DIYORBEK's IELTS | 7.5

SAMPLE ANSWER ⤵️

It appears that a single long-distance flight consumes the amount of fuel that a car could use for several years, but both of these types of transportation contribute to the ongoing problem of increased air pollution. Thus, there is now a view that instead of limiting the usage of automobiles, we must reduce the number of non-essential flights. I fully agree with the given view because of the damage and the increased quantity of flights that are not important, and the diversification of car market.

Regular flights pollute the environment worse than a single car would in several years. To be specific, according to reports, one flight can consume 75 times more fuel than an automobile. Considering that there are no powerful electric alternatives to airplanes yet, this fact is alarming. Also, it must be mentioned that the number of unnecessary flights, such as the ones for business trips and insignificant tourist journeys, is on the rise. Some of these meetings can take place online, which proves a point that using hundreds of liters of fuel is not crucial for such a purpose.

Another reason why cars should not be as criticized as they are is the recent effort of popularizing electric automobiles. Put simply, electric passenger cars, such as the ones produced by Tesla and numerous Chinese manufacturers, are now regular in cities worldwide. What is really important is that local governing bodies usually promote the use of such vehicles by making it easier for people to purchase them. According to science, such cars are more eco-friendly than the ones with internal combustion engines, which means the overall damage made by automobiles as a whole is decreasing.

In conclusion, the idea of limiting the utilization of cars is not rational since a lot of effort is already being done to reduce the environmental damage by such transport. However, the harm by non-essential flights is often ignored.

317 words.

🌈Can anyone send me a fresh picture of a rainbow? 📸
#rasm