TOEFL TPO -1 Academic Discussion Writing Sample: Do you think that more cities should make theircentral zones car-free? Why or why not?

1. Sub Scores

Relevance and Contribution to Discussion: 3.5 Clarity and Elaboration of Viewpoint: 3.0 Language Use and Grammar: 3.0

2. Estimated Scores

Estimated Score: 21 (out of 30)

3. Task completeness

The essay does address the question of whether cities should make their central zones car-free, but it could be improved in several ways. First, the essay should more clearly state its position in the introduction. Second, it should provide stronger support for its arguments with relevant examples or details. Lastly, the essay should address counterarguments more effectively.

Example 1: Instead of "It is believe that we should not make central zone car-free since it will cause lots of inconvenience for people," try "I believe that making central zones car-free would cause significant inconvenience for people and therefore should not be implemented."

Example 2: To support your argument about businesses being affected, you could provide a specific example or statistic to show how businesses have been negatively impacted in cities where car-free zones have been implemented.

4. Essay structure and organization

The essay's structure could be improved by having a clearer introduction, body paragraphs with more focused points, and a conclusion that summarizes the main arguments. Additionally, transitions between ideas and paragraphs need to be smoother.

Example 1: For a clearer introduction, try "In recent years, there has been a growing debate about whether cities should make their central zones car-free. While proponents argue that this would promote health and reduce pollution, I believe that such measures would cause significant inconvenience for people and negatively impact businesses."

Example 2: To improve transitions between ideas and paragraphs, use phrases like "Firstly," "On the other hand," or "In conclusion." For example: "Firstly, implementing car-free zones would result in longer travel times for individuals who rely on cars for transportation."

5. Grammar

It is believebelieved(Agreement: 'been' or 'was' + past tense) that we should not make central zone car-free since it will cause lots of inconvenience for people. To start with, individuals have to waste more time and cost on transportation because taking subway or bus instead of driving a car may need more time to wait and change. For example, if people miss a bus, they have to wait for 15 minutes even longer time until the next one comes which may bother their mood and fail to keep punctuality. Moreover, if someone lives in remote places or have to meet clients who are in a distinct area, they have to pay more money on the transportation, like taking a train. Admittedly, there is no doubt that reducing the number of cars around the central zones can contribute to the healthy[No Replacement Word Found](ARTICLE ADJECTIVE of) of people. However, it leads that more people choose to park their cars in the countryside and nearby community. Therefore, noises and carbon emission generated by cars are harmful to local individuals’ life and the environmental sustainable development developmentdevelopment(Word repetition (e.g. 'will will')). As a result, this policy will not solve traffic jam but contribute to more unregulated behavior and environment degradation ..(Use of whitespace before comma and before/after parentheses)

Display title: 6 Revised Essay

While the concept of car-free central zones has gained popularity in recent years, I believe that implementing such a policy in more cities may not be the most effective solution. This is due to the potential inconveniences it could cause for residents and the possible negative impact on local businesses.

Firstly, creating car-free central zones could lead to increased time and costs associated with transportation for individuals. For instance, relying on public transportation instead of personal vehicles may result in longer waiting times and multiple transfers. Missing a bus could lead to significant delays, affecting one's punctuality and overall mood. Additionally, those living in remote areas or needing to meet clients in distant locations may face higher transportation expenses, such as train fares.

It is true that reducing the number of cars in central zones can contribute to improved public health by encouraging walking or biking. However, this policy might also prompt people to park their cars in surrounding neighborhoods and rural areas. Consequently, noise pollution and carbon emissions generated by vehicles would still negatively affect local residents' quality of life and hinder sustainable environmental development. In other words, this policy might not effectively address traffic congestion but rather contribute to unregulated behavior and environmental degradation.

Furthermore, car-free central zones could adversely impact businesses located within city centers, such as shops and restaurants. Customers who are unable or unwilling to utilize alternative modes of transportation may choose not to patronize these establishments if they cannot drive directly there. This loss of clientele could lead to financial difficulties for businesses that rely heavily on customer accessibility.

In conclusion, while car-free central zones offer potential health benefits for city residents, the drawbacks associated with increased transportation challenges and negative effects on local businesses must be carefully considered before implementing such policies in more cities. (307 words)

Revised essay: Display title: 7 Essay Grading

It is believe believed (reason for change: correct verb form) that we should not make central zone zones car-free since it will cause lots of inconvenience for people.

To start with, individuals have to waste more time and cost (reason for change: clarity) on transportation because taking the subway or bus instead of driving a car may need require (reason for change: clarity) more time to wait and change. For example, if people miss a bus, they have to wait for 15 minutes or even longer time (reason for change: improved phrasing) until the next one comes comes, which may bother their mood and fail to keep punctuality. maintain punctuality (reason for change: clarity). Moreover, if someone lives in remote places or have has (reason for change: correct verb form) to meet clients who are in a distinct area, they have to pay more money on the transportation, like taking a train.

Admittedly, there is no doubt that reducing the number of cars around the central zones can contribute to the healthy health (reason for change: correct word choice) of people. However, it leads that to more people choose choosing (reason for change: improved phrasing) to park their cars in the countryside and nearby community. communities. Therefore, noises and carbon emission emissions generated by cars are harmful to local individuals’ life and the individuals' lives and environmental sustainable development development. (reason for change: remove repeated word). As a result, this policy will not solve traffic jam jams but contribute to more unregulated behavior and environment degradation .environmental degradation.

Display title: 8 Mind Map

- Car-free central zones
    - Inconveniences for residents
        - Increased time and costs
            - Longer waiting times
            - Multiple transfers
            - Higher transportation expenses
    - Negative impact on local businesses
        - Loss of clientele
        - Financial difficulties
    - Potential health benefits
        - Encouraging walking or biking
    - Possible negative environmental effects
        - Noise pollution and carbon emissions in surrounding areas
        - Unregulated behavior and environmental degradation

Display title: 9 Key Words