Marked version

Urban traffic congestion, driven by car dependency and weak public transport, is debated, especially regarding whether to expand roads or reduce driving [k0: task response — wrong task frame; the title asks for causes and solutions, not a debate between two positions] is mainly caused by car dependency, weak public transport and car-oriented urban planning. Supporters cite faster trips and freight flows, while opponents point to induced traffic and emissions. [k0: task response + k2: wrong essay structure — this sounds like a discussion essay] These causes can be addressed by improving public transport, reducing unnecessary car use and introducing targeted restrictions. This essay examines both sides and concludes that demand reduction is preferable; while counterarguments matter, upgraded public transport and targeted restrictions are decisive. [k0: task response — the essay should explain causes and propose solutions, not examine both sides] This essay will examine the main reasons for urban congestion and suggest practical measures, including better public transport and carefully designed driving restrictions.

Urban traffic congestion is mainly caused by car dependency, weak public transport and car-oriented urban planning. This essay will examine these causes and suggest practical solutions, including improved public transport and carefully designed restrictions on unnecessary car use.

On the one hand, [k2: unsuitable linker — this creates a discussion-essay structure, not a problem-solution structure] One major cause of congestion is that it is often argued that cities should build more roads, primarily because when car numbers and trip lengths keep rising, shortages at junctions and ring roads are easy to interpret as a simple lack of asphalt [k3: too informal / metaphorical for IELTS Task 2] lack of road capacity. In practice, this means that governments widen highways and add junctions to "unclog" peak hours. For instance, a city may extend a ring road to speed up commuting from suburbs. Furthermore, proponents of this position maintain that road expansion supports business, as faster freight movement and more_reliable commuting improve productivity and reduce delays for firms. [k0: task response — this paragraph discusses a proposed solution / argument for road expansion instead of clearly explaining causes of congestion] In practice, many cities become congested because commuters have few realistic alternatives to driving. Long distances between homes and workplaces, unreliable buses and limited metro coverage force large numbers of people onto the same roads at peak times. Put differently, congestion is treated as a problem that more lanes can cure, That said, [k5: syntax — comma splice + capitalization error] . However, these are not groundless, especially when infrastructure is genuinely outdated concerns or unsafe [k5: syntax + k2: unclear reference + k3: broken wording] this argument is not entirely groundless when infrastructure is genuinely outdated or unsafe.

One major cause of congestion is excessive dependence on private cars. In many cities, commuters have few realistic alternatives to driving because buses are unreliable, metro systems are limited and residential areas are far from workplaces. As a result, large numbers of people travel by car at the same time, especially during rush hours. This problem is made worse when old junctions and ring roads cannot cope with modern traffic volumes.

On the other hand, [k2: unsuitable linker — the paragraph should introduce solutions, not the opposite side of an argument] The most effective solution is to I contend that congestion is best tackled by reducing car dependence. [k5: syntax — sentence fragment follows] , largely because even when capacity is tight, the chronic gridlock reflects incentives to drive, low-density land use and weak alternatives, so adding lanes often pulls more cars onto the network without fixing that dynamic . [k5: syntax — overlong sentence + spacing error before full stop] largely because chronic gridlock often reflects incentives to drive, low-density land use and weak alternatives. Adding lanes may therefore attract more cars without solving the underlying problem. This is rooted in the fact that [k3: wordy phrase] This is because when driving becomes easier, more people choose it. To illustrate, [k2: weak linking — the sentence that follows introduces a solution rather than illustrating induced demand] As a solution, protected bus lanes and frequent metro services can shift large numbers of commuters away from private cars. In addition, pricing and regulation are crucial, since congestion charges and strict parking policies discourage short, avoidable journeys. Admittedly, public resistance and equity concerns are valid; however, these downsides are largely avoidable provided that alternatives are upgraded first and discounts are offered to low-income commuters. To give a clear example, a city can launch a charge only after expanding park-and-ride hubs and improving service frequency.

The most effective solutions are therefore to improve alternatives to driving and reduce unnecessary car use. Protected bus lanes, frequent metro services and park-and-ride hubs can make public transport faster and more attractive. In addition, congestion charges and stricter parking policies can discourage short, avoidable car journeys. However, such measures should be introduced only after public transport has been upgraded, and discounts should be offered to low-income commuters to make the policy fairer.

In conclusion, while capacity limits and economic concerns deserve attention, I remain convinced that demand reduction is the most effective route. [k0: task response — this sounds like the conclusion of an opinion/discussion essay; a problem-solution essay should summarise the main causes and solutions] traffic congestion is mainly caused by excessive car dependence, weak public transport and car-oriented urban design, and it can be reduced through better public transport and targeted restrictions on unnecessary driving. This is because strongalternatives [k5: spelling / spacing error] strong alternatives and smart constraints [k3: vague wording] carefully designed restrictions are ultimately decisive, particularly when fair transition measures [k3: vague wording] support measures are in place.

In conclusion, traffic congestion is mainly caused by excessive dependence on private cars, weak public transport and car-oriented urban design. It can be reduced by improving public transport, discouraging unnecessary car trips and ensuring that any restrictions are introduced fairly.

