IELTS
There are two opinions about money. The first one is that it is necessary to spend large sums money of money on constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities.
Other one is that the money should be spent on improving existing public transport.
The first opinion is good idea to improve city economics and transportation for city and people. If there were very first trains between cities, people who live in those cities could be easier go to both cities for them purpose as shopping, to work or to travel etc. In this case, those cities' economics would be improved because they spend money each city. However, it spends a lot of money.
The second opinion is good idea to improve transportation for people. Improving existing transport could be increase diagrams of train.
It would be comfortable life for people who is living the city. However, it does not involve other cities
Overall, I agree the first opinion that constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities. Because It affect many people more than second opinion. Constructing new railway for very fast train involve other cities in business side and trip side etc.
That is why I agree the first opinion.
Search from various English teachers...
Corrections · 7
1
IELTS
There are two opinions about/regarding moneytransportation improvement/infrastructure funding/railway infrastructure funding/transportation infrastructure funding. (This is not about "money" per se, it's about money for work on the transportation system.) The first one is that it is necessary to spend large sums money of money on constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities.The other one is that the money should be spent on improving existing public transport.(okay but "public transportation" sounds more natural. "transport" here sounds very technical. "The branch office was unable to arrange transport for the goods on the 25th of March.")
The first opinion is a good idea to improve city economics and transportation for city cities and people. (A little awkward. First "economics" is more technical as a term than "economy". It's not bad here though. You could also use the adjective for city here "municipal economics" "municipal economies" "for cities and the people that live in them.") If there were very first fast trains between cities, people who live in those cities could be easier more easily go to both cities for them purpose as of shopping, to work or to travel working, travel, etc. ("easily" is an adverb modifying "go". or "more easily travel between these cities" travel between sounds like 通う maybe? "for the purpose(s) of this, that, and the other" ", it would be easier for people living in those cities to travel between the cities in order to shop or work or sight-see." Keeping the verb form of the things they might do the same is good. So "to shop, to work, to travel", "shopping, working, or traveling") In this case, those cities' economics would be improved because they people would spend money each city. (I think "economies" is much better here. For one thing "economics" is a strange always plural noun. So it typically refers to just one thing, not multiple cities, like "multiple cities' economies" would. "I can't question the economics of buying a washer and drier: going to the laundromat is simply too expensive to sustain." "The village had a healthy economy supported mainly by its fishing trade." "The change in sea temperature impacted the economies of many small villages.") However, it spends a lot of money. (This "it" is very ambiguous especially after mentioning people spending money in the sentence before. It would be better to say "however, this sort of infrastructure investment would cost a lot of money." "however, new train lines would be very expensive/cost a lot of money." "however, new train lines would require municipal governments/the government to spend a lot of money.")
1
IELTS
There are two opinions about money. The first one is that it is necessary to spend large sums of money on constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities.The other is that the money should be spent on improving existing public transport.
The first opinion is good idea to improve city economics and transportation for the city and people. If there were very fast trains between cities, people who live in those cities could easily go to both cities for the purpose of shopping, work or travel etc. In this case, those cities' economics would be improved because they spend money at each city. However, it costs a lot of money.
The second opinion is a good idea to improve transportation for people. Improving existing transport could be increase diagrams of train. (increase the size of the trains?)
It would be more comfortable for those living within the city. However, it does not involve other cities
Overall, I agree with the first opinion of constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities. This is because It affects many more people than the second opinion. Constructing new railways for very fast trains involve other cities in business side and trip side etc.
That is why I agree with the first opinion.
0
Overall,
I agree with the first opinion that of constructing new railway lines for very
fast trains between cities. Because It it would affect many people more than the
second opinion. Constructing a new railway for very fast trains would
involve
other cities in business side and trip side etc. (First, I'm not sure
these are really "opinions" 意見? Maybe "plan" is better? "I agree with
the plan." "I agree to that plan." "I agree with the plan of..." "that"
needs some further clause. "I agree that is not a good plan." "I agree
with the observation that most apples are red. I think the problem
with "that" in your sentence is that the rest of the sentence is not a
full subject-verb-object clause. It's a verb clause or something. "I
agree with the plan of going out to eat tonight." "I agree with the
idea that you should go shopping tomorrow." There's no subject in the
"going out to eat" clause. "it would affect many more people than the
second plan" sounds much more natural. If you want to use "more than
the second plan/opinion", "it would impact more peoples' lives than the
second plan". I don't know, it's difficult... the "many" and "more"
sound strange when separated like that and referring to people. And the
last sentence has significant issues. "involve" is a neutral word, not
necessarily positive. "He involved me in his criminal scheme." "This
is a very long-term plan and involves many municipalities and their
agreement and support." And so "involve" doesn't make sense with "side"
here. "side" is usually "on the side of", "on the business side",
etc.. Here, you probably want a more positive word... also I'm not sure
if there's more than one railway "a" for just one. For instance "Constructing
new railways for/allowing very fast trains would impact/improve both the business and travel sides of the economies of the cities involved.")
That is why I agree with the first opinion.
That is why I agree with the first opinion.
0
The second opinion is a good
idea to improve transportation for people. (Fine, but not a good
opening sentence in your writing. It does not distinguish this opinion
from the previous opinion as both are for transportation for/of people.)
Improving existing transportation could be increase diagrams of train.("diagrams" 図表? Also with "be" it is the verb "to be" so there's usually an "-ing" later... "be" is maybe... a little like っている? Maybe not, but for instance "Drinking too many sugary drinks could be increasing diabetes rates in the general populace." But "diagrams" is not the word you're looking for here, I'm not sure what you mean to say here.)
It would be a comfortable life for people who is are living the city. ("are" because "people" is plural. "a comfortable life" is very very general. It's hard to imagine train improvements having that much impact on a person's life. "It would improve the lives of people living in the city" might be better. "It would make the lives of people living in the city more comfortable." But even that... "a comfortable life" is more about having a good job and a good place to live. Transportation would affect that but not in a large way and if it did, perhaps that could be made clearer. "The new rail line vastly improved the standards of living of several rural villages. The inhabitants of these villages suddenly had access to transportation and so, in turn, had access to good jobs and every amenity. This made their lives much more comfortable.") However, it does would not involve other cities.("would" is better because the plan has not been implemented yet.)
It would be a comfortable life for people who is are living the city. ("are" because "people" is plural. "a comfortable life" is very very general. It's hard to imagine train improvements having that much impact on a person's life. "It would improve the lives of people living in the city" might be better. "It would make the lives of people living in the city more comfortable." But even that... "a comfortable life" is more about having a good job and a good place to live. Transportation would affect that but not in a large way and if it did, perhaps that could be made clearer. "The new rail line vastly improved the standards of living of several rural villages. The inhabitants of these villages suddenly had access to transportation and so, in turn, had access to good jobs and every amenity. This made their lives much more comfortable.") However, it does would not involve other cities.("would" is better because the plan has not been implemented yet.)
Want to progress faster?
Join this learning community and try out free exercises!
Don’t miss out on the opportunity to learn a language from the comfort of your own home. Browse our selection of experienced language tutors and enroll in your first lesson now!
Start Learning Today
