Writing Academic Task 2 Band 5.0 Example

One of controversial issues is growing cost of car oil which is by far the most suitable way of reducing the traffic on public roads and the pollution occurs around it. I completely believe that increasing petrol price has more advantages than stable cost. Perhaps the majority of people would agree that car exhaust fumes contribute to pollution, but traffic volumes need separate attention.

A higher fuel price can give drivers a reason to reconsider optional journeys. Someone who can walk to a nearby shop may choose to do so when the cost of driving rises. However, the effect depends on whether the journey can be changed. A worker who has no reliable bus service may still need a car, so the policy can increase their expenses without reducing the number of vehicles on the road.

There is also a fairness issue. People on limited incomes may find the extra cost difficult to absorb, while wealthier drivers may continue making the same journeys. A uniform price change does not distinguish an unnecessary trip from a necessary one. Nor does it directly improve an unreliable transport service. This makes it an incomplete response even if it influences some decisions at the margin.

A more useful measure is to make shared transport a realistic choice. Reliable schedules, suitable routes and straightforward connections can reduce the practical disadvantages of taking a bus or train. Safe walking and cycling routes can help for shorter trips. The objective is not simply to tell people to drive less, but to provide a feasible way to reach the places they need to go.

Targeted measures can also address crowded locations and particular sources of pollution. Managing parking, coordinating deliveries and controlling access where congestion is severe may be more precise than changing the cost of every litre of fuel. Cleaner vehicles can address some emissions, but do not by themselves remove the space occupied by traffic. The two problems should therefore be considered together without assuming they are identical.

In conclusion, I favour using fuel prices to discourage avoidable journeys, with reliable shared transport and targeted controls as supporting measures. Without those alternatives, the price change risks becoming a cost rather than an effective change in travel.