Overall problems:
- Make basic grammar mistakes
- Wrong use of collocations (suprisingly less than other students on the same level)
- Vague topic sentences
- Vietlish (not surprised)
- Too focus on the vocabs so make them unnatural
- Overcomplicated explanation in unwanted places
- Flawed points (Chris might say that your points or your ideas are not a big deal cause you’re not
gonna be assessed based on that. YES AND NO. Your ideas will more or less decide how you
explains that decide your writing flow and your topic vocabs, you can’t just put a mountain of
topic vocabs next to an unrelated idea, right?)
- Overstretching (you got tons of times, lazy-ass! I know that you haven’t read any samples or
topic vocabs lists relating to this essay at first glance and so decided to let everything runs its
course lead to a writing mess, I’d rather say no more about this cuz you know what you need
to do. GOOD WRITERS ARE GOOD READERS)
Your edges:
- Coherence and cohesive devices (10/10 using Chis’s samples)
- Good use of vocabs and phrases (at least better than other E2 students)
Now let’s dive into details:
- Investing in and investing on? (this is easy, fix it yourself it’s invest in)
- Let’s fix this sentence into: Evidence suggests that allocating state funds to public transport
renovation is more beneficial / is more likely to pay off than doing the same to existing
infrastructure.
- Topic sentence of body 1 is BLOODY UNCLEAR (you need to mention public transport or road
infrastructure directly or not, letting them slide is not acceptable)
- Environmental-friendly environmental
- You can used carpooling = shared travel method to embiggen your vocabulary resource
- Less significant amount a less significant amount
- Let’s fix the whole sentence, sorry cuz they’re just a mess: “The major point they have made is
that developing a new public transport system requires less significant amount of the national
budget than using for renovating the road, which is more affordable for numerous developing
countries around the world. Furthermore, the act of investing on buses or metro line will allow
the country income to flow into other more crucial community services such as medical
healthcare or education.” into “The major point they have made is that developing a new public
transporting system tends to remain within capital budget, while renovating road infrastructure
would frequently cost more than planned. If the conditons allowed, the remainder could be
ploughed back into other crucial services that benefit the society.”
- You can use “commute” as another synonym of “travel” in this essay
- “the infrastructure of road” roadway factors (I don’t know how to explain this other than
“English is stupid” so good luck with that
- Address the increasing traffic resolve the heavy traffic issue = ease the traffic flow
- Connective travelling networks Road network
- Let’s fix the whole body 2😊: your entire body 2 is very misleading, buddy. Remember this P.I.E
structure (point – illustration – example) (1 point – 2 illustration – 1 example), you mentioned
like 4, lol (take less time to build, take less time to travel, cost more, side effect), learn this:
- “ There are proponents of enhancing roadway factors who point out it could ease traffic flow but
with less construction time. That would help a lot ever since the extended building process no
longer met the demand of populated countries. While this point could be valid to a certain
extent, this method comes with a side effect which, according to the International Traffic
Organization, has the name “bottleneck effect” or “congestion” in a sense. Consequently, the
writer of this essay is completely swayed by the advantages that upgrading roadway systems has
over public transportation.” (I tend to use a conclusion in Body 3 to steer clear of bewilderment
or it could be in body 2, I prefer it in body 3 but you’re writing it in the wrong way so I need to
make it clearer by putting one in this, next time remember to MAKE IT CLEAR.)
- Commuting transporting service pulic transporting system
- Demand for demand
- Let’s wholly rewrite one last time:” Since renovating pulic transport does not demand much
space, the surrounding land could be dedicated to different uses other than construction.”
- DO AWAY WITH VARIOUS, they’re humans not objects you BDSM-obsessed lunatic
- City planners town planners (it’s a fixed colloquial phrase)
- Such such as
- “handle approximately from fifty upto eighty passengers which are estimately equal to thirty five
motorcycles or eighteen cars traveling on the street.” Use comparative structure instead, “equal”
seems not persuasive handle about sixty passengers, which is statiscally thirty five times more
than 30 medium-sized motorcycles or 18 cars
- “It is clear to conclude that the whole beneficial impacts of social commuting services
completely dominate the ones for road infrastructure. In order to address the traffic congestion
issue, the government should pay their attention to upgrading their community transporting
system.” Taking into account all the aforementioned points and evidence, the advantages of
upgrading public transport totally outpower that of renovating road infrastructure. Hence, it
should have been shown that pulic transporting service is a preferential investment rather than
the latter
