大作文一篇，求各路高手指点

ouma007

Long distance flights use more fuel than cars and pollute the environment. We should discourage non-essential flights instead of limiting the use of the car. To what extend do you agree or disagree?



Nowadays, an increasing number of people are concerned about deteriorating environmental pollution. However, whether restricting the use of car or reducing unnecessary flight is a controversial issue. My view is that curbing the amount of passenger cars would pay a more effective role in achieving a sustainable environment.

First, it is no denying that cars spew much more fumes which contributing to increase of CO2 as the total amount of cars are far more than number of flights in todays world. This means that usage of cars resulted in global warming which caused by excessive amount of CO2, and further engender some extreme weather such as acid rains, droughts and floods. So, reducing the usage of cars would definitely benefit our living environment.

Moreover, automotive industry is such a huge industry which consists of a great variety of different segments and it requires more resources. For example, since too much steel is used in manufacturing a car, which pose a threat to mining industries, and create soil erosion in some area.

Nevertheless, this is no to say that it is no use for controlling the usage of unnecessary flights, indeed, flights also discharge unpleasant emissions and create disturbing noises, which aggravating our environment. But, comparing the massive amount of polluted air generated by cars, flights make less contribution to environment deterioration.

In conclusion, limiting the amount of cars would have a direct and effective impact on protecting environment. Meanwhile, we need to make the most of flights capacity. By curbing not only private vehicles but also unnecessary flights can we better sustain a green planet.

aoe1453

LZ还要再考？

ouma007

aoe1453 发表于 9-9-2013 15:14

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

LZ还要再考？

愿闻其详？烤鸭无望吗？　怎样可以提高写作？

ruofeng111

不知道楼主之前雅思写作能考多少分，但个人感觉楼主用词可能略有问题，楼主用了很多less common vocabulary，但是用的感觉不是很准。
比如：deteriorating environmental pollution，更常用的是deteriorating environment或者是environmental pollution，但是这3个词连起来就不是很地道了。
curbing the amount of 是不是curb和amount很少连起来用。
此外，楼主的语法，特别是定语从句有些问题。比如：it is no denying that cars spew much more fumes which contributing （不应该用ing形式吧）to increase of CO2 as the total amount of cars are far more than number of flights in todays world.
Nevertheless, this is no to say that it is no use for controlling the usage of unnecessary flights, indeed（indeed不是连词吧，不应该用逗号了）, flights also discharge unpleasant emissions and create disturbing noises, which aggravating （不应该用ing形式吧）our environment.
可能分析的不对，楼主见谅

ouma007

感谢楼上，我刚刚考过一次雅思，但成绩没有出来，之前只连过几次写作，写的太少了。

你的眼睛很犀利，INDEED之前确实应该用句号。

asxdcfv

Nowadays, an increasing number of people are concerned about deteriorating environmental pollution. However, whether restricting the use of car(S) or reducing unnecessary flight is a controversial issue. My view is that curbing the amount of passenger cars(?) would pay(PLAY) a more effective role in achieving a sustainable environment.[size=10.5000pt]
[size=10.5000pt]
[size=10.5000pt](Firstly), it is no denying( CANNOT DENY) that cars spew much more fumes which contributing to( CONTRIBUTE) increase of CO2(increasing co2 and so2 in the atomosphere) as the total- amount of cars are far more thannumber of flights (grow in a higher speed than that of fights) in todays world. This means that usage of cars resulted in global warming which caused by excessive amount of CO2, and further engender some extreme weather such as acid rains, droughts and floods. (this means a great amount of pollution problems, for example, greenhouse gases and acid rain, tend to be serious due to pollutant discharged by cars)So, reducing the usage of cars would definitely benefit our living environment.[size=10.5000pt]
[size=10.5000pt]
Moreover, automotive industry is such a huge industry which consists of a great variety of different segments and it requires more resources. For example, since too much steel is used in manufacturing a car, which pose a threat to mining industries, and create soil erosion in some area.(感觉汽车工业不太支持本观点)[size=10.5000pt]
[size=10.5000pt]
Nevertheless, this（it） is no to say that it is no use for controlling the usage of unnecessary flights, indeed,(acutually) flights also discharge unpleasant emissions and create disturbing noises, which aggravating our environment. But, comparing the massive amount of polluted air generated by cars, flights make less contribution to environment deterioration.(虽然污染大，但是人均下来，污染还是比较小的，并且，随着科技的发展，更先进的发动机应用在大飞机上，which makes our flights more economically)[size=10.5000pt]
[size=10.5000pt]
In conclusion, limiting the amount of cars would have a direct and effective impact on protecting environment. Meanwhile, we need to make the most of flights capacity. By curbing not only private vehicles but also unnecessary flights can we better sustain a green planet.(I believe we can resolve...by either controlling...or limited using of flights....) 最后还是支持一方，呵呵

ouma007

谢谢楼上，又帮我挑了好几个错误，如PLAY  A ROLE IN ,还有科技发展发动机 写法很不错。
谢谢