Corrected version close to your wording

A stronger IELTS-style version

01 Aug 2026

05August 2025

Marked version

It is debatable whether everyone should be involved in labour [k3: unnatural collocation] expected to work, If [k5: capitalization error after comma] if they are in condition to do so [k3: unnatural wording + k4: missing adjective] physically able to do so. I largely disagree with this statement, as people can find various ways how to spend their life richly and with benefit [k3: unnatural wording + k4: incorrect number form] to live fulfilling and useful lives. This essay will support my view.

It is debatable whether all adults who are physically capable of working should be expected to do so. I largely disagree with this view because people can live fulfilling and useful lives even if they are not in paid employment.

The main reason why I support the idea that everyone should decide whether they want work [k4: missing infinitive marker] to work or not is the happiness [k4: wrong article] happiness. For example, for some adults job [k4: wrong article / incorrect noun use] a job / work is stressful and exhausting, so it could be better without it [k2: unclear reference + k3: unnatural wording] they might be better off without regular employment. It is important to note that if nobody stirs a finger [k3: wrong idiom] lifts a finger, life would be [k4: conditional form — match with hypothetical past condition] would become impossible, so people should keep doing something valuable despite work [k3: inaccurate wording + k2: unclear meaning] even if they are not formally employed.

The main reason I support personal choice is happiness. For some adults, paid work can be stressful and exhausting, so they may be better off without regular employment if they can support themselves. However, this does not mean that people should contribute nothing to society; they can still do useful work at home, volunteer, care for relatives or create something valuable.

Another reason is that people who have already earned quite enough [k3: vague / unnatural wording] enough money, could [k5: punctuation — unnecessary comma before the main verb] could just relax and live on their savings. In addition, it doesn’t [k1: no contractions in formal writing] does not mean that they would be bored, as they can continue to travel, spend time with their closest people [k3: unnatural collocation] loved ones and indulger [k5: wrong spelling + k4: wrong verb form] indulge in their hobbies. Undeniably, this is what they deserve. [k2: underdeveloped / unsupported claim — explain why, or remove]

Another reason is that people who have already earned enough money should be free to live on their savings. This does not mean that their lives would become empty: they could travel, spend time with their loved ones, pursue hobbies or contribute to society in unpaid ways.

In conclusion, I totally disagree [k0: task response — inconsistent with “largely disagree” in the introduction] largely disagree that everyone must go to job [k3: unnatural collocation + k4: missing article] have a job / be in paid employment, if their health allows it. It’s [k1: no contractions in formal writing] It is not democratic [k3: inaccurate word choice] unfair / unreasonable to force people to work [k0: task response — the task says “expected to work,” not necessarily “forced to work”] expect everyone to be in paid employment if they don’t [k1: no contractions in formal writing] do not want to and they can explore other areas of life.

In conclusion, I largely disagree that every physically capable adult should be expected to be in paid employment. Although society depends on people’s contribution, this contribution does not always have to take the form of a regular job, especially when people can support themselves and use their time productively.

Corrected version close to your wording

A stronger IELTS-style version

Augusst22, 2026

Marked version

The charts provide information about people in the labour market [k3: inaccurate wording — inactive groups are not strictly part of the labour market] people’s economic activity status from June to August 2012, broken down by gender. Overall, a larger proportion [k3: slightly inaccurate if the chart gives figures in millions rather than percentages] number of both men and women are [k4: wrong tense — the data refers to 2012] were in full-time employment than in any other category.

The charts provide information about the economic activity status of men and women between June and August 2012. Overall, full-time employment was the largest category for both genders.

The most notable figure is for [k3: slightly unnatural phrasing] largest group was full-time employment, which accounts for [k4: wrong tense + k3: slightly awkward with absolute numbers] stood at 13.73 million men and 7.73 million women. Part-time employment is the next largest category for women, with 6 million, while for men the figure [k3: repetition — vary with “number” or “total”] number is significantly lower, at just [k1: slightly informal/emphatic for Task 1] only 2.14 million. Women also have slightly higher numbers in the inactive aged 65 and over category [k3: slightly compressed / unnatural noun phrase] category of economically inactive people aged 65 and over (5.28 million), compared to 4.12 million men. Similarly, more women than men are classified as inactive aged 16 to 64 [k3: slightly compressed wording] economically inactive and aged 16 to 64 (5.76 million versus 3.28 million). The smallest group for both genders is the unemployed, with 1.44 million men and 1.08 million women.

The largest group was full-time employment, which stood at 13.73 million men and 7.73 million women. Among women, part-time work was the second-largest group, at 6 million, whereas the corresponding number for men was much lower, at only 2.14 million. Women also outnumbered men in both inactive groups: 5.28 million women and 4.12 million men were aged 65 and over, while 5.76 million women and 3.28 million men were inactive and aged 16 to 64. The unemployed group was the smallest for both sexes, at 1.44 million men and 1.08 million women.

In summary, the two charts clearly show that men and women have somewhat different patterns of labour market participation [k3: slightly inaccurate / too narrow because inactive categories are included] economic activity, with women more likely to be in part-time work and men more likely to be in full-time employment.

In summary, the two charts show clear gender differences: men were more likely to work full time, whereas women were more likely to work part time or be economically inactive.

Corrected version close to your wording

A stronger IELTS-style version