+0

Some people think that the best way to solve environmental problems is to increase the price of fuel for cars and other vehicles. Do you agree or disagree?

It is undeniable that the environment pollution had been a major concern in today’s society. While many believe that raising fuel prices is essential, others argue that the approach cannot resolve the problem. In my opinion, the government should not increase the price of petrol, as it would affect the social gap.

On the one hand, increasing the cost of fuel would help reduce environmental issues. In other words, excessive use of cars releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which is detrimental to the environment. If the petrol price is more costly, individuals would consider using their cars less, therefore, it would not only lower carbon emission rate or lessen exhaust fumes, but also contribute better air quality. Furthermore, one will be urged to seek renewable alternatives, namely solar, wind, and hydrogen energy. For these reasons, it is crucial to raise fuel prices.

On the other hand, because people still rely on petrol use, making petrol more expensive increase in wealth gaps in the community. As fuel is rising in cost, the rich would still manage to flex it, while it is the underdogs that suffer most. In many developing countries, for instance, the majority of citizens, who are either in the poor or middle-class families, could not afford more than a motorcycle, hence, when the authorities start to charge fuel more, they would be scrimping and saving to attain the cost for petrol, and neglecting other essential life commodities such as education and diets. Put it simply, if the price of fuel increases, the national economy could suffer many inevitable consequences.

To sum up, when it comes to minimizing environmental problems, some believe that increasing fuel expense is crucial. However, others claim that it would only worsen the case. Taking everything into consideration, I am utterly concerned that even when the price of fuel increases significantly, the global issue would not be wholely solved.

+1

It is undeniable that the environment pollution had been a major concern in today’s society. While many believe that raising fuel prices is essential, others argue that the approach cannot resolve the problem. In my opinion, the government should not increase the price of petrol, as it would affect the poorest people much more than the wealthy. / it would penalize the poor social gap. (Not a good phrase.)

On the one hand, increasing the cost of fuel would help reduce environmental issues. In other words, excessive use of cars releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which is detrimental to the environment. (That is incorrect. The six most common air pollutants are ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter. These are the choking gasses that cause smog. Carbon dioxide is necessary for plants to grow. However, an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause global warming over a long period of time. This is not pollution.) If the petrol price is more costly, individuals would consider using their cars less, (comma splice error, run-on sentence. Ungrammatical) therefore, it would not only lower the carbon emission rate or lessen exhaust fumes, but also contribute to better air quality. Furthermore, one will be urged to seek renewable alternatives, namely solar, wind, (I have never seen a solar or wind-powered car. Have you? There are electric and hybrid vehicles. ) and hydrogen energy. For these reasons, it is crucial to raise fuel prices.

On the other hand, because people still rely on petrol use, making petrol more expensive increase in (ungrammatical) wealth gaps in the community. As fuel is rising in cost, the rich would still manage to flex (wrong word. Flex means to bend or stretch.) it, while it is the underdogs (wrong word. This is only used in sports.) that suffer most. In many developing countries, for instance, the majority of citizens, who are either in the poor or middle-class families, could not afford more than a motorcycle, (comma splice error) hence, when the authorities start to charge more for fuel more, they would be scrimping and saving to attain (wrong word. ) the cost for petrol, and neglecting other essential life commodities (wrong word. ) such as education and diets. (wrong word. ) Put it simply, if the price of fuel increases, the national economy could suffer many inevitable consequences.

To sum up, when it comes to minimizing environmental problems, some believe that increasing fuel expense is crucial. However, others claim that it would only worsen the case. Taking everything into consideration, I am utterly (wrong word. ) concerned that even when the price of fuel increases significantly, the global issues of air pollution and global warming would not be wholely solved.

Comments  

Please post essays, paragraphs, dialogues and other writing in the essay forum so a moderator does not have to move your post.
https://www.englishforums.com/English/EssayReportCompositionWriting/Forum9.htm

Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
 AlpheccaStars's reply was promoted to an answer.

omg thank you

I have just started writing recently, and it is too hard for me. thanks a lot

It is undeniable that the environment pollution had been a major concern in today’s society. While many believe that raising fuel prices is essential, others argue that the approach cannot resolve the problem. In my opinion, the government should not increase the price of petrol, as it would affect it would penalize the poor.

On the one hand, increasing the cost of fuel would help reduce environmental issues. In other words, excessive use of cars releases nitrogen oxides, which are highly reactive and can contribute to smog when they come into contact with other airborne chemicals. If the petrol price is more costly, individuals would consider using their cars less therefore, it would not only lower the carbon emission rate or lessen exhaust fumes, but also contribute to better air quality. Furthermore, one will be urged to seek renewable alternatives, electrical and hybrid vehicles. For these reasons, it is crucial to raise fuel prices.

On the other hand, because people still rely on petrol use, making petrol more expensively increases wealth gaps in the community. As fuel is rising in cost, the rich would still manage to buy them, while it is penniless that suffer most. In many developing countries, for instance, the majority of citizens, who are either in the poor or middle-class families, could not afford more than a motorcycle hence, when the authorities start to charge more for fuel more, they would be scrimping and saving to afford the cost of petrol and neglecting other essential life essences such as education and food. Put it simply, if the price of fuel increases, the national economy could suffer many inevitable consequences.

To sum up, when it comes to minimizing environmental problems, some believe that increasing fuel expense is crucial. However, others claim that it would only worsen the case. Taking everything into consideration, I am concerned that even when the price of fuel increases significantly, the global issues of air pollution and global warming would not be solved.


is it better than the first draft?

Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies

You do not understand comma splice errors. Read this page: https://www.chompchomp.com/terms/commasplice.htm



It is undeniable that the environment pollution of air, water and land has been a major concern in today’s society. While many believe that raising fuel prices is essential as a solution, others argue that the approach cannot resolve the problem. In my opinion, the government should not increase the price of petrol, as it would affect it would penalize the poor.

On the one hand, increasing the cost of fuel would help reduce environmental issues. In other words, excessive use of cars releases nitrogen oxides, which are highly reactive and can contribute to smog when they come into contact with other airborne chemicals. Burning fossil fuels is also a source of carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas linked to global warming and climate change. If the petrol price is more costly, individuals would consider using their cars less; (Comma splice fixed with a semicolon) therefore, it would not only lower the carbon emission rate or lessen exhaust fumes, but also contribute to better air quality. Furthermore, people one will be urged to seek renewable alternatives, such as electric electrical and hybrid vehicles, which are much more fuel-efficient. For these reasons, it is crucial to raise fuel prices.

On the other hand, because people still rely on petrol use, making petrol more expensive expensively increases the wealth gap between low-income and high-income groups gaps in the community. As fuel is rising in cost, the rich would still manage to buy it them, while it is the poorest penniless that suffer most. In many developing countries, for instance, the majority of citizens, who are either in the poor or middle-class families, could not afford more than a motorcycle. (Comma splice fixed with a full stop.) Hence, when the authorities start to charge more for fuel more, they would be scrimping and saving to afford the cost of petrol and neglecting other necessities of life essential life essences such as education and food. Put it simply, if the price of fuel increases, the national economy could suffer many inevitable consequences.

To sum up, when it comes to minimizing environmental problems, some believe that increasing fuel prices expense is crucial. However, others claim that it would only worsen the case. Taking everything into consideration, I am concerned that even when the price of fuel increases significantly, the global issues of air pollution and global warming would not be solved.

So before "therefore", I must use a semicolon?
SimonSnowwy So before "therefore", I must use a semicolon?

No, you don't have to. That is one of four options to fix a comma splice error.
Those are described on the page I linked. You did not read it, did you?
Here is another page:

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/comma-splice/#: :text=When%20you%20join%20two%20independent,actually%20bears%2C%20they%20are%20marsupials.

Options:

1. Change the offending comma to a semicolon.
2. Use a full stop and write two separate sentences.
3. Delete the comma and insert a coordinating conjunction.
4. Rephrase one of the main clauses to be a dependent clause.

Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?