun-number agreement also reduce the clarity of otherwise varied language.
IELTS criteria
How each score was decided
Task Response
7.0The response directly addresses the extent-of-agreement question with a clear position, develops main ideas with relevant support and a cited example, and reaches an appropriate conclusion, though some supporting claims are asserted rather than fully extended.
Coherence and Cohesion
5.5The ideas have an understandable sequence, but the entire essay is one paragraph. The discussion of reduced travel, its limitations and alternative measures needs clearer grouping. The announcement that the reasons "require thorough analysis" also creates an awkward transition.
Lexical Resource
7.0Vocabulary has sufficient range for the topic, including "commuters", "carpooling" and "eco-friendly transportation". Some wording is imprecise, such as saying urbanisation brought the term "traffic congestion" into existence and using the broad expression "bad traffic".
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
7.0A variety of complex structures is used with generally good control, though noticeable errors such as 'the fewer traffic jam they create' and some article omissions recur without seriously impeding meaning